Sunday, June 11, 2006
Followup to the Cash Game post below.
g3Poker posted a comment on my last post that said:
I've been buying in for the minimum lately to limit my risk when people try to put me all in to push me off a hand. If my risk is minimal (minimum buy-in plus whatever I've made at the table so far), then there is little risk to calling their big push when I think I have the best hand. It seems to me that situation comes up more than the situation g3Poker described when he managed to double up.
Any thoughts out there on this?
Im not that much of a NL player, i play it sometimes on stars on the micro limits but if then i always buy in for the maximum. It happens twice that i had the nuts in one of the early hands and could put it all in and got called by an player that got me covered and thinking i was trying to buy the pot - its a very rare situations but it happens so: Why do you block that opportunity for you and buy in with just the minimum?
I've been buying in for the minimum lately to limit my risk when people try to put me all in to push me off a hand. If my risk is minimal (minimum buy-in plus whatever I've made at the table so far), then there is little risk to calling their big push when I think I have the best hand. It seems to me that situation comes up more than the situation g3Poker described when he managed to double up.
Any thoughts out there on this?
Comments:
<< Home
I always buy in for the max, just to have leverage. I like to be able to push short stacks around, even if I don't have the best hand. And it works. You can put them all in with nothing in your hand vs. the flop and they'll fold rather than the option of going out. If they do have a hand, they really can't hurt you anyway, because they're short stacked.
I recommend it. Some people like playing short for the rush of the 'push', but I'd recommend buying in for the max.
I recommend it. Some people like playing short for the rush of the 'push', but I'd recommend buying in for the max.
That is the worse line of thought I think I have ever heard.. Minimize the risk? Poker is all about maximizing your profit on the edges you have not minimizing your risk. If you are thinking about minimizing your risk then you are playing at stakes that are too high for you or something. You should always buyin for the max. No matter what. Really you should top off when you get low too, but I have a hard time doing that myself.
Ya besides being able to push small stacks around and representing a strong player with the big stack its always the wrong idea to sit down at a table with the fear of loosing to much in this session. Dont play with "holy money", better go down a limit or two.
Try out the full buy in options at the 0.01/0.02cent tables...its so much fun pushing these 2$ buy in guys around. If you really want to keep on the "minimize the loss"-idea then stick to SitNGo´s and quit the cash games.
Try out the full buy in options at the 0.01/0.02cent tables...its so much fun pushing these 2$ buy in guys around. If you really want to keep on the "minimize the loss"-idea then stick to SitNGo´s and quit the cash games.
While I think SirFWALGMan is a little obtrusive in his reasoning, I do tend to agree that without risk, there can be no reward. I appreciate not wanting to loose it all, so to speak. But if you can afford to buy in for the max, you will find you have much more control at your table. You decide the flow, the rythem, etc.
Either way, best of luck!
-Adam
Either way, best of luck!
-Adam
For me, when I sit down at a NLHE table, I always buy in for the max to be able to maximize my returns, and more importantly, I target people who buy in for the minimum as people to try and push off pots. It seems to me that buying short represents taking a shot above your comfort zone, and that's the kind of player I want to hammer on, pushing them all in at every opportunity. But I'm a jerk like that :).
I also buy in for the max, but there is one good reason for buying in for the minimum. If you are unskilled or are concerned about being outplayed post-flop, you should buy in for the minimum. Essentially, with less money in front of you, you will have less moves in your arsenal. This is good if you are inexperienced or not a good post flop player because it limits your opportunities to make mistakes.
For instance, you buy in for the minimum (let's say 10x the BB) in a NL game and get Aces. You raise 2x the BB and get one caller. The flop is 89T with two spades. You only have two moves, push or fold. You push for your remaining 7x the BB and get called and win.
If you have 100x the BB and you are in that same situation and you bet 4x the BB preflop (because you have more chips to work with). You get one caller. The flop is 89T with two spades. You bet the pot, lets say 10x the BB. The other guy pushes all-in and has you covered. You might fold here, fearing the straight or some other hand. If you were shortstacked though, you'd have to call.
And therein is WHY someone would be correct in buying in for short. If you are not confident in your post-flop abilities, buying in short can be smart.
I still buy in the max though. Cause I've got confidence, if not skills.
Post a Comment
For instance, you buy in for the minimum (let's say 10x the BB) in a NL game and get Aces. You raise 2x the BB and get one caller. The flop is 89T with two spades. You only have two moves, push or fold. You push for your remaining 7x the BB and get called and win.
If you have 100x the BB and you are in that same situation and you bet 4x the BB preflop (because you have more chips to work with). You get one caller. The flop is 89T with two spades. You bet the pot, lets say 10x the BB. The other guy pushes all-in and has you covered. You might fold here, fearing the straight or some other hand. If you were shortstacked though, you'd have to call.
And therein is WHY someone would be correct in buying in for short. If you are not confident in your post-flop abilities, buying in short can be smart.
I still buy in the max though. Cause I've got confidence, if not skills.
<< Home
