I play almost exclusively 1/2 NL at Maryland live. The min/max buy-in is $100-$300. I normally buy in for $200 and then grind it out if I'm losing and buy-in another $200 if I lose that buy-in.

I've heard some players say it's always advantageous to buy-in for the max and always top-off. Is there some true logic behind this? Also, if I should always top-off at what point should I always do it? When half my buy-in is depleted?

Yes, if you feel you beat the competion you should play full buyin and top off when/if you get low.

Reasoning behind is of course that it is value for you to have close to full stack in front of you. It gives you more wiggleroom post flop, creates odds to setmine, earn more money in big hands when you cover your villains and so on.

This is also somewhat a bankroll issue of course. Me personally i like to start out with 100 BB stack, and then take it from there. If i go below 70 BB i usually top off to 100 BB again.

The short answer is that you want to make sure that you cover everyone at the table that you think that you have an edge on. (Which hopefully should be most people if you are diligent in your studies.)

The reason is that you allow them to make the biggest mistakes possible when you have enough money to take their entire stack. If you only have $200, and they have $300, and you get it in with a set vs their OP, they will stack off no matter how much you have. So have as much as possible, take as much as you can!!

There are lots of threads detailing other reasons why it's good to have a bigger stack than most other people, try to search some of those out.

As far as topping off, I find the easiest way is to just keep $25 chips in my pocket and stick on on whenever I drop down more than $25. (In my case, $275 or below.) Or take a $25 out and put it on when you get $280 and take a $5 off, whatever works.

I buy in for $300 and buy $300 more in $25 chips and keep them in my pocket. It allows me to add on in between hands, doesn't take a lot of time, I never have to worry about being short if I happen to get a good hand right after losing a big one.

I was at a table as it opened once. No one else was buying in for max, I still sat with 300, just wasn't as focused on topping off because it didn't matter But,

Yes.

An additional thought:

Lets assume that you feel capable of playing on a 100BB stack. (Some people don't, which is something they should learn, but whatever.)

When you are on 50BB stack, why would you NOT top off? When you are 75BB, why would you NOT add on? Why would you forgo the opportunity to make extra money when their is no cost to you?

The premise of being a good poker player is that you will make less mistakes than your opponent. When you have less money, you have less options to make them make mistakes. If they would call $100 with their QQ pre flop, but they would also call $200 with their KK, why would you NOT want to have $200 on the table to get it all?

There is some merit in buying in for less if the fish have shorter stacks and the good players have larger.

i top off if i get $1 below the max

you are picking the least profitable stack size

either buy in for full and top off (I keep the chips in my cup holder and add $2 if I fold my BB) or buy in for minimum and learn the insanely profitable short-stacking game

My view on the subject is fairly complicated and usually get's much hate here at LLSNL.

1) When sitting at a new table full of unknowns, I usually buy in short (50-75bb) and force myself to learn the table conditions before I put a full BI at risk.

2) When I feel like I have a reasonable view of how the opponents are playing, I top up as much as possible.

3) I try to cover the fish.

4) I do not try to cover the better players -- in fact, I think it is nominally a wash to be super deep against a "good" opponent.

5) Once you've been around these forums for a while, you'll eventually notice a lot of "reads" that go something like, "Villain bought in for 50bb, so I assume he sucks." LOL... I love this. This is a big reason why I usually sit down short when new to a table. All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. -- Sun Tzu

6) Once I transition to a full BI stack, I keep it topped up constantly. After every lost pot, I top up. Not doing this is probably one of the top 3 worst leaks you can possibly have.

Should you buy-in for the max? I would ask these questions:

1) Do you know how to play a short stack strategy at a cash game? Are you capable of effecting said strategy? If you are going to play a bunch of suited-connectors with a 60bb stack...

2) Does your bankroll support max buyins? Pretty self-explanatory.

3) Are you matching stacks with fish or good opponents? IMO, it is not necessary to match stacks with the good players.

4) Does the table support a LAG style or a TAG style? If LAG, then a deeper stack will be to your benefit. If you're going to be playing a TAG style, then stack size probably doesn't matter as much.