I can't see any reasoning for this whatsoever. I'm sure he must've had his reasons but I can't see any reason TO do this. Yeah, it's fine to play tight preflop, wait for a strong hand, and then put money into the pot, but what if someone else has a decent sized stack and you flop a big hand? Why cost yourself money by not having any extra to bet beyond the flop? If you play in a LAG game you have to accept the high variance, and trying to reduce that by buying in small makes no sense to me, unless you believe the other players at the table are better than you.

As far as I can see, his reason for buying in short is to double or triple through and then play proper poker with a decent stack... why exhaust 6 buyins doing so when he could just buy in for that size stack in the first place?

Rolf is a very good player, but unless I have misread the meaning of your post I can only assume that his thinking was that this game was not only LAG but particularly tough, and thus that he didn't want to buy in deep and be up against big stack players he considers better than him, whilst retaining enough chips to win pots against weaker players with better starting hands.

Other than that, if he's properly bankrolled for the game, what is the point in buying in short? I don't think I've seen an adequate argument for doing so, yet, unless I'm missing something...

Monk
xxxxx

The article is at

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazin ... m_id=65561

Maybe you get more out of it than I did.

Pieter

Rolf,

How would that strategy relate to the online games? Should you come in for the minimum and double up in the crazy games or should you buy in for the max? What items would you take into account to do so?

Tom