What are the advatages of Buying in short vs Buying in Full (in a capped Buy-in NL game)? I know we kinda touched on this earlier, but I was hoping to get a good treatise out of this....

If you buy in short you are more likely to get an all-in called - This then adds value to AA and any nuts.

If you buy in full you decrease the value of AA. But you can exploit nuts + 2nd best hand (you need your opponent to have this) This is more rare than AA.

In NL the conclusion I came to: you buy in to the biggest stack on the table and adjust preflop re-raises accordingly for AA. Very important is table selection. You are better off playing a 0.05/0.1 table with an average stack of $25 than 0.5/1 with an average stack of $23. To get technical on this the nickle and dime example is likely to be full of lucky drunks whilst the latter is full of sober and scared players - i.e blood from rocks....

The blinds are not important in NL. It is flop entry and stack which you should look at...

I've always bough in full, but often wondered about this idea:
If you were to buy in so that you had every playey you considered worse than you covered, and then, if possible, keep you're stack smaller than any player better than you. Of course you could also just avoid this player w/o the nuts.

Originally Posted by KINGJACK

Personaly I like to buy-in short and play about 10-15 hands short. Then, I rebuy max.

As Deme said, it increase the value of AA, KK and QQ preflop IMO. So, I play it super tight for about 15 hands hoping to catch a monster and double or even triple up early. If I dont, I simply rebuy to the man allowed.

KJ

"Doubling up" isn't that big of a deal in a ring game. All that matters is winning money. If you buy in for 50 and move in with AA, get called and win you're at 100. Thats $50 profit. If you buy in for 100 but can only get 75% of you're money in, get called and win, you're at 175 for $75 profit.

more variance != more luck