Buying in short
I have promised a blog regarding the fact that I typically buy-in for only 50 big blinds when I play "no limit hold'em". I put no limit hold'em in quotes, because true no limit allows you to buy-in for as much as you would like; I believe that only UltimateBet offers such a room, and it has blinds on the order of pennies. Instead, most online card rooms allow you to buy-in for as much as 100 big blinds.
The structure at Party Poker (my primary site) used to be that the maximum buy-in was 50 big blinds. This was the structure that I played when I learned to play no limit hold'em and it is the structure that I like the best. When they changed their structure (allowing buy-ins of 100 big blinds), I started a downswing in my bankroll that ended when I gave up no limit for a few months and played strictly limit poker (mostly hold'em).
When I returned to no limit, I eventually figured out that I am the most comfortable buying in for 50 big blinds. And that is the number one reason why I buy-in short: I am most comfortable playing this way. This is an important point for online poker: you should mostly try to play games where you are the most comfortable. You can most easily play your best game and you're win rate will be the best. This argument is not as valid for live poker, where you need to be social and such, so that sometimes you are forced to play something other than your best game under your best conditions.
Extending beyond the comfort factor, there are legitimate reasons to buy-in short. The two most pertinent to me are:
1. It limits the amount that I can lose in a single hand. This is actually quite important to me because I bluff rarely but I like to push my good (but beatable) hands aggressively. Most of the time, my opponents fold but buying in short limits the amount I can lose, allowing me to play aggressively.
2. Many people assume that I am a bad player when I buy-in short. This gets me some loose calls with my premium hands. In fact, buying in short is almost looked upon as a donkey move by many people in the online poker world (I have specifically read in someone's blog that "only donkeys buy-in short").
Of course, there are reasons to have the most amount of money possible at the table too:
1. You do not artificially limit the amount of money that you can win in a hand.
2. If you are skilled enough, then you can use your stack to bully timid opponents.
3. You have better implied pot odds against over-aggressive players. For example, if someone raises 4-6 times the big blind (and you think they have a big pocket pair), then you can reasonably think about calling with small pocket pairs or suited connectors. If you hit your hand, then you can win a huge pot... but if you miss your hand, then you can fold and get away with only a relatively small loss.
In reality, if I ever start buying in for the full amount, then it'll be because of reason#3. I believe that as I move up stakes, my opponents will become more aggressive, and I'll need the bigger stack to keep the pot odds in my favor. But at $25 NL and $50 NL, my typical opponent is generally passive, so this factor is not particulary important right now.
The structure at Party Poker (my primary site) used to be that the maximum buy-in was 50 big blinds. This was the structure that I played when I learned to play no limit hold'em and it is the structure that I like the best. When they changed their structure (allowing buy-ins of 100 big blinds), I started a downswing in my bankroll that ended when I gave up no limit for a few months and played strictly limit poker (mostly hold'em).
When I returned to no limit, I eventually figured out that I am the most comfortable buying in for 50 big blinds. And that is the number one reason why I buy-in short: I am most comfortable playing this way. This is an important point for online poker: you should mostly try to play games where you are the most comfortable. You can most easily play your best game and you're win rate will be the best. This argument is not as valid for live poker, where you need to be social and such, so that sometimes you are forced to play something other than your best game under your best conditions.
Extending beyond the comfort factor, there are legitimate reasons to buy-in short. The two most pertinent to me are:
1. It limits the amount that I can lose in a single hand. This is actually quite important to me because I bluff rarely but I like to push my good (but beatable) hands aggressively. Most of the time, my opponents fold but buying in short limits the amount I can lose, allowing me to play aggressively.
2. Many people assume that I am a bad player when I buy-in short. This gets me some loose calls with my premium hands. In fact, buying in short is almost looked upon as a donkey move by many people in the online poker world (I have specifically read in someone's blog that "only donkeys buy-in short").
Of course, there are reasons to have the most amount of money possible at the table too:
1. You do not artificially limit the amount of money that you can win in a hand.
2. If you are skilled enough, then you can use your stack to bully timid opponents.
3. You have better implied pot odds against over-aggressive players. For example, if someone raises 4-6 times the big blind (and you think they have a big pocket pair), then you can reasonably think about calling with small pocket pairs or suited connectors. If you hit your hand, then you can win a huge pot... but if you miss your hand, then you can fold and get away with only a relatively small loss.
In reality, if I ever start buying in for the full amount, then it'll be because of reason#3. I believe that as I move up stakes, my opponents will become more aggressive, and I'll need the bigger stack to keep the pot odds in my favor. But at $25 NL and $50 NL, my typical opponent is generally passive, so this factor is not particulary important right now.
posted by frazwood at 3:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home