Wednesday, June 14, 2006
I missed all the action!
I've been fairly busy the last few days and I missed all the comment action on my last post about buying in for the minimum. I didn't even have a chance to check the email account tied to my blogger account. I get comments emailed to me but since I never checked the account I didn't see them. Thanks for all the comments everyone. Imagine how blown away I was when I see comments from the authors of the blogs I read regularly. I had no idea they even knew my puny little blog was around.
The comments can be best summarized as follows:
Let me address the second issue first. I am playing the .05/.10 and occasionally the .10/.25 NL tables with a total bankroll of 150+. A cpmmon theory of bankroll management says that you don't risk more than 5% of your bankroll at one time. 5% of my current bankroll is approx. 7.50. The max buy-in for the .05/.10 table is 10.00. So I either need to go down to the .02/.05 tables (ouch), or be willing to risk more than 5%. I am not uncomfortable playing at the .05/.10 tables. But if I'm trying to build my bankroll management discipline, I should move down. I'll have to think about that. I really don't want to play at the .02/.05 tables again.
I think there is a valid argument for buying in at the minimum. By buying in at the minimum and playing only premium hands, I've had people try to push me off hands purely because I was the short stack (best I can tell at showdown) and end up doubling me up. And lately at the tables I've been seeing, I've been either the only player or one of maybe 2 players that had stacks less than the maximum. If every one at the table is over the max, then even when I bought in at the max I would still be the short stack and still be pushed around. It seems to be that buying in at the max in this case is no help to me.
Another suggestion was to try tournaments if I wanted to play like that. I've been playing tourneys and doing fairly well in them (see some previous posts for details). I used to have a decent cash game and I've been trying to get it back.
And a little background about me is probably due. I've been playing for a couple of years, have won money and transferred most of it out - not huge amounts, but a few hundered extra dollars is fun to have. I started over with 50.00 and have been trying to build up the bankroll agian. I've never gone over the .50/1.00 table online and 1/2 live. I always have bought in for the max in the past, but lately (last month or two) I decided to try this min buy-in strategy I'd read about somewhere. I'll try to find the source again and post it here.
Another thing about the minimum buy-in is that when I win a hand, I've won the hand outright. I didn't just push someone off a hand by using a big stack. I know I like that aspect of it.
Oh, and the last couple of times I played I bought in for the max. Even before reading these comments. :-)
Thanks for stopping by everyone, thanks for the advice, and keep it coming. I'll probably cotinue to mix up the min buy-in vs. the max buy-in and see how it goes.
Oh, and Waffles, it's all good man! I must say that had I expected you to read my post, then that's the kind of reaction I would have expected. :-) I've been reading you for quite some time, and I can tell how you've matured some, both in your attitude and your writing. That definitely makes the occasional flame-fest easier to take. :-) I'm not unsubscribing yet.
The comments can be best summarized as follows:
- Buying in for the maximum maximizes your leverage, particularly against the smaller stacks at the table.
- If you are trying to avoid risk, then move down in levels
Let me address the second issue first. I am playing the .05/.10 and occasionally the .10/.25 NL tables with a total bankroll of 150+. A cpmmon theory of bankroll management says that you don't risk more than 5% of your bankroll at one time. 5% of my current bankroll is approx. 7.50. The max buy-in for the .05/.10 table is 10.00. So I either need to go down to the .02/.05 tables (ouch), or be willing to risk more than 5%. I am not uncomfortable playing at the .05/.10 tables. But if I'm trying to build my bankroll management discipline, I should move down. I'll have to think about that. I really don't want to play at the .02/.05 tables again.
I think there is a valid argument for buying in at the minimum. By buying in at the minimum and playing only premium hands, I've had people try to push me off hands purely because I was the short stack (best I can tell at showdown) and end up doubling me up. And lately at the tables I've been seeing, I've been either the only player or one of maybe 2 players that had stacks less than the maximum. If every one at the table is over the max, then even when I bought in at the max I would still be the short stack and still be pushed around. It seems to be that buying in at the max in this case is no help to me.
Another suggestion was to try tournaments if I wanted to play like that. I've been playing tourneys and doing fairly well in them (see some previous posts for details). I used to have a decent cash game and I've been trying to get it back.
And a little background about me is probably due. I've been playing for a couple of years, have won money and transferred most of it out - not huge amounts, but a few hundered extra dollars is fun to have. I started over with 50.00 and have been trying to build up the bankroll agian. I've never gone over the .50/1.00 table online and 1/2 live. I always have bought in for the max in the past, but lately (last month or two) I decided to try this min buy-in strategy I'd read about somewhere. I'll try to find the source again and post it here.
Another thing about the minimum buy-in is that when I win a hand, I've won the hand outright. I didn't just push someone off a hand by using a big stack. I know I like that aspect of it.
Oh, and the last couple of times I played I bought in for the max. Even before reading these comments. :-)
Thanks for stopping by everyone, thanks for the advice, and keep it coming. I'll probably cotinue to mix up the min buy-in vs. the max buy-in and see how it goes.
Oh, and Waffles, it's all good man! I must say that had I expected you to read my post, then that's the kind of reaction I would have expected. :-) I've been reading you for quite some time, and I can tell how you've matured some, both in your attitude and your writing. That definitely makes the occasional flame-fest easier to take. :-) I'm not unsubscribing yet.
Comments:
<< Home
In the end, it's all about your comfort zone. If you're comfortable maintaining minimum buy in's, stick with it. I would just suggest you shake it up a bit and see how a higher buy in works for you.
Few things to consider though. You mention being short stacked even when buying in for the max amount. I think this leaves room for being selective with the table you choose to sit down at. Myself, when I'm playing these micro limit tables, I either find the big stacks with intent on busting them, or find the weak, short stacks and attack vigerously with my max buy in. With the stakes your talking about, you literally have many many tables to choose from. Take some time and choose wisely. It'll pay off in the end.
Few things to consider though. You mention being short stacked even when buying in for the max amount. I think this leaves room for being selective with the table you choose to sit down at. Myself, when I'm playing these micro limit tables, I either find the big stacks with intent on busting them, or find the weak, short stacks and attack vigerously with my max buy in. With the stakes your talking about, you literally have many many tables to choose from. Take some time and choose wisely. It'll pay off in the end.
Exactly what jvillewhip. Comfortability. Especially if you're only going to play premium hands (which is a good strategy at low limits), because more often than not you'll come out ahead. With that strategy it's all about patience and getting your money in good.
One other side note: IF you watch GSN's High Stakes Poker, you don't see all of hte players buyin' in for $1,000,000 like Daniel did to maximize their profits. They each chose the amount to buy-in for whatever reason they did. just something to think about.
Post a Comment
<< Home
