Is there much disadvantage to buying in live 1/2 with 100bb instead of max buy in 150bb? The players are generally more experienced than me though I believe I study more. I’m not sure if I’d be winning or losing over a large sample size. So I was considering buying in for $200 instead of $300 so I can get experience without risking at much. I know a standard response would be smaller stakes but I don’t enjoy playing online and smallest live game around is 1/2. That being said losing a couple thousand isn’t going to cause me to miss any bills anyways, its more a matter of getting experience for a better price if there is a price to be paid.

For some players it would be best to always have the largest stack at the table, for others it would be best to play as little money as possible.

When you're learning it obviously makes sense to play as much money as you would like to play with in the future if you can afford that.

If losing a couple of thousands doesn't matter, then go with the max buy-in and learn how to play when you're a bit deeper.

It opens up playing with a lot more implied odds hands, which usually do really good in these types of games.

Live 1/2 is pretty much like playing Bingo anyway so ...

what is the minimum buy in?

I think 25bb

In the book "Harrington on Cash Games" vol 1, there is a very good explanation on how to play with different stack sizes, what hands become playable/unplayable and what other adjustments you need to make. You can buy the book on ebay for about $6 and even read just those pages on Amazon with the free preview available (chapters "Stack Sizes" page 51 and "Stack Size, Pot Size and Pot Commitment" page 67)

You stole my thunder. I wanted to say to op that you should be aware of adjusting your play according to your stack size. But many 1/2 players don't buy in for the max.

Always a good topic with really no 'correct' answer. I like to look at it a couple of different ways perhaps.

The most obvious is .. it's money! How much do you bring with you and what's your mindset when you lose it? I typically suggest the 3 buy-in method of a poker session, so your BI is roughly the cash you have split 3 ways.

If not money, then we look at skill and comfort level. When I first started I would start short and then gradually I moved my way up to a max BI, steadily increasing my starting chips as I became more comfortable.

From a skill standpoint the shorter you are the less skill it takes to play the game. Super short stacks only need to make PF decisions and so forth. I'm sure you know the term effective stack, so if you max BI but everyone else at the table is less then you really aren't at the max anyway. As indicated above, you need to adjust your playable holdings based on your stack, but also need to be aware of any effective stacks that will/should shrink their range as well.

Be very aware of adding on. Nothing pains a Player more than getting coolered and then getting AA/KK a hand or two later but only taking down a minimal pot due to not adding on right away. It's a mind set for sure. I will play a few hands short if I think I need to 'un-tilt' before adding on, but I also accept the risk of 'missing out'.

The 'max' BI thoughts are that you want to be able to get max value when 'those' hands do come around. Obv you also can lose the max as well, so we come back to a comfort level. Always having more than your opponent can be intimidating some of the time.

Back on the skill side, the deeper your stack the more pressure (fold equity) you can apply when you bet. Conversely you also wont necessarily be bullied as much since you do have an ample supply of chips to put in. IMO this is the most important key to stack size .. You lose your ability to 'play' on the River, and even perhaps the Turn in some multi-way pots.

'Double conversely' you may also get paid off more often if you are short since everyone thinks they are 'pot committed' all the time. But then you run into a hand where you just can't get rid of anyone whereas you would've with a larger stack to shove.

So long story long .. It really does come down to adjusting your play (range) and recognizing your ability to maneuver within a given hand. You may have to open for less so your 3-bets 'look' larger .. and so you can still fold to a 4-bet some of the time.

Like I said, great topic with no real 'right' answer without knowing how adaptable you are as a Player and your mindset and/or skill level. GL

Most people suck post flop and would be significantly better off if they could put thier ego in check and not insist on playing deep. There is a very successful player in LLSNL named gobldygeek. He is a serious hobbyist. He has a sample size now of several thousand hours. He wins over 7bb per hour playing approx 65 bb strat. He figured out a formula that makes poker pretty much automatic and it is a super nit strat IN A SMALL ROOM. He gets a ton of shyt for it in the forums HOWEVER there are not a ton of dudes that match his w/r

Jus sayin

Theres no difference between 100-150bb, the only time you have to worry about deepstack play is when people start raising you more preflop when you 3! with x hands and postflop with x hands

Deeper stacks tend to magnify the edge of the better player; it's really that simple. If you think you have an edge, and your bankroll can handle it, then play deeper.