Your thoughts.... the odd buy in.
First off I'll never understand why someone would buy into a .50/1 game with 500. But I saw it the other night, and lord knows how he ever got the 500 in the first place, cuz it wasn't due to superior play (at least not at this sitting). Onward.
Dear Readers (yeah both of you),
I pose a question.....and you must forgive me (I actually read some discussion on a blog about this and can't seem to place who's it was).
Recently, I have been buying into various games with odd amounts (and a little short). I'm not talking only 5xBB short, but in the 10-15 range. Playing like normal and have noticed that some players with a larger stack will push harder with weaker hands. The "mine is bigger than yours" idea.
It seems to be working to my advantage. Am I crazy? is it isolated cases? You thoughts, cards and letters are welcome.
Other fronts, I've fired up Stars in preparation for the......
be-all-end-all-poker-blogger-reader-no-holds-barred-over-the-top-barbed-wire-cage-match
I've got to come up with a good bounty, (after all I should only last one or two orbits).
SirFWALGMan Has been hitting some nice wins in the Aquarium, as a matter of fact, I saw him talking trash to Moshy the fish boy. Funny stuff.
Ahh finally The Aussie Invasion has jumped into the fishpond, settle in and play smart, you'll be making movies in no time. (I just want a bit part)
save me a seat at the final table
posted by Uwannabet? @ 9:53 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
To me a short, odd buy-in means a newbie/fish. At 3/6 limit someone who comes in for $35 - $70 means they don't have the bankroll, they're taking a shot at a higher limit or they're new and don't know any better. There are exceptions but is essentially true in about 85% of the cases. Sometimes you'll see someone come in short and it takes a couple of hands for you to realize that this person can actually play, and of course by then thy're up 50% of their stack ... but it's much more common to see someone buy-in for $35, go bust, re-buy for $50, go bust, re-buy for $43, go bust and leave (and you know the table has their whole bankroll). Interesting strategy consideration to make yourself a target with your short, odd buy-in. Good luck, hansfanca11
FWIW, I think the opposite. If I see a buy-in for exactly $25 or $50, I think that they're accepting the auto-bankroll and are probably newbies. When joining a table, I will always buy-in for LESS than the auto-amount. This way, I'm forcing myself to tighten up initially and resist the urge to dive into an early pot. This gives me the opportunity to watch a table and note who is limping/raising and with what.
Moi? Talking Trash? Nahhh. heh. I remember Moshy the Fish Boy very well! I am a much better loser than winner. It is just a fact. I get intoxicated with winning! heh.
As far as the buy in. I do not like to play short. I usually buy in for the default amount probably because I have never really given it much though. I was thinking it might be better to buy in for double the minimum. The thinking behind this was that if you needed to be aggresive you had the stack. If you hit a down turn, you still had the stack to work your way back up aggresively. I have since decided if I hit that bad of a downturn it is time to hang it up for the night. So I am back to doing the default buyin.
It might have been me that you were thinking of with commentary on buy-in significance. My post on the subject can be found at http://foolandhismoney.blogspot.com/2004/09/at-long-last-tacking-table-selection.html
At any rate, I think there is some meaning to the amounts people are playing with, at least in general, over a large sample size. Notice I say "the amounts people are playing with" as opposed to what they buy in with. My inclination is to put it like this: most sites have a default buy-in amount for each leve, and most players sit with that amount. This is lazy, human nature. As they play, their stack grows or shrinks, more often shrinking with bad play and incrasing with good play (though of course there are and will be many exceptoions). This means that, in the absence of other reads, smaller stacks are more likely to be unskilled than skilled, and large stacks the opposite.
Take care & good luck @ the tables!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home