For a variety of reasons I stopped playing poker for the last several months. I am just getting back into playing on a regular basis and I am wondering if my buy in default is sub-optimal. I have searched the forums and seen similar discussions, but no consensus.

I have always defaulted to the max buy-in at whatever limit I play (usually $200NL or $400NL) and for some reason I think that is the default for most 2+2rs. I am not too concerned about variance when I am playing at this level so I am not sure why I would not want as many chips in play as possible.

With that said, it seems like 50%+ of players that sit buy-in for the minimum amount or some amount significantly less than the max. I also notice that some players like to quit when they get a significant stack even though they are going to continue playing on several other tables.

The lower buy-in obviously reduces variance and I suppose that it would allow one to push on certain hands that one would not if everyone had a deep stack. However, the downside to the significantly smaller stack would seem to outweight any advantage. One will get very little value from big hands and any post-flop play is going to be reduced to push/fold. I can understand the decision to quit with a large stack if reducing variance is the reason.

Cliff Notes: Is buying in at the max sub-optimal? Why? Is avoiding getting too deep stacked wise? Why?

Please direct me if a thread already exists with this discussion.

77BB strategy is optimal

60bb is the best strat ever from what ive been told. i have only seen 1 player smart enough to use it though fortunately.

Brilliant new observations ITT

LOL, smaller buy-in = smaller winrate = bigger variance.

Most poker sites are infested with short stackers (people who buy in for 20BBs and leave when they double up, to repeat again). They are basically considered outcasts of the poker community, as taking ones winnings off the table is considered very rude/unethical (like the whole Freddy Deeb "going south" incident on HSP). Some bad players also like to buy in for less, probably because they are bad and want to limit their losses or they are not properly bankrolled. If you like playing with 100+BBs, try playing on "deep" tables, which requires everyone to buy in for at least 50BBs.

The larger your starting stack, the more "poker" you can play. That is, you can get more creative with bluffs and allows you to play a wider range of starting hands. For example. If you raise 77 from MP and get reraised from the BB, you should probably fold if you started with say 50BB (since you are not getting the odds to hit your set). At 100BBs it's close, and at 200BBs it a comfortable call. The same idea holds for playing suited connectors, etc. Stack sizes will also affect how you play postflop as well. For example, with middle pr, you may get it in if you only had 20BBs, but you'd probably be reluctant to call a flop raise and multiple barrels when you are deep.

Basically, the better you are at making postflop decisions relative to the table, the larger you want your stack to be. I never leave just because I have a massive stack - I usually just leave when the table gets bad (full of regs, several aggressive reraises sitting on my left, etc). If the only other deep stacks at your table are durrr and phil ivey, then it may be -ev for you to stay deep. :-)

[QUOTE=DoubleFly;8955086]
Basically, the better you are at making postflop decisions relative to the table, the larger you want your stack to be. QUOTE]

This. Your buy-in size should be correlated to your edge versus the filed postflop. People who buy in short generally are not good players and don't want to make post flop decisions. Players who buy in deep are (in general) the opposite. The variance is the variance regardless of stack size (e.g., it will be proportional in $$'s to how much you put on the table but will not change in absolute space assuming you play the same since you will be dealt the same cards regardless).

One final thought: If you want to be as profitable a player as you can be, then you need to become comfortable with playing deep as you will make the most money post flop against other deep stacks.

lol

crackleback?

musstangio?

50bb play can actually be really sick exploitative and i would do it myself if i could live with being a ratholing scum****

You could play 50bb and just stay seated even when you get a bigger stack like you are now.

yeah but then it gets really tuff to automate ur decisions and keep relavant reads based on stack sizes arty

Uh, the only thing that matters are eff stacks. When you play 100bb you should be used to pretty much all eff stacks so I don't think that should be a problem.

Thank you for the responses (especially DoubleFly). I agree with the all of your remarks, but was starting to wonder if I was missing something since it seems like 50% of every table seems to employ this strategy. I am not sure if I did not notice this as much before or if this is now a more common strategy.