Cash Game: Set buy-in or Max buy-in?

ky70 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 11:58 AM

My no-limit cash games are genreally for a $20 buy-in with unlimited rebuys (back up to $20). I've noticed that quite a few people do Max buy-ins, where (for example) you can buy-in from $20 all the way up to say $50.

I'm interested in possibly trying the max buy-in route. Which method do you prefer? Do you find that someone buying in for $50 has an advantage over those that bought in for $20 because of their bigger stack?

Thanks.

jojobinks · #2 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 12:06 PM

bigger stacks have a disadvantage...some would say.

they have to make difficult decisions on later streets that the smaller stacks don't. smaller stacks can just go all in (and get calls) with monsters on the flop, for instance.

small stack with $20 raises to 3 bucks in a .5/1 game. gets two callers.
flops top pair top kicker. the pot is 9 bucks...if he bets the pot, he'll only have 8 left in his stack. he should push the flop, right? right.

if he's got $50 in his stack, he bets and gets 2 callers, well then he's a little worried, right? now he's got $38 left, and the turn is semi scary...a third of a suit, or a possible straight, or it pairs the middle card...now what? it's not an impossible situation, just a tricky one.

with a small stack, it's not tricky at all.

ed miller lays out this theory in getting started in hold em. in fact, he recommends always buying in for the minimum.

i've been messing around with it on pokerstars, and i like it.

ky70 · #3 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 12:38 PM

good points

SingleMaltFan · #4 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 12:57 PM

so if you go with unlim rebuy's of $20, when do you allow rebuys? under say $5 stack or only if out completely...

just curious...

ky70 · #5 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingleMaltFan

so if you go with unlim rebuy's of $20, when do you allow rebuys? under say $5 stack or only if out completely...

just curious...

I do unlimited rebuys up to $20. Your current chips plus your rebuy chips can not surpass the initial buy-in ($20). In the past I've required players to be at or below half of their starting stack ($10) before rebuying but I'm considering doing away with this rule.

Wylecoyo · #6 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:15 PM

For cash games we usually do a max $20 buy in with unlimited re-buys available but only when a players stack goes below $5. The idea being we don't want anyone to be so short stacked they can't compete but we also don't want anyone buying in for such a high amount they can push people around. Of course, accumulating chips to a large stack who can push others around cannot be avoided over the course of play, but this at least requires you play well enough to do so.

jmda · #7 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:19 PM

We ran a $1 $2 nlhe game with a $60 min and $200 max. There were some players that would always buy-in for the max, and I would always buy-in for the min or sometimes $80.

The people buying in for the max were thinking that they would maximize their winning hands, but I agree with what JoJo was saying, which is why I would never buy-in for the max. We would allow people to reload at any time up to the $200 max.

ky70 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmda

We ran a $1 $2 nlhe game with a $60 min and $200 max. There were some players that would always buy-in for the max, and I would always buy-in for the min or sometimes $80.

The people buying in for the max were thinking that they would maximize their winning hands, but I agree with what JoJo was saying, which is why I would never buy-in for the max. We would allow people to reload at any time up to the $200 max.

Did you purposely set the max at 100x the big blind?

gwilkx · #9 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:49 PM

i think jojo brings up some interesting points, but i offer a different set of thinking. being a winning poker player is all about your ability to make the right decisions. the philosophy that says buy in for the minimum so that it's easier to get all-in is great for beginners, but basically is designed to take away the player's ability to make decisions (both good and bad).

sure, being all-in allows you to see streets that you may not have otherwise seen, but that in itself is not necessarily a good thing. post-flop play is what elevates many of the pros above us amateurs, particularly those who have "grown up" in their poker knowledge by tuning in to big-time no-limit tournament events on television. for example, getting your small stack all-in with top pair against an obvious flush draw isn't always going to be good for you. since you're short, you're more likely to get called anyway. there is a time to force the draws out, and a time to simply make them pay the wrong price to draw against you.

i never buy in for the minimum or the maximum. in a $1/$2 NL game with $40 min, $200 max, i buy in for $120. in a $0.50/$1 NL game with a $20 min and a $100 max, i buy in for $60. IMO, buying in for the max usually signals one of two things: either you're setting out to push people around, or you have more money than you have skill (ie: you know you need that much on the table in order to survive for a few hours).

i like the min/max buy-in better than the fixed, though typically everyone in my group just does what everyone else does. the first person buys in for $40, and everyone else does the same.

one problem with letting people buy back in anytime they're below the minimum is that it can slow the game down dramatically. with a set $20 buy in, a guy could lose half their stack on the first hand and then buy it back up to $20. on the second hand, a guy loses half his stack and buys back up to $20. conceivably, people are buying more chips every hand, which is just plain annoying.

of course, this is all just my two cents. from my perspective, you need to host a game that people like to come to, that generates action, and runs at the right pace for your group.

gw-

jojobinks · #10 (**permalink**) 11-15-2005, 01:55 PM

gw:
the problem with your tournament example is that this is a cash game. i wouldn't argue you want to be shortstacked in a tournament. if i did, i'd have to be an idiot.

in a cash game, if you have top pair, and the other guy has just a flush draw, you want to be all-in 100% of the time, assuming you have enough to give him bad odds (and even half the pot is enough).

the fact that shortstacked play is less skillfull is beside the point. it's more profitable, unless you're playing at the expert level, which i don't, and most of us don't.