Recently I've been buying in for $200 in 1/2 because I have a lot more buyins that way. But I find recently learning more that I need to make more plays, should I buy in for $300 or just stick with the 200?? I've been doing fine with 200 but just don't know if I'm not maximizing my results.

If buying in for $300 would make me think of the chips as money, because I have a shallow bankroll, then I would be losing value by increasing my buy-in to $300.

After taking a 4 yr hiatus from NL poker, I was approaching the point in which I was ready to retire from work all together & starting playing again with a $2k bankroll. I bought in for $220 keeping my stack between $200-$220. As my bankroll increased, I slowly increased my bankroll. Once it was $6k & the hours at the table convinced me I was sufficiently rolled for 1/2NL, I played with $300 & since the chips were only tools, I was fine........well, almost.... There would be the times I'd run it up to $600+ & 2/5NL sharks came to the table & I would p/u & leave.

That was in the spring of 2014 & I can say with complete confidence, that it is because of 2+2 publishing & this forum, that I'm still alive & kickin'.

You’re game is that tough that you have to make moves? Yes you need a deeper stack to make moves but I suggest not doing that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty simple....if you think 1) you are a favorite in the game, and 2) have a sufficient bankroll to withstand a brutal downswing, then buy in for $300. If you don't have 1) and 2), then stick to the $200 until you have both.

[QUOTE=ibelieveyouoweme$80k;54211559]You’re game is that tough that you have to make moves? Yes you need a deeper stack to make moves but I suggest not doing that.


If the game is tight passive then you can print money by playing a LAG game. Semi/bluffs and repping scare cards is a must in these games.

I've been much happier with $200 to start at 1/2. Too often I found myself talking myself into making sub-optimal (for me) plays with $300, getting whittled down to $200 anyway and being upset with myself or doubling up and being up $100 instead of $200.

Another leak (for me)of course, is I'm more likely to become looser and more aggressive after I double up and have a bigger stack. I think for some reason I don't mind losing my whole stack if it started at $200.

I guess it's more about my mental game. I do think better players are buying in for the max $300-$500 depending on the room.

I’m a big fan of shortstacking (50 bb or less) when starting out with a small bankroll. You can crank out a succession of small wins that slowly build up your roll to a point where you can consider buying in for more. (Or not.)

In case you don’t know how to ss, as others on this forum have taught me, you basically wait for ONLY super premium hands (AK JJ+) and 3! pre/jam flops. You fold everything else unless folded to you in LP where you can consider opening 77-88, AJ/KQ (but you don’t have to). This means you usually fold small pp and suited connectors. Boo-hoo. They’re not that great anyway. In EP you generally want to limp/rr
unless you have KK/AA in which case you don’t mind opening to a larger size.

The limp/3! squeeze AI is an extremely powerful tool, with AK/99+, particularly when you are sitting to the right of a loose opener with many limp/callers behind. There will be so much dead money for you to pick up. If you are called, you will probably be crushing or at least slightly ahead of the caller’s range. If you win, you just doubled or tripled up. (And you should leave when this happens because you cannot play a 70-80bb stack as you would a 50bb stack.) If you get unlucky and lose as a favorite or just run into the nuts, you can reload and try agin without making a large dent in your roll.

I also like ss because I am never making decisions for hundreds of dollars any given hand and it is all about setting up small stack to pot ratios. Also less risk because Vs cannot profitably setmine (flush mine, etc.) against me. Very little thinking involved, which I also appreciate. You don’t have to be a master hand reader to succeed at this strategy.

With a combination of ss and normal play I am currently a 9bb/hr. winner at 1/3.

The biggest consideration (apart from BR considerations, imo) for BIing and playing short vs deep is what you perceive to be the difference in skill level between you and your opponents. If they all suck compared to you, especially deep, then you might be better off playing deep. If they don't all suck, you might be better off playing short. If you're not playing in a reg infested game where you know everyone, it might be a good idea to BI short and evaluate the game for a few orbits, where you can then BI deeper later if you think that's best.

FWIW, I used to always BI and keep my stack topped of to 100bbs because I felt I had a fairly significant advantage over my opponents at this stack size. However, the playing field has leveled off a little in recent years, and now I feel my biggest advantage over my opponents mostly revolves around preflop decisions, so now I BI and keep my stack topped of to just 66bbs.

Gtotallyskilldependent,imoG

My bad for the late response...but ya I might start buying in for $300 once I have 20 buyins, which I am close to. I was also thinking buyin for $200 and then add to my stack for $300 if I see that it's a passive game.

To me it's not about bankroll but how familiar I am with the other players and stack sizes at the table.
If it's a bunch of unknowns or most of the stacks are really deep, I'll buy in for $200. Once I am comfortable with reads if I'm not already above the buyin max ($300), I'll top off. If I need to rebuy it's almost always for $300.