gavham Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy That doesn't make sense. There are some valid points lurking in your post' date=' but I can't see that this is one of them. If you join a table with $200, get your balance up to $1000 then lose it all in one hand - you're losing 1k on that hand, not $200. There's absolutely no difference between this and joining with 1k and losing it all in terms of your EV and profit.[/quote'] i count my wins or loses at the end of the session not during. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I very, very rarely play cash games, but if I do, I go in with small buy-in for similar reasons to Moley's above - plus it helps my 'fish' image to be seen as someone playing out of my depth with not enough money to buy in 'properly' - I lure my opponents into a true sense of security!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy The big difference IMO are implied odds - you remove most of them from your opponent (and from yourself) This would make it a mistake for an opponent to pay to draw in far more circumstances than if you had a larger stack. By the same token, I imagine you should be playing more "made hands" and fewer drawing hands - things like suited connectors I imagine lose all value to you....... True. Maybe another theoretical plus point for a minimum buy-in (at a table of larger buy-ins) is that your opponents may still play the small pairs and suited connectors because of the implied odds they get from the other big stacks, and they may well be correct to do so for that reason. But they're not getting implied odds from you, so from your point of view it's as though they are playing their drawing hands without the implied odds to justify it, so you must be benefitting from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy not out your bankroll though and at the end of the day thats what counts Not to say there aren't valid arguments for playing with a minimum buy-in (slaps point on dead money in multi-way pots is a convincing one), but reasons 2,3,6 and 7 are all essentially the same thing and none of them are valid IMO. If playing with a smaller buy-in means you're more comfortable calling in big pots, bluffing and whatnot - it just means if you had the confidence to do the same things with a bigger stack you'd make even more. In other words, if a min buy-in allows you psychologically to do things you wouldn't be willing to do with a max buy-in, then the flaw is the psychology and the lack of confidence to play a big stack. Not in the big stack itself. There are other considerations like inflection points that could change that - but I don't see this mentioned. In the most basic terms, if a play is +EV, so long as your bankroll can withstand the variance, you want to bet as much as possible. If it's -EV, you shouldn't be betting anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavham Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy fortuantely the game is all about opinions, these were just some of mine and i have been very successful with them. take from it what you will (or not) i will stick at what i do until such times as my game is no longer a winning one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelopeys Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy i count my wins or loses at the end of the session not during. Me too... ...if I go to a table with $ 200... hit $ 600... lose all 600... I just lost the $ 200. You can't think of the $ as real money until you have left the cash table!! And... Mole has a great point about minimum buyin... I try it myself sometimes and it can work... Only it's fcukin annoying when you have AA or flop a great hand and people are willing to pay, but you have peanuts to play with :loon :wall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelopeys Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Can I just add that I know Mole and can verify that he does indeed win 'lots and lots' and, I also know that as he is one of the most arrogant, big headed fcukrs I have ever known that he was most certainly not bragging. THAT would have gone on for pages and pages and pages, :rollin . :rollin :rollin :rollin quality, Diane ...:lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAN DAN Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy :rollin :rollin :rollin quality' date=' Diane ...:lol[/quote'] I'm not exaggerating either :loon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavham Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Can I just add that I know Mole and can verify that he does indeed win 'lots and lots' and, I also know that as he is one of the most arrogant, big headed fcukrs I have ever known that he was most certainly not bragging. THAT would have gone on for pages and pages and pages, :rollin In my defence of this allegation, there is a difference between being arroggant and confident! nah forget the defence your right i'm probably both. This has been an interesting debate and i would like to thank the people who have backed me but there is good reasons for both strategies and you must find the one that suits your own game. As mcfc rightly said you must also be adaptable and not afraid to try new things. there are no hard and fast rules! Perhaps i should have never mentioned how much i,m actually winning as it has obviously been percieved as bragging, this was not my intention it was used to carry wait to the statement that min buy in does work. the one thing i should have done is gave an in depth explanation as to WHY it works Personally i don't see anything wrong with telling people how much you win (provided it's the truth) as this can give us all hope and realistic targets to aim for. i know if someone was winning $500k i would like the chance to speak to them on the forum, if only to gain a few tips. So if i have offended anyone with what i said, i do apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robilaruk Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy indeed - my thoughts exactly - you haven't lost $200 and the bit about playing drawing hands is nonsense IMHO - you cannot afford the call with draws if it take up too much of your stack because if you miss, you then need to rebuy to have your $200 stack again (so why not just buy in for more earlier?) - can't see the logic in that - I would expect that you would play really tight as you have no leeway to make a few marginal calls hoping to hit some of your other statements I can see working - big stacks not seeing you as a threat, less bluffing at you etc - but this swings both ways, so big stacks might take you on with a marginal hand eg KJ vs your AQ PF raise as they can't lose too much, and also they wont bluff at you when you want them to - so I am not sure the +tives outweigh the -tives? Interesting strategy that seems to go against the prevailing perceived 'proper way' which means it is probably a good thing to do and needs investigating! Damo This is a purely psychological distinction I think? You're losing $750 in either case...[/quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robilaruk Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I concur entirely - Poker is about WINNING MONEY, and if people wish to discuss what they are making then great! I do think it is double standards here - lots of folks have a sig line with current MTT/STT/freeroll winnings and we have hodgeys (among others) monthly updates for their STT play and the WSOP 2007 Believe thread which means folks need to win around $4K to pay for the $1500 tourny+travel+hotel etc So I see NO REASON AT ALL TO APOLOGISE - if you wish to discuss your bankroll and winnings then go ahead - others might feel unconfortable about it becuase they are 'only' playing 5c/10c cash or $1 STT's and have a bankroll of a couple hundred bucks - but we all have to start somewhere and shouldn't feel demeaned or 'useless' because someone else is a 'sucessful' player making their bankroll every day - I for one am VERY interested in building my BR and earning a really decent amount a month - curently its about $200 per month on average (based on the last 18 months figures - though recenly it is starting to climb closer to $300 or so), and something I cannot crack to improve upon - I know that it is due to my play and lack of understanding on making the correct plays at the correct time - I just seem to be stuck in the rut at the minute (its a nice rut, but one that doesn't help the ambition of Liz giving up work full time to look after Holly etc) Damo Personally i don't see anything wrong with telling people how much you win (provided it's the truth) as this can give us all hope and realistic targets to aim for. i know if someone was winning $500k i would like the chance to speak to them on the forum, if only to gain a few tips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy and the bit about playing drawing hands is nonsense IMHO - you cannot afford the call with draws if it take up too much of your stack because if you miss, you then need to rebuy to have your $200 stack again (so why not just buy in for more earlier?) - can't see the logic in that - I would expect that you would play really tight as you have no leeway to make a few marginal calls hoping to hit I don't think I really understand this. It's quite possible to play with a minimum buy in without playing scared about losing your stack. There's no inherent contradiction in buying in for $200 instead of $2000, perfectly prepared to buy in another nine times if necessary. Having a smaller stack does mean you can chase more draws. For example, if you flop the nut flush draw, then if you have a large stack, you can be priced out of the hand with a big bet, especially if there's a threat of it being followed by another big bet on the turn if you don't hit. But if half your stack is already in the pot, then you can comfortably call any bet and have two chances to draw the flush card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I don't think I really understand this. It's quite possible to play with a minimum buy in without playing scared about losing your stack. There's no inherent contradiction in buying in for $200 instead of $2000, perfectly prepared to buy in another nine times if necessary. Having a smaller stack does mean you can chase more draws. For example, if you flop the nut flush draw, then if you have a large stack, you can be priced out of the hand with a big bet, especially if there's a threat of it being followed by another big bet on the turn if you don't hit. But if half your stack is already in the pot, then you can comfortably call any bet and have two chances to draw the flush card. That's a reasonable point. But if you have +EV chasing a draw over 2 cards but are worried about being priced out on the turn, if you have a big stack you can reraise the flop, which has more +EV even if your opponent gave you a free card because you're chasing a +EV draw and adding the possibility of your opponent folding without you having to hit it also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelopeys Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I think the difference between the max or min buyin depends of your game and your current mood. Sometimes it's nice to be one of the big stacks bullying at your table... but there is a risk you will lose all the cash. Sometimes it's less risky to go in with less money and chase hands for a few quick double ups. I have seen both at cashtables... some join with min buyin, and other rebuy everytime they lose a few bucks to be at max buyin all the time. I think it's more a question of psychology and mood, than strategy and EV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelopeys Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy and... both ways have worked for me... AND... both ways have so not worked for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy That's a reasonable point. But if you have +EV chasing a draw over 2 cards but are worried about being priced out on the turn' date=' if you have a big stack you can reraise the flop, which has more +EV even if your opponent gave you a free card because you're chasing a +EV draw and adding the possibility of your opponent folding without you having to hit it also.[/quote'] Only if the draw is +EV on it's own merits. I was thinking of cases where, because you don't have many chips, your opponent can't make a big enough bet to avoid giving you pot odds to call. E.g., you're chasing a flush, so you have around a one in three chance of hitting in two cards. So if your opponent makes a bigger than pot sized bet on the flop, you don't have pot odds to call, even if you're guaranteed to see two cards (assuming you have lots of chips compared to the size of the pot). But if half your chips are already in the pot, your opponent can't avoid giving you pot odds to call, however much he bets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Fair enough in that case. Tho I'd argue it doesn't happen very often if you're playing well, since as a shortstack without implied odds you shouldn't be calling the kind of raises that would create that sort of pot with the majority of drawing hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Puntalot Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I do think it is double standards here - lots of folks have a sig line with current MTT/STT/freeroll winnings and we have hodgeys (among others) monthly updates for their STT play and the WSOP 2007 Believe thread which means folks need to win around $4K to pay for the $1500 tourny+travel+hotel etc So I see NO REASON AT ALL TO APOLOGISE - if you wish to discuss your bankroll and winnings then go ahead Errrm, there's me thinking that me and the mods make the rules. ;) Well, you have a point to a degree Damo, but the signature thing is way out of control and will be put to bed very shortly. Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact, mole came on to an advice thread (at the start) and offered virtually no advice, whilst blowing a trumpet as it were - case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy As I generally stick to limit games, I have little experience to share, but find this an interesting thread. Looks like it can be summed up like this: If you're a very tight player then take the maximum buy in...you are not going to take any risks but want to kick ass when the nuts come. If you are very loose then take the minimum...you are going to be playing in lots of hands and want to limit your possible losses. This makes a lot of sense to me and the logic could probably be extended to cover different tightness levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy As I generally stick to limit games, I have little experience to share, but find this an interesting thread. Looks like it can be summed up like this: If you're a very tight player then take the maximum buy in...you are not going to take any risks but want to kick ass when the nuts come. If you are very loose then take the minimum...you are going to be playing in lots of hands and want to limit your possible losses. This makes a lot of sense to me and the logic could probably be extended to cover different tightness levels. I agree this is intuitive, and a lot of people seem to think this. And they may be right - but I can't see why this actually would be the case. All being loose vs tight says here is one is going to have greater variance. If you're a loose player with a bigger stack you stand to lose and gain more so the swings will be greater, so yes you limit your losses by buying in low, but in theory you limit your profits also. The idea is that if a play is +EV it's going to be more profitable to play with the max in the long-term because you're committing more money over which to realise that positive expectation. Why would this idea that looser players will show more profit buying in for less be true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Fair enough in that case. Tho I'd argue it doesn't happen very often if you're playing well' date=' since as a shortstack without implied odds you shouldn't be calling the kind of raises that would create that sort of pot with the majority of drawing hands.[/quote'] Maybe. Though it's not that uncommon to stumble into a flush draw on the flop, even if that's not the reason you played the hand in the first place. There's a flip side, too, though. Your opponents also get the odds to chase their draws against you. Actually, most (not all) of the arguments for either side have a flip side. E.g., "If you make the maximum buy in, then you can win the maximum when you have the best hand." Well ... "If you make the maximum buy in, then your opponents can win the maximum from you when they have the best hand." I'm not saying that the two arguments always cancel out exactly, but I suspect it's a subtler and closer question than people who have a strong feeling about it (either way) think, and if anybody thinks there's a single clinching argument for their preference, then they're probably ignoring a counter-argument. So having thought about this, I will state that my firm and confident opinion on the matter is ... ... that I'll sit on the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy "If you make the maximum buy in, then you can win the maximum when you have the best hand." Well ... "If you make the maximum buy in, then your opponents can win the maximum from you when they have the best hand." This is all about expectation tho surely? They're identical in this regard if you have neutral expectation, but if you're a PE player then you're going to realize more profit committing more money? I agree that the reality of min vs max buy-ins is likely more complicated for a lot of different reasons related to how the hands play, but this particular observation seems to be about the most central concept to all forms of gambling and has an answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Agreed. I did say that I didn't think the two arguments cancelled out exactly. But unless you're really crushing the opposition, then the difference between the effects of the two arguments is going to be quite small compared to the effect of either argument on its own. And so factors that make a smaller difference on any one hand, but consistently argue for the same choice of buy in, may be more significant in comparison than they appear. And it's not all about expectation. It's also about variance. And as far as variance is concerned, I think it's clear that "minimum buy in" has an advantage. If you're good enough, then there's another way you can magnify your expected winnings, apart from increasing your buy in: you can play at higher stakes for the same buy in. So maybe "minimum buy in" has an advantage if the stakes you play at are limited by your bankroll rather than your ability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswest Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Don't think we're really disagreeing here. And certainly it's about variance too - I was just taking it as given that any exposure in any game should be sufficiently bankrolled to take care of variance. All I was really trying to say, is that it seems to be an issue of demonstrable fact, and not opinion, that 'all things being equal' it would be a better decision to buy-in for more. The question is whether things actually are equal, ie whether the hands play the same. And they may not, I've seen a few convincing arguments to that effect. But that's why I don't like psychological reasons, such as it making you more confident in making calls or that you've somehow only lost your original buy-in when you lose 3x that amount etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robilaruk Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy rules????????? nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they are rubbish lets all play 83off and crack the Rockets its more fun that way :) thats the great thing about discussing poker, the fact that we can break the rules - like the 'accepted' rule of max buy-in and size of BR to buy-in etc. Interesting to see what others are doing and the reason they are doing it - certainly made me think. Mole your post has really suprised me even though on the surface it appears to me to be wrong - would you care to expand on this as I can see you are a winning player and as I want to be a winning player (well actually making more cash) any help and advice are very welcome (I appreciate that you should not be expected to spill every bean, you have worked hard at your game and deserve the rewards, but a few crumbs would help! :ok ) Cheers Damo ps Paul check your PM Errrm, there's me thinking that me and the mods make the rules. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Here's a slightly different, and probably not particularly useful, question. But interesting, I think. Suppose you don't have an advantage in ability, and you're playing against players exactly as good as you. In that case, should you make a maximum or minimum buy in? My guess is that you probably have +EV by making a minimum buy in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavham Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Robilaruk, i will be glad to share any advice or tips that i can. i have not studied poker the way clearly other players have ( i've never even read a poker book) i just do what comes naturally to me so for this reason i find it quite difficult to explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Quiet Man Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy Feckin hell, guys!! How do you manage to play poker with all that knowledge rolling about in your brain? :loon :loon :loon Thank fcuk I'm thick!! :beer :beer TQM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy How do you manage to play poker with all that knowledge rolling about in your brain? :loon :loon :loon Badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Re: Cash Game Buy In Strategy I concur entirely - Poker is about WINNING MONEY' date=' and if people wish to discuss what they are making then great![/quote'] I had a bit of a mad moment last night - I had been watching the big stakes games on FullTilt and felt I had to have a go - I chucked my entire Bankroll into Full Tilt - sat down with $20,000 - an hour later I stood up with $1,450,000 - was great!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.8c5a15b710f7a4188ce438df64354c1e.JPG)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.