buying in at 2-4 and 3-6NL

[alias2211]

Hey guys-

Just wondering what you think about buyin amounts at 2-4 and 3-6NL. I have been playing more 3-6 lately than 2-4 because my BR tells me so. But I'm not even really sure if it's advantageous to max buyin there as a rule, because often I'll find that the players who are there don't have anywhere near $600 put down either. In fact, a lot of the time, the average is less than $300. It just seems to me that a lot of 2-4 BR'ed players play at 3-6 tables because there is a seat open.

Don't get me wrong, I think if you can buy into a game and become the big stack, then you should do it. I just don't see the point of putting another $200 on the table when I can cover everyone anyway. If someone goes up, I can always go get the other $200 if necessary.

[dalecooper]

I don't really understand the point of *not* buying in for the max. If you have the roll, is there any reason to not get all the chips you can? More chips = more leverage. If anyone else rebuys, or a new guy comes in with the max, YOU want to have the max.

[Miffed22001]

id buyin to have everyone covered, that includes a 3 way all in. Ive seen, though not played this high, and noticed few people buy in for the full amount. Id cover them if i could for less...

[alias2211]

I don't really understand the point of *not* buying in for the max. If you have the roll, is there any reason to not get all the chips you can? More chips = more leverage. If anyone else rebuys, or a new guy comes in with the max, YOU want to have the max.

Sure, I'm all for buying more chips up to the MAX later if someone plops down a max buyin, I think I said that. So to clarify, I'm talking about first sitting down at the table before you even play a hand. And how the buyin affects the first few orbits that you're there, before you have a real feel for who plays what and how. The first few orbits define your opponents perceptions about your play, so it's really important that it goes the way you want it to go. Of course if I've been at the table for a couple of hours and am up a few hundred bones, then I've EARNED the chip stack I have, at least some of it, by grinding it out. And then they respect my authoritah a bit more, so that's not really what I'm talking about here.

The reason I'm questioning full buyins is this: when I have $600 and some other guy has $200, they tend to be push happy on marginal situations/coin flips/piece of the flop. In other words, having big stack makes you a target for the one advantage that short stack has, the push. They don't pull that shit on an OPP that has the same amount of chips unless they've got something, or a damn fine read.

Here's a specific example of what I'm talking about, this situation happens ALL the time:

6max $600NL table, blinds are $3 and $6. This means $9 in the pot to start. When you make a standard raise (and standard isn't really 3BB at this level, people usually just hit the Bet Pot button), you end up betting $21. You have the full buyin $600 and get a single short stack caller (about $150 stack), so that means that when the flop comes, the pot is already 9+21+21=$51. At this point, if you end up making any sort of decent continuation bet here in or out of position (let's say another $35 for this example, but you'd see a range of course), you're either gonna get him to fold or push, there really isn't a reason for him to call when he'd only have $40 more in chips on a $120 pot on the turn.

The result of this scenario is a higher percentage of situations in which you're playing for $200 pots right off the bat w/o any reads. And to compound the difficulty, if they hit ANY piece of the flop, they're in for it because they want you to have the tough decision. They want to see what you're made of, for sure. Of course you could say, "Just play tight ass, premiums only." But even if you hit top pair, you still have to be willing to CALL a push?

If I only had $300 in the above sitation instead of $600, I would see the push less, because a $35 flop bet is more than 10% of my stack, and that should carry some weight, I would hope.

The only thing I have found to combat this is making a tiny continuation bet against these guys, like $8-12. Players at this level look at a bet like that differently than lower levels I think. Maybe it's better to say that it's more likely that they're able to question why I'm trying to bring them in so slowly.

[dalecooper]

I don't view the situation you mention as a problem or a threat. People who are chronically buying in or playing with a short stack (1/3 or less of the max) are generally bad players, and as soon as they manifest that kind of aggression on a couple hands close together, I mark them down as such. I'm willing to get into marginal situations with them. Top pair good kicker is enough post-flop; pocket pairs JJ+ or big cards AQ+ are enough pre-flop. Not only do I not mind having them there, I target them. If they end up in a pot with me and only have a bit more than the pot left in their stack, I'll usually bet the amount they have left rather than my normal continuation bet. That's a clear signal. If they want to call anyway and chase after my cards, which are generally better than theirs, so be it.

[alias2211]

Yeah, you're probably right Dale. But I almost feel like if I'm gonna be looking at $200/hand then I should just grind up to 5-10NL BR first and then look for full stack only tables I dunno, maybe this weekend I'll post a couple of example HH of this scenario and see what you think on a case by case basis. Thanks for your comments.

[Muxy]

It is simple if you buy in for less then you will be at a dis advantage post flop. You want the maximum value from all hands.

[alias2211]

After paying close attention to buyin levels this weekend, I think that having a large stack is really the best way to play 2-4 and 3-6, so buying in at the MAX is nearly always the best idea. I just need to be more selective of the tables I play, that's all. I have really been enjoying the observation parts of the game lately, and I've been pulling up a chairearly to watch table play before I start in order to get a much better sense for how individuals are playing. And if I look around and see a bunch of $100 stacks and tight play, it's time to look for a new table. Not interested.

[alias2211]

I think that what people are doing is buying in short, like $150, but playing at a table w/ a MAX buyin of $400. So these are people that usually play $50 or $100NL table, and they just want a quick double up. And they really are a factor in the table texture. Last night I was at a table w/ about $900, playing well, and there were 3 other stacks above $500. So it was a good table to be at right? Well, the other 2 stacks were less than $100. So when one of them would be on the button or even cutoff with ANY kind of playable hand, they'd push after a raise. While I'm not saying that this is good or bad, I am saying that it's important to recognize what shortstacks can do to a table. In the case of last night, these two were really push happy, and it really tightened up preflop play overall because of it. In the end, one left after doubling up an all in AQ that got a call from JJ spiked a queen, and I took the other one out w/ KK against his 99. After that, the table totally changed immediately because the next two buyins were full MAX. And the game loosened up considerably.

[PokerPatNEU]

Your effective stack size is only as big as the next biggest stack, if you have a bigger stack than everyone. If everyone has half a buy in at 3/6, buying in for full effectively does nothing except maybe make you look more intimidating...As long as you have the same stack size or larger then the next highest, you can always get max value for your hands.