So, Ive played live pretty much since I was 18 until now(25), I am a terrible online player. I have bought in a various different amounts and stick mainly to 1/2 NLHE(some house games I play are .50/1). My bankroll is not really great currently, but I am working to build it. Everyone has their own viewpoint on how much to buy in for when starting so I want to hear what everyone has to say. For a while I bought in at a 1/2 table for 150 and .50/1 for 100, however now I have started buying in for 70 at a 1/2 table and only 40 at a .50/1 table. And I have been doing better than I ever have. It also allows me to reload if need be it, with only bringing 200 for the day and alot of times I get to study and analyze the field a bit more. However when I mention how much I buy in to people, the overwhelming response is that is not enough, or if you bought in for twice that you would still be doing just as well. I want to know what your buy in's are for .50/1 or 1/2 or any other higher stakes games. How did you come about your decissions for that, do you randomize it like some or stick with the same buy each time. Also does your play differentiate substatially if your started deep stack as apposed to starting short and grinding up to a deep stack. Also what startegy do you take when sitting short. Is it a much tighter approach, a super tight push all approach or is it still the same game but only a little tighter than usual

If you don't know how to play short, don't buy in short. Buy in full and sit at my table!

oooo, happily, shall we play heads up. Anyone have a real reply to this thread

Usually either the max buyin or 5% of my bankroll, whichever is lower. Though there are exceptions.

I buy in short live, play a coupla orbits, and load up to the max buy-in after assessing the field. If shortstacking is more appropriate then I stay shortstacked. Changing tables is often not easy.
You can always chip up, but you can't chip down if you feel shortstacking is better for a particular table.

What criteria do you use to determine if shortstacking is appropriate. For instance take an extremely loose but weak table, shortstacking could be good to get all your money in quick, but at the same time, deep stack could be alright to take more money off your opponents.

Don't kid yourself. For a bevy of reasons, shortstacking is always horrendous. Please don't buy into live 1/2 NL cash games for $70 or the like, you are lighting money on fire by doing this. If you don't have an appropriate roll for 1/2 NL, then you will simply have to make it some other way, grind out a roll playing smaller games, or just not play for now. $70 as a buy in is silly.

I want to know what your buy in's are for .50/1 or 1/2 or any other higher stakes games.
-usually 75 BBs

How did you come about your decissions for that, do you randomize it like some or stick with the same buy each time.
-i find this level forces me to have discipline with marginal hands but still allows the depth to set mine for cheap or make a normal raise with JTs or something else without being too much of my stack

Also what startegy do you take when sitting short. Is it a much tighter approach, a super tight push all approach or is it still the same game but only a little tighter than usual
-i classify 'starting short' as 40 BBs or less. with this kind of stack you want to stick to very good hands, generally raise pre-flop, and aim to get it all in on the flop or turn at latest. leave 34s and K9o for a deeper stack, you want high pairs or two high cards. small pocket pairs can be very difficult to play and i would use caution with them

i believe ed miller lays out a good shortstacking strategy in one of his books

Thanks for the information, and the detail.