Okay, so I am trying to get an idea of the difference behind playing with deep stacks vs. normal stacks (standard 100BB buyins). So here is the thing. I play Pokerstars NL2 but they let me buyin with $5. I always figured that I should buyin with as much as possible, cause people like Alex have told me that you can never have too many chips at the table.

My problem is that when I sit at an average NL2 table on Stars and buyin with $5 I am usually the big stack. There may be one or two others with stacks over or even near $5 but the vast majority have like $3 or less. Would I be better to buyin with $3 instead of the full $5? I feel like I am not really doing anything for myself having a larger stack than most since when I am stacking someone it is usually someone with $1 or $2. This also goes for NL5 where they let you buyin with $10. I sometimes feel that I am not gaining anything by buying in for this large of an amount unless there are a number of players at the table with similar stacks. Now I know the concept that its better to have a larger stack for those times when another large stack decides to stack off to me. Then I can get max value. But seriously that doesnt seem to happen. I sometimes feel that having too large of a stack can be a detriment when everyone around me has so much smaller stacks.

Another element to this is how much I lose when I have a losing session. This last weekend I lost about $12 at the NL2 table. Isnt that technically like losing 6 buyins? That seems like an awful lot for NL2. I attribute it directly to the fact that when I take a beat (bad or otherwise) its because I have so many chips at the table.

Someone weigh in and help me with this. Has been bugging me for a while.

I think the additional chips become less and less valuable (meaning that they add less to your BB/100). The mixed stack sizes at the table mess up your implied odds. You also have to be damn sure you can outplay everyone at the table.

That opportunities to get 250bb in as a significant favorite are too few and far between and a mistake is very costly.

If you are trying to play a good implied odds game and limping or calling raises with speculative hands, the shorter stacks can ruin your day by reraising and taking all those implied odds away. Somewhere around 50bb is plenty to give you a good stack to play with. More than 100bbs is too much to worry about.


Personally I like playing with about 25bbs. The game stays simple and it is easy to multi-table.

I am averaging about 3.4ptbb/100 for my last 7k hands playing a 24bb buyin and leaving when I double up. I have a lot of drunken-chip-spewing-tilt-monkey hands in there too

Originally Posted by Beavis68

You also have to be damn sure you can outplay everyone at the table.

(

Beav, it's NL2 for Christ sake!!
I guess he can outplay them pretty easily, don't you think?
(Edit: Sorry Beav I did'nt notice KRE8R was the poster... indeed you should watch your ass dude!!! Kidding you KRE8R!!! )

That said, I agree that if you have more money than everyone at the table, the upside of buying for 5$ is not that big.

But you never have too much money in front of you... the day another 5$ buyer go all in into your Aces you are dam happy you have 250BB instead of 100.

So I guess its a marginal +EV aspect, but buying in for $5 cant be bad... IMHO...

KJ

Thanks for the responses so far. I would appreciate a few more. Alex? Wota? Eclipse? I know you guys should have some good insight into this concept for me.

To sum up what Beav said, you cut the game in half buying in short as to what you can/should be doing. My biggest issue with buying in short is that if you don't hit n' run, your sample sizes reduce with situations varying so often. Other people's varying stacks and the way the cards fall are random enough. Randomizing your own stack can't help.

That said, multitabling NL25 through NL200 like this in high-volume because players like to call so much and you're playing straight-forward. But my argument against that has always been that they're bad players. In an NL100 game, you can stack them twice and make $25+$50=$75 whereas with a full stack, you only need to stack them once and you make $100. Full stacked, the gap is wider between your big pots and small pots, so you can play less big pots and make more money.

Have you read Sklansky Theory and Practice? There's a good section on stack sizes in that.

I think it depends on the table really. If you buy in deep you are opening up all avenues of play, and generally have to be on your game or be able to outplay the others fairly easily (which you will be able to at NL2 and NL5). The shortstack approach allows you to play a game with less "thinking" and gain EV from players who are otherwise playing correctly themselves (sklanksy explains it much better than me, lol) and if you aren't used to multi-tabling it certainly makes things simpler. Personally I always buy-in for the max because I feel comfortable with the full stack and want to get the most out of any big hands, but I do see the argument for shortstacking.

As for the losses, if you bought in for $5 and lost $12, that's only 2.4 buyins IMO, not 6. Big difference between that and losing 6 $2 buyins. If you start with a bigger stack, a big beat will obv hit you harder.

Lately, I buy in full, and tend to look for tables with at least two other full stacks or larger, preferably at least three (at a six max table). I think this is truly the key, look for a table with stacks to match yours.

You have so many more options with deep stacks. It can become profitable to see a flop with sooted connectors. 3-betting OTB becomes a potentially hugely +EV.

Your point that having a large stack against a bunch of short-stackers is well taken. Be a little more picky with table selection; rather than picking a table because you can sit down immediately, join a waiting list on a table with three big stacks.

Stars sucks because you can't data-mine (in addition to no rakeback), but on FTP you can use the waiting period to gain a couple of hands against unknowns. I've had to wait 20+ hands before sitting before, and this can give you a leg up to see who's being TAG/LAG/LPP from your first hand.