In the $200 NL game at stars I've been buying in for $100 as part of my table selection strategy. This goes against conventional wisdom, which is to keep as close to the max buy-in (or more) on the table as you can. Here's my reasoning:

Benefits:

-Gives me a chance to mix it up and determine the strength of the table without putting tons of money at risk.
-Unlike the $25 table, not everyone buys in for the max. I think plunking $200 down right off the bat either says "fish" or "shark" and I don't want either one of those images right off the bat.
-I'm more willing to go all-in or call all-in with a strong hand when I've got less exposure. Its tough to put $200 into a pot when you don't know who you're up against. Its also tough to laydown a set when you're opponent goes all in with who knows what. So with less money at risk I can play more aggressively with half as much money at risk.


Disdavantages:
-If I get a sweet hand with an aggressive opponent who I know is weak, I only double up $100.
-A slight tendency for bigger stacks to threaten, but this doesn't happen very much.

As soon as I know where the strength is at the table, I load up with whatever it takes to get to max buy-in. Or if I see someone with a good stack who is overplaying or is a poor player. This can be anywhere from a couple of rounds, to a half hour or better, depending on the action.

What else am I giving up by not buying in for max right off the start?