I was thinking about this today and wondered if it had any merrit. Not that i have ever tried it but would be interesting to see the maths on this. Im not sure if this has been discussed here or not and im sure it would differ from how tough the game is and so on.

Assuming we all buy in for 100bbs, and we all lose money in the blinds. Say if you lost a pot UTG leaving you with say 60bbs or whatever amount, should you not re buy untill you are out of the blinds and on the button again?

Would like to here what people think about this??

If you have a significant enough advantage over the table that you will be benefitting from the deeper stacks, even OOP, then yes.

If not, then no. So just guess which is true. I'm not sure there's any meaningful maths to do.

I imagine that buying in with a min buy-in for your first two hands, and then buying in full for your first button is probably +EV, but such a PITA to do that I just wouldn't bother.

I guess this could help me answer my own question. But do shortstackers lose more in the blinds then full stackers? Has anyone seen a shortstackers PT position stats or have a big sample on any of them?

You loose money from the blinds because of folding to a preflop raise, not because you get outplayed in big pots where stack size comes into play (hopefully).

The larger the stack sizes are compared to the pot, the more being out of position sucks. We aren't playing many implied odds hands out of position. So, a lot of our blind play can be us making top pair and showing it down. This is easier to do with a tiny stack.

Yes but we can only win 20bb instead of 100bb if we were full stacked. As others have said, you lose money from the blinds because you are forced to put money in with sub-par hands and not because you are oop.

If I get aces in the BB, I wanna win a 200bb pot, not a 120bb pot.

There are certainly merits for not topping your stack in some tables and situations.

If you are playing a game against 5 clones of yourself, then you should sell your cloning machine and stop playing poker. But you should also technically wait until the button before topping up, because the deeper you are, the lamer it is being OOP. But who cares, it's extremely marginal.

I don't think you're playing poker right.

I don't think you can read so good.

Who is?

Wait, I get it. I thought you were advocating calling with crap because you have to defend your monies, so I put on my berating hat.

Sozzles.

If you do get into a hand, a bigger stack gives you more leverage, which helps offset the positional disadvantage. No?

I want a 100BB stack at all times in all positions. I am such a nit about this. I even reload the amount I lose folding the SB etc..

Me too, but theoretically if the difference in skill between you and the table is so small that the only edges come from position, then you do technically want a smaller stack OOP and bigger IP. But to care would be hypernit IMO.

This is so not true.

Most players lose money from the blinds because they call and play pots out of position too much.

It's more a combination of the two. Posting the blind is an inherently -EV play, a lot of people compound this problem by playing poorly OOP.

Other reasons i think it could be a good idea is, If you lose a hand UTG are a bit tilted then you will be playing with less money the next 2 hands. You are almost always going to be out of position (except blind on blind obv). In the blinds your usually playing marginal hands for a better price pre flop, but once you see the flop your out of position with a crappy hand most of the time. Also with a smaller stack in the blinds people will be often open lighter into those blinds so maybe you will get walked more often.

If it can only give you a bit of a edge there you should take it right?