Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyGB
Quote Originally Posted by lonnie
I love playing against short stacks, because I'm not afraid of them going AI when I'm in a tricky hand.
That's why I love playing as a short stack. People will call me more often when they don't have the best of it. I genuinely believe that I make more buying into a NL$100 table with $20 that buying into a NL$25 table with $25. I'm going to be looking at that theory in more detail soon (after I finish analyzing my swing-fest this weekend), but I don't know that I'll change my tune.

Would I make more with $100 at a NL$100 table? Of course. But I don't really have that option with my current BR (and I'd probably rather have the option of winning greater amounts than the .5/1 blind structure offers on an average hand even if I could buy in with $100). Comparing apples to apples, I think I make more on a $25 buyin at NL$100 than NL$25. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise.
Although i don't really agree with what you do, it seems to be working for you and whenever i see someone buy in for less than the max they virtually always go right onto my fish list, i give them absolutely no credit for anything and will be a lot looser with my calls against them.

The real problem i see with buying in for $20 into a 100 dollar game is the swings would be much much greater. I'll often walk into a 100nl game and lose 20 dollars to run of the mill plays, whereas in your case that's your entire buyin, which would actually make a difference to your bankroll rather than being only a slight loss for someone who is properly bankrolled for NL100.