I've been venturing into the $1/$2 games, where the action can get downright nutty. In theory, I should be buying into these games at around $100-200. However, with the bigger stacks sometimes getting real aggressive and trying to buy pots before the turn, I find it better to buy in at $50, so if I chase what could be a great hand and miss on the river, which has absolutely happened, my downside risk is only $50. Now, some could argue that I'm limiting my upside, but I disagree. I play tight with my $50, win a couple pots, and next thing you know I'm around $100+. It takes a while, but I can't handle the big bankroll swings that would happen if I bought in at $100-200. I've noticed a lot of other players buying short too. I wouldn't buy in for like $20 for this game, but $50 feels right to me.

Yesterday I had a wild day, up $100 in PL games, then lost it. Then I played a $22 MTT in PL O8 and took 3rd, marking another cash for me in these MTTs. I have cashed in 4 or 5 of these in this month. I feel strong in them even when I come in to the final table with a relatively short stack. Not super short, but short. I actually was chip leader early on in this one for a change, then muddled around for a while before the final table.

I just marked my first month with over $500 in profit, much of it due to cashing in O8 MTTs, which I'm very proud of since I really started playing this hard core in the last month or two. In fact, I'm not playing much hold em at all anymore, which is kind of weird. I think you've got to play where you are making the best money though, which for me right now is O8.

I never buy in short, no matter the stakes.

50 is too short. I think if the games are very good and/or you are short on BR or quite risk-averse, there's nothing wrong with buying in for half a buyin or so, but I reckon just 25BBs is a bit too little. If there's a raise preflop, you want to be able to make a full raise of a flop bet if you flop strongly. You can't really do that with 25BBs. What I mean is, say it's raised to 4BBs, you call with A23x suited, flop comes 45J with two of your suit, villain bets out the 10BBs, you can only raise another 9 or 10BBs and you're in. You really want to be able to take advantage of strong flops with at least one big raise, even if you are buying in short.

If you want to buy into a game for 50 bucks i wouldn't play higher than the 100 games. If you can't afford at least half a buyin for the 200s I reckon you're probably not psychologically or financialy ready to be playing for that sort of money. Mind you, if it's worked for you in the short term, don't necessarily take my word for it. My personal opinion is that you can probably do more with that money in other games though, or win more by doubling your buyin to 100. I see lots of players who buy in short and the vast, vast majority are big-time losers.

So Felonius, just to be clear, for $1/$2, you think I need $100 min buy in, and for .50/$1 I need $50

This is just PL. For fixed, I feel ok with $50 at 1/2, because it just doesn't move as fast.

Thanks!

I agree with Monk's numbers for PLO8. Just a caveat -- don't count on having much fold equity when you bet or raise..

When I started playing 100NL a few years ago I bought in for $80; not much difference but it sort of "felt" like I was risking less and made me more inclined to play properly and not be scared of losing a stack. I think 50BBs is a reasonable amount if you want to play short, so that's half whatever the max buyin is for the table. I really wouldn't go much lower than this because I I think you're not making the money work for you as well as it could at a smaller table, though I have no objective evidence to back that theory up I think it's fairly logical and a pretty generally held conception among decent players.

I don't agree with ever buying in short especially if you are buying in less then 1/2 the max. The only time I could see buying in short is when you are moving up a level and want to test the waters. However, this would only be a temporary situation until you feel comfortable buying in full.

Here are the reasons I don’t like not buying in full
- Nobody respects you bets. You can’t bluff so you have to make hands to win money.
- You can’t punish the fish. If I get in a big hand with a fish I want to be able to take as much money as possible.
- You don’t have as much room to outplay your opponents. If you are better then your opponents, every good decision that you make should net you a little money. I want to be able to make as many decisions as possible.
- You have no implied odds which is where most of the money is made.

The reasons that I really don’t like buying in less then 1/2 a buy in
- You should just move down a level. If the 1/2 game is that good the .5/1 game will be even better.
- You basically commit yourself to 1 hand and on that hand you basically make your decision on the flop if you are all in or not. This doesn’t give you any room to outplay your opponents.

Strong points guys, I appreciate your responses.

in general, i agree with Gooper's comment about playing the 50 tables for a full buy-in versus the 100s for a half, but...

1) sometimes there are very few 50 tables available

2) sometimes the 50 tables are filled mostly with the successful 25 players (i.e., no fish -- good notes and pto stats help)

3) the 100 tables usually have more fish at any given time than the 50s -- there just seems to be something special about that $100 mark

4) the 50 tables can be REALLY good when some of the 100, 200, and 400 players are slumming it and/or some of this 25 fishies try to "catch up"