First off, I'm a newcomer to this forum, so any advice I get would be much appreciated. This will be a long post, sorry for that, but hopefully all of the information is relevant and understandable.

Every week me and 6-8 friends play poker together. We've probably had ten or so games overall, but other than that none of us have any poker experience. We play with the following rules:

• £5 (about $8) buy in, which is quite a lot of money for me.
• 60 chips each - is that too little?
• Blinds starting at 1 and 2, raising after around an hour, then about every half an hour after that.
• Buy-backs allowed - another £5 for 30 chips
• The game usually lasts 3-4 hours.
• Winner gets £25, 2nd - £15 and 3rd - £5.

I've been looking quite thoroughly at strategy advice, and I try to adopt a tight-aggressive game. Almost all of the other players are loose, with varying amounts of aggression. I have had improving success with this strategy, finishing in the money five times in a row. The last two weeks however, I've had problems:

Problem week one

Start terribly, pick up pocket kings and it goes straight to my head, end up losing two thirds of my stack fifteen minutes in. I understand where I went wrong here.

Play super-tight for a while but end up short stacked, with only stack size only 5 or 10x BB. Pick up AK(d) and go all in pre-flop (knowing one particularly loose-aggressive player would call). He has A(c)5(s).

Flop, turn and river: Q(d), 5(s), 4(d), 4(c), 5(d). I was obviously annoyed that I made a flush but lost on the last card, but just more generally pissed that he would call all-in.

Problem week two

Play tight-aggressive again, pick up QQ early and raise to 3x BB, miss flop with two overcards and fold to a raise. Later, pick up 1010 and make the same move - same outcome. Despite playing very few hands end up short-stacked as blinds increase, and when i pick up 1010 again, go all in, with the same guy calling with KQ(c). I know this time I'm only slight favourite to win, so had less complaint about losing.

My friends' general strategy is to call BB on 60 - 70% of their hands, with raises occurring pre-flop less than 5% of the time. They have basic knowledge about raising, folding and even bluffing post-flop. Often many will check though (including me) and the previously aggressive player will try and buy the pot with a raise. He's the most aggressive, but also the loosest player (literally will play anything - he limps in on probably 95% of hands unless he's short stacked or someone raises, and has adopted the phrase: Any hand can win in poker!!!)

I would limp with 99, 88, AJ, ATs, KQs, 77, 66, 55, AT, KQ, KJs, QJs, 44, 33, 22, A9-2s, KTs, QTs, JTs, J9s, T9s, 98s, KJ, KT, QJ, J8s, T8s, 87s, 76s (where s = suited). Obviously I would limp with a wider selection if fewer amounts called the BB, but I try to stick to raising 3-4x BB with premium hands (AA, AKs, KK, AK, QQ, JJ, TT, AQs, AQ, AJs) pre-flop. Unfortunately when this doesn't work (like in Problem Week 2) often I end up with quite a low stack, and am forced to move all-in near the end.

I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong, or if I've just had bad luck. If I make any mistake I'd guess it would be a) Playing too tight (often I get short stacked just because of increasing blinds) b) Not being aggressive enough (usually I only bet if I think I have the best hand after the flop) c) Raising too much on premium hands pre-flop.

My final query would be whether or not the small starting stack (only 60 xBB) should affect how I play, and whether I should recommend increasing the starting stack sizes (unfortunately we are limited to this amount, so would have to buy more chips to make this workable).

For anyone still standing after that, I thank you, and welcome any advice you have to offer.

Max

Thanks for your quick reply.

Originally Posted by KnightofNarg

Game format is horrible imo, giving everyone 30 big blinds to start is too few in my opinion.

I agree. Most of the articles I've read suggest starting stack sizes should be more like 100x BB. Is there any way I can / should change my game to compensate for the short starting stack?

Originally Posted by KnightofNarg

You might want to cut down on limping a bit, since with short stack sizes it makes it less profitable.

Would you suggest raising pre-flop with some of the hands I suggested I'd limp with, or just stick to premium hands?

You might want to start playing some small ball, you'll need to have a larger starting stack to make it work but it's an ideal statagy for home games because it seems really jovial and you're giving and getting loads of action, and then when you've got a beast you're far more likely to be paid off. It also takes away some of the stress because by popping up with lots of little bets you are better suited to judge how much your hand is worth on later streets, as opposed to being forced to shove pre and getting sucked out on.

Originally Posted by Toin coss

You might want to start playing some small ball, you'll need to have a larger starting stack to make it work

Originally Posted by KnightofNarg

I think the worst thing about starting with so few BB's, is that it makes for too much tension early on.

I would probably NEVER buy back into that game either. Seems -ev to pay the same amount to get half as many chips when they're worth less.

Thanks for your replies lads, really insightful.

I seem to be getting a message here. The small starting stack sizes leave less room for skill (drawing, bluffing etc.) and therefore whatever strategy I use there will be more chance of losing to some of my friends who are less knowledgeable about poker.

I don't think they see it as a problem, that's the thing. No-one ever raises pre-flop, which means if they lose, they usually aren't too badly affected. Most tend to go out due to bleeding chips (like I mentioned in my first post) and then going all in. I need to get these rules changed!

The tip about small ball poker is really interesting though. Up until now I thought TAG was the only way to go, but having researched it small ball poker has a number of advantages, so cheers for that.