The typical game in my area is a 1/3 $5 bring in with a min buy-in of $100 and a max buy-in of $300. The straddle is $10 either UTG or Mississippi.

I would say about 30%-60% hands are straddled. It is loose aggressive with 4-6+ people calling raises between 15-30bbs pre to see a flop. In the loose passive games it is usually 6-9 players in pre with either no raise or a small raise to $15.

Average stacks start out $150-$300 when the game starts and in those aggressive games the stacks quickly make it to where most players have $1k + and one or two players have $2k-$6k.

With all that said, I am curious how everyone would play this game preflop and especially what their buy-in strategy would be.

Buy in max, try to run it up early in the game by shoving w/ combo draws so you have large effective stacks and more maneuverability later in the game.

I would buy in for the max and play nitty and passive preflop, with a nut peddling post-flop strategy. I would play so tight that I would probably lead the table in folds in the blinds in limped pots.

im curious why you guys would choose a max buy in, i feel like a min buy in has so many advantages: generate more EV, get into multiway situations with dead money in the pot, minimize loss, etc

I would buy in for the max because the max buy in isn't that big. If this game had a $3000 max buy-in, I would probably start out buying in for $500 and evaluate game conditions. Other people would buy for the max immediately.

There's no single right answer. It depends on your skill level and style.

if your bankroll can handle the variance then buy in for the max, if not then buy in for the minimum

In the loose-aggressive game, I would buy in somewhere around minimum (maybe half so I don't have to reload all the damn time), play big cards, and get it in really light. You don't usually need the nuts when the pot's so big that you're jamming flop for a PSB anyway.

In the loose-passive game, I'd buy in maximum, play big cards, and play pretty damn tight. Peddle deez nuts.

If I was grinding these games for a living, I'd need 250 - 300 buy-ins (+ living costs covered for a few months) to be comfortable.

If I got income to comfortably cover the costs of losing for a few months, then it doesn't really matter.

A 40 bb stack does okay (but not the best, just a variance play) in loose-passive and in many games that are not too tight nor too aggro, IMO.

It didn't took me long to see that 40 bb is not the way to go in more or less tighter aggro games, as it does not have enough stack size to really play and some hands just can't be played then; playing like NLH with a 40 bb or so stack and facing a 3-bet (the tourney players are more familiar with smaller stacks and its implications).

I suppose, you might often better limp with a stack like that in the aggro PLO games but probably not a popular strategy but in tourneys perhaps but technically it seems to be okay, depending on how many raises you expect to happen and what sizes (from what positions after limpers).

Loose-aggro (preflop) tables produce bigger pots preflop, so having over 100 big blinds can well be the best way to go, depending on how much the others have. It would be like a bigger game, or then it should be viewed as a 40 bb or so game.

Interesting range of ideas, thanks guys.

In the aggro games my style plays too awkward for me to buyin for $300. I feel too big to shortstack and too short to apply any pressure. It is 50 bring ins or only 30 straddles. Neither of which I am very comfortable playing. So I tend to buyin for half that playing 25 and 15 and seem to feel more comfortable personally.

In the tight passive games I buyin for max, because I am generally the only person applying pressure and there is little straddling.

If you don't have a stack deep enough to fire multiple streets, checking the flop and firing the turn can apply more pressure on marginal hands, so long as they know you can check the flop with strong hands. Also, learning how to check-raise is a valuable skill.

Max buy-in of 300 in a game that's consistently straddled to $10 is crazy. I think you should buy in for $100 at a time and just stick it in with hands with good multiway equity and build it from there. You're going to have such an edge on the other players at that buy in. If you could buy in $1000 I'd suggest that, but $100 seems better than $300 in this situation.

yeah the straddles really change this equation, when they happen in the majority of hands they might as well be considered a blind.

has anyone here ever played a live, lowstakes game where the table was playing tight and serious like an online game? Why do live games always seem to play with this dynamic where everyone is limping, splashing money around, straddling, etc?

because ppl go to a casino to gamble and have fun... nether of these goals can be achieved by folding

Not too many slowplay situations on the flop, so it tends to be with a hand that's more or less checking anyway. Hold'em Poker: For Advanced Players offers the idea of checking the flop, but is argued against for it giving a free card to a field of players. If used, it must be pretty advanced.

Mostly I like that the short stack (e.g. 40 bb) more often has the possibility to go more or less all in before the river. The check-raise helps a lot (maybe not with a questionable hand, playing it a step at a time instead) and if the flop is not bet, then we are in that turn situation vs. weaker hands usually, and maybe a bluff works on the river more often then.