Does anyone have enough data to show if win rate is different between a 1/2 300 cap game versus 1/3 300 cap game?

Assume similar player pool and players in pool buy in for same amount regardless of it being 1/2 and 1/3.

Most of my hours are logged at 1/2 and I'm very happy with my results. Generally I find most profitable games for me are deepest relative to the blinds. Shorter the stacks, the simplier the game is as decisions are pre-flop and on the flop. The deeper we are, the bigger my edge against typical players in my pool. Using that logic makes me think the 1/2 is more profitable.


Basically I'm hoping someone else has enough real data to get an idea without having to invest 1000k of my own hours in the 1/3 game to answer for myself.


Sent from my SM-T320 using 2+2 Forums

I think the min buy or typical buy in would determine which game is better. If the 1/2 has a $40 min and the 1/3 has a $60, etc. Or if the player pool buys in $200 @ 1/3 vs $100 @1/2..

Also what is the typical open raise? 1/3 can be $15 while 1/2 is $10, etc.

I would say a pretty safe bet sight-unseen that the 1/3 has better potential WR.

You are asking the questions I think are most important to decide which game.

Both are 100-300 buy in.

Based on my very small sample in the 1/3, opens and average buy in seem to be about the same.

Casinos are very close together, so at least potential geographic player pools are fairly equivalent. Honestly I believe 80% of the folks in the player pool wouldn't consciously adjust their buy in differently between the 2 games. Player A is comfortable buying in for 200, that is what he starts with in either of the games. Player b is fine with 300 so that is what he starts with.

I'd be more tempted to log a few hundred hours in the local 1/300 if I could buy in for 500.

One other key difference is the 1/300 allows for Mississippi straddle. I'm all for straddling on the button to make the game bigger when I have best position. Downside is with 100bb cap buy in, that straddle makes effective stacks often just 50bb or less, further diminishing my skill edge. (Or the edge my ego thinks I have)



Sent from my SM-T320 using 2+2 Forums

1000 hours each, 2 - 3bb difference for me. 2/5 60bb max vs 3/5 100bb max.

so you're losing less quickly at the 2/5?

Got caught.

If you're the best player at the table, and you have a comfortable bankroll, why would you buy in for anything less than the max? I don't think people are obsessed with max buying or anything...I just know I'd be missing value by not buying in for the max, especially at capped games, like your typical 2/5 with a $500 or $600 max

Better to buy in max from the start than top off to cover the fish ainec.

Having said that there's definitely situations where you shouldn't buy in max.

FWIW my buy in strat:

1) If I recognize and have history with at least half the players at the table, I buy in for the max.

2) If I'm playing in capped games in LA or LV, I buy in for the max, regardless of the lineup.

3) If I'm playing in uncapped games (e.g. Biloxi), I buy in for what is about equal to the smallest stack at the table, or 100bb, whichever is larger.

4) If I'm playing at places where the average player in the pool is not terrible (E.g. Seattle, Foxwoods, etc.) I buy in for 50-70bb.

5) Home games I buy in for the max, or cover the largest stack.

None of these are hard rules and can be bent or broken at any time.

I typically buy in using $25 chips only, and always carry more $25 or $100 chips to top off.

I play almost all 1/2..

Always buy in for the max and keep a pocket full of greens. Anytime I'm 25 or more below max I top off. Miss days when I could play online and choose auto top up feature.

2 reasons;

Firmly believe my skill edge increases as stacks are deeper relative to the blinds.

Firmly believe having a stack much greater than buy in cap influences others perception of me. with a great positive image, my win rate is at least double than when my image is negative. Majority of players in my pool perceive opponents more on very short term results than how that person actually plays.




Sent from my SM-T320 using 2+2 Forums

Problems are:

1. Most people asking these questions are not the best player at the table (though they think they are).
2. Most people do not have a comfortable bankroll (though they'll probably argue because they're best, they don't need a huge roll).
3. If you already know, why would you need to ask?

When you are not the best player, don't have the roll, and insisted on buying in max, then...isn't that an obsession?

Amount to buy-in or rebuy should reflect at least these variables:

1. State of mind
2. Cash on hand
3. Ability

IMO, state of mind is most important because nothing else matters if your mind isn't above an optimal level. It does not mean only playing your A game, none of that absolute crap, but rather to play when your mind is at least at a level that is profitable.

Cash on hand is more important than bankroll for the obvious reason that you can't play if you don't have access to money.

Lastly it's your poker ability. It doesn't matter that you're Phil Ivey if you are drunk off your ass and can't see straight and blew away all the money accessible to you.

I buy in for the biggest number of big blinds I think I will be able to play best/correctly at.

Usually ends up being
Max in 100bb games
Max in 200bb games
125-160bb in uncapped games depending on the lineup

As a player new to live this is very relevant. The thought of making mistakes deep stacked in an environment I'm not totally comfortable in definitely affects how I play negatively.

Not being highly skilled or the best player at the table isn't a good excuse for buying in <max most of the time. You'll never be the best if you completely avoid tough situations with which you're unfamiliar. This is especially the case when you're playing at the 1/3 or even most 2/5 levels where the best player at the table still isn't even all that great.

Bankroll shortage is another issue though.

Why not? It's perfectly fine to buy in for less than max...

Great thing about poker is that you don't need to be the best.

What is YOUR obsession with buying in max?

There are more appropriate ways to get better than going headstrong into game time conditions with no practice under your belt

I personally know several crushers that don't generally step into a game cold and snap buy-in full.

Having a set reason to do anything without considering dynamics is missing the forest for the trees.

You only have to be better than the worst player as long as that player is a genuine whale

Here is a scenario that might be interesting.

100bb game. Bad gambler whale is at the table with 300bb deep and going nuts playing just about ATC. Doesn't like to fold and gets very aggressive when he senses weakness. Table is getting run over and people folding left and right.

Do you:

1. Buy in max?
2. Buy in 80bb?
3. Buy in minimum?

Why?

depends on how much you like variance

IMO, personal preference and ability (skill and monetary) are only part of the consideration.

Sounds like they are pussies

if you have the roll and temperament to support a high variance game then you should opt for max ev in every spot which will make for a ton of swings/variance

if you don't then you should take a lower variance approach or perhaps sitout from the game entirely

no u r