It depends too on the type of game and my strategy. In a loose aggro game where I am short I'll buy all day, because a lot of my value in these games comes from acting last preflop and coming over the top of say a raise and a few callers with a strong hand like AK and buying will give me two opportunities to do so. OTOH in a really loose passive game where I am deep I'd rather post in position as there is a much better chance I will see the flop for free in position.

Of course in a tight game the best play is to decline to post, state that you are waiting for the big blind, and request table change / put your name on the board for a different limit or game type. Then go flirt with the waitress / female brush.

I guess it's only clear because every time this comes up, most come to this conclusion. We also have people here debating buying the button over posting both blinds in the CO (1sb worse than as a new player). If that's a close decision, then this one isn't.

We have a lot of great winrate stats to draw from, but not much on BB when buying the button (although I suspect it is close to normal BB -1sb) or CO when posting (which I suspect is substantially greater than normal CO -1bb). The common argument is that putting the money in IP is better than OOP.

Since posting CO as a new player and posting both blinds as a missed blind player were both generally allowed online, some sort of stats should exist, but I've never seen them. There would also be the sample size problem.

As far as being identified as a nit, I've probably seen a new player choose to buy the button less than 10 times, and it was usually because they didn't know they could wait a hand and post less money. Since nearly everyone does it this way, I don't think it makes you look like a nit.

It is not "clearly superior" if you have no evidence. The closest thing you'll get to that is online positional win-rate statistics, but online is not live, and those statistics are based on individual results. They don't indicate what the theoretically optimal play is or what the actual optimal play is for different individuals.

This should actually be player dependent. A strong live winner is possibly even winning in the blinds, so it wouldn't make sense to miss any hands to post.

For starters, if that's true, it's only true for NL, and probably only for the best players in the world playing the softest games.

If you have half the equity of everyone else, it's the equivalent of a -15 bb/hr loss rate in the big blind. You'd have to be a pretty elite win rate (like +20-30 bb/hr overall) to be a winner in the big blind.

But the key part that people are undervaluing is the dead SB that you post when you buy. You don't get equity on dead blinds, you only get back the percentage of time you win the pot. So the dead blind is -0.45 bb/hand or like -12 bb/hr on top of whatever you lose in the SB.

If you miss the blinds and have to post a dead SB in the CO, buying the button is clearly preferred. In the case where you're joining the game and don't have to post a dead SB, it's not super clear.

Most rooms these days will just deal a new player in, free of charge. I can't think of any in South Florida that require a new player to post.

As a dealer, I don't even ask if a new player wants to play or wait, unless he's coming in on the big blind or coming in between the button and the small blind.

If he's coming in as the big blind, I'll ask if he wants to pay the $2 and be the big blind, and it's about 50-50 at a 1-2 table whether he plays or waits. If he's coming in between the button and the small, I'll ask if he wants to pay $3 to buy the button or if he wants to wait one hand and then pay nothing for the next hand and it's about 90-10 in favor of waiting one hand.

On the other hand, if he comes in UTG or anyplace else I just deal him in without asking. If he wants to wait for his free hand in the CO he needs to take the initiative to let me know ahead of time. Otherwise the blinds are coming.

______

As for the actual topic of this thread, it's mathematically superior and to just pay to buy the button if you've been away from the table and you come back between the button and the small blind.

If you can't wrap your mind around the concept, think of it this way. If you wait for the CO, you're paying $3 for that position. Or, if you're a little bit logical about it, you just buy the button, tell yourself that you're actually paying the extra $3 to be the CO 2 hands down the road, and in the meantime, you get to play the BB and the button for free. So do you want 3 hands for $3 or do you want 1 hand for $3. It's a no-brainer.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO because you don't lose your whole blind when you post and the fraction you lose depends on where you post it.

Column A:
A1. You post a BB in the SB position (negative)
A2. You post a dead SB in the SB (very negative)
A3. You play the BTN (very positive)
A4. You play an unfettered CO (positive)

Column B:
B1. You skip the BTN (neutral)
B2. You post a BB in the CO (difficult to get data on, but pretty neutral IME)
B3. You post a dead SB in the CO (negative to very negative)

In the case of a player who missed their blinds, buying is unquestionably better, yes, because A3 + A4 > (B2-A1) + (B3-A2). Both terms on the left side are big and both terms on the right sidr are small.

In the case of a new player, where the last line isn't applicable, it's a very close call because now A3 + A4 is at least partially offset by A2. It definitely depends on the game (ratio of blind size to action, which is large for LHE and small for NL) and how well you play IP vs OOP. It also probably depends on your LHO, who has the BTN when you post blinds in the CO.