An Experiment

[mikkav]

Hi all I'm always interested in various poker strategies but here's one I'm going to try as soon as I get a moment. 1. I'm going to buy in to a NL cash game ($25 or $50 max bi) but I'm going to buy in short maybe not the minimum but 60% I know you should always buy in for the max so you can get the maximum gain but I'm going to try and give the impression of someone out of their depth and call all in with premium hands my reasoning being that a person who has won more than the max and is playing with "profit" may call me with something they mighn't normally.My aim is to double up and then sit tight.Even if I get just the blinds every now and then. What do you think maybe its lunacy so Ill let you know:hope

[Dave Mardell]

Re: An Experiment Ive seen people try to do this and it really doesnt work. For one its a well known thing and you may find you only get called when your beaten. Further more if your only playing premium hands, when you do make that absoloute monster your not going to be paid as handsomly as you potentially could be. Why not buy in for the maximum and only play premium hands? Finally your micro stack will mean that you cannot protect your premium but vulnerable hands. Lets say your in a multi way pot, and you have AA and the flop is As 9c Tc. Top set and the nuts on this flop, but its vulnerable, and you will not have enough chips in front of you to drive the draws out. Dont do it mate :)

[Jezza]

Re: An Experiment Hi mikkav, I do advocate taking the maximum buy in to cash tables. This is by the far the best thing for a good player to do, you will not be "bullied" around, you have maximum flexiblility and you will get paid the max against anyones second best hand. I cannot say that short buying as it is termed is ever a good idea. However one thing that is true is you might find it easier to get called when you have a premium hand - the big stacks are more likely to gamble with you....In other words it is far easier to get 40 dollars all in preflop than it is to get 400 holding AA at a 400 max buy in table. However I would have to say in the long run losing out on the advantages of having a big stack is just too big a disadvantage to give yourself Jez

[mikkav]

Re: An Experiment Your right this is why I come to this forum-best advice on the net .I'm gonna go on the way I started playing the STT's.Cheers everyone:clap

[WorkingForTheEnemy]

Re: An Experiment Depending on mood I quite often shortbuy into cash tables. I feel it helps my discipline as you've got less money to risk so it means I chase less.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment I will always buy in with the maximum amount for the reasons Jezza outlined. Imagine you hit a set of aces on the flop and someone else hits a set of kings. Not going to happen often but if it does then both players are (providing there is no flush/straight) going to stick all their cash in. If you go to the table with less than the maximum you are missing out on easy money.

[slapdash]

Re: An Experiment Imagine you hit a set of kings on the flop and someone else hits a set of aces. :) I'm not saying the advice is wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoning. It's true that with the maximum buy-in you will benefit more when you have the better of two big hands. But you will also lose more when you have a big second-best hand. So it's probably when you think you're better than your opponents at playing these big hands, knowing when to raise and when to get out, that having the maximum buy-in will be of most benefit. Of course, there are situations where it's of benefit to have a small stack, so you can go all-in relatively cheaply. For example, if you have a drawing hand on the flop, and you go all-in, you get to see the turn, and then you effectively get a free look at the river.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment But you don't get to see it for free - you see it for all the cash you've just chucked all in. Now, if the pot is $50 and you are there with the nut flush draw, and $30 in front of you, going all in isn't a problem - the odds are in your favour if anyone calls, and there is a possibility they will fold anyway.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment

Imagine you hit a set of kings on the flop and someone else hits a set of aces. :)

It was an extreme example, but I think you get what I'm talking about.

[slapdash]

Re: An Experiment

But you don't get to see it for free - you see it for all the cash you've just chucked all in. Now, if the pot is $50 and you are there with the nut flush draw, and $30 in front of you, going all in isn't a problem - the odds are in your favour if anyone calls, and there is a possibility they will fold anyway.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. :lol Yes, if you have the nut flush draw and a big stack, you either have to risk a huge all-in bet, or you have to make a smaller bet and if you don't make the flush on the turn and get raised, the odds are no longer in your favour, so it's probably right to fold then. But if you can go all-in for about the amount you'd have raised anyway, you have two chances to make your flush for the price of one bet.

[slapdash]

Re: An Experiment

It was an extreme example' date=' but I think you get what I'm talking about.[/quote'] My argument wasn't about the extremity of the example. If there are two big hands out that the players concerned will find it hard to get away from, it's just as likely that your one will be the second best as it is that yours will be the winner. In one case you can win more if you have a big stack, in the other case you can lose more. So the possibility of having the better in such situations is not in itself an argument for having a big stack. Unless you have an edge in the play in these situations.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. :lol Yes, if you have the nut flush draw and a big stack, you either have to risk a huge all-in bet, or you have to make a smaller bet and if you don't make the flush on the turn and get raised, the odds are no longer in your favour, so it's probably right to fold then. But if you can go all-in for about the amount you'd have raised anyway, you have two chances to make your flush for the price of one bet.

Basically, if you have the short stack and it is smaller than the pot then that is the time to go all in (as the pot odds are in your favour - there is about a 1 in 3 chance you will hit the flush on the last 2 cards). If your all in would be bigger than the current pot, then you are putting the odds in your opponents favour if he calls.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment

My argument wasn't about the extremity of the example. If there are two big hands out that the players concerned will find it hard to get away from, it's just as likely that your one will be the second best as it is that yours will be the winner. In one case you can win more if you have a big stack, in the other case you can lose more. So the possibility of having the better in such situations is not in itself an argument for having a big stack. Unless you have an edge in the play in these situations.

I see what you mean, but the fact that you are saying that KKK is hard to get away from shows that the extremity of the example is key. If it was a flopped flush up against a flopped straight. If I had the straight, and someone bet very big I would fold. If I had the flush with a big stack in front of me I would have a lot of options - if he bets big I can get paid off big, if he slowplays (thinking he's got the best hand) I can outplay him there. It's possible that he realises he's beat, but very few players that I face can lay down a flopped straight. As you said, it is about who the better player is, but at the end of the day no-one's going to fold KKK on an A K 4 flop, so that example was too extreme.

[slapdash]

Re: An Experiment I think you're agreeing with me. My original point was just that there are situations like this (where you can make all-in bets on the basis of pot odds), where you are better off having a small stack, because with a large stack you have to consider the implied odds because of the possibility of a raise on the next round, and this may decrease or eliminate the edge you get by betting. Which is not to say that there are not other situations where having a large stack is better.

[dave]

Re: An Experiment

I think you're agreeing with me. My original point was just that there are situations like this (where you can make all-in bets on the basis of pot odds), where you are better off having a small stack, because with a large stack you have to consider the implied odds because of the possibility of a raise on the next round, and this may decrease or eliminate the edge you get by betting. Which is not to say that there are not other situations where having a large stack is better.

Yeah I guess I am. But I still would always take the max to the table with me :lol

[slapdash]

Re: An Experiment

I think you're agreeing with me.

In case there's any confusion, this refers to your post about going all-in, not the reply to my other point that you posted as I was writing that.

[Jezza]

Re: An Experiment you are pretty much right slapdash...

It's true that with the maximum buy-in you will benefit more when you have the better of two big hands. But you will also lose more when you have a big second-best hand. So it's probably when you think you're better than your opponents at playing these big hands, knowing when to raise and when to get out, that having the maximum buy-in will be of most benefit.

Exactly..... The whole point is that when you get a cold deck in your favour you will always extract the maximum...the problems come when you make the second best hand. However hopefully as a good player you will be able to recognise more often that you are beaten than your average opponent does. Being able to escape from AJ A10 when you have a pair of aces (and are beaten)...yet punishing your opponents when you have them beaten in the same situations is an example. Good poker is all about losing the least on your losing hands as well as winning the most on the times you are on top. Even if you have the maximum and hold a smaller flush against another max buy in players nut flush the good player should escape with minimum damage....and the times the tables are turned hopefully you will be able to inflict maximum damage. It is all theory but over the long run you will rise to the top and the power of chips will help you do it. The freak occasions when you get something like four of a kind v four of a kind yes noone can escape from this...but it will happen an equal amount of times in your favour as against it (in the long run of course!) so provided you are playing stakes where you can handle the volatility you dont need to worry too much about that. I would say top set vs 2nd top set on the flop is about the start of where hardly anyone is escaping.

My argument wasn't about the extremity of the example. If there are two big hands out that the players concerned will find it hard to get away from, it's just as likely that your one will be the second best as it is that yours will be the winner.

This isnt necessarily true in my opinion...You can do things like never playing suited king rag. Plenty of players play this hand and when do they lose the most money? When they are up against the ace flush.. By never drawing to a classic second best hand such as this but always drawing to the classic best hand (the nut flushes) you can position yourself far more often into the winning hand rather than the losing one when the large pots occur. Another factor of taking the max to the table is implied odds. Say a tight player with a lot of money behind him raises quite large. You know he is tight and half decent so the chance is he has a high pocket pair, but you know he is not able to let these hands go easily. You now have great odds to call with your low pocket pair, try and flop a set (13% chance) and break him for all his money but to do this you must have a lot in front of you. If you are a short stack you have no odds on a flat call as you are a terrible underdog and almost (if not all) your money is going to be commited in a bad spot (as opposed to the large stack play when hopefully a small portion of money is commited when you are a dog and almost all of it when you are a huge fave). To be honest tho I am being a bit serious about all of this and basically giving my views on how a solid professional player looking purely to make money should look at a cash game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with short buying if you just like a gamble. You will be able to commit a lot more chips preflop when you are a favourite than a big stack will, you will get the thrill of gambling and have a far bigger chance of winning some decent money by taking 40 bucks to a poker table than by taking it to the craps table. If you have a bit of card savvy about you/are a half decent poker player then you will still be able to make good money short buying...I just look to try to maximise every situation. Jez

[Dave Mardell]

Re: An Experiment At the end of the day, if your going to play drawing hands like Ax suited or suited connectors or anything speculative like that, your call should be determined by two things. 1) Is you hand going to be the nuts if you make it 2) Is the odds of you making the draw comparible to the odds in the pot You should not be chasing loosing flushes, and you should not be chasing flushes when you are not priced to do so. Stack size shouldnt really matter. Yes if you have hardly any chips in front of you, then chances are you will have pot odds to draw, but what if you had the ace flush draw. What if the guy that set you all in had the King flush draw and was setting you all in "for value". If you had chips infront of you youd be payed hansomly if you hit. As it stands your microstack is gonna win a micropot the 2/1 times you make it.