Why do you recommend buying in for maximum at a table (BSS)?
Is it ok to buy in for $2-3 at a $5 max table (0.01/0.02 or 0.02/0.04) to keep variance down?
Notifications
Clear all
4 replies
With more money on table you raise your effective stack against opponents, and when you hit your hand you can extract maximum money.
Playing something between SSS and BBS you get only weakneses of booth strategies IMO.
I'm no expert... but If you want to play bss you always have to buy in with 100bb
nl 0.01/0.02 you should buy in with 2$
nl 0.02/0.04 buy in with 4$
nl 0.05/0.10 buy in with 10$
nl 0.10/0.25 buy in with 25$
nl 0.25/0.50 buy in with 50$
and so on... and so on...
But maybe you should buy in with maximum when the maximum is 250bb like on those NL2 tables.... not sure... Probably someone else that can give you a better answer
tbh I'm not sure why I'm posting here since I don't have any idea what I'm talking about...
Originally posted by harleytopper
With more money on table you raise your effective stack against opponents, and when you hit your hand you can extract maximum money.Playing something between SSS and BBS you get only weakneses of booth strategies IMO.
#2
Well, harleytopper said it. I can't add a lot more. You can't play for set value or implied odds with half a stack. You will nt get the maximum profit if you hit a good hand. It's just very suboptimal. Take a look at higher stakes. every good player buys in for 100BB.
Best regards,
TribunCaesar
Set value and implied odds...interesting. Thanks for the answer.
On the other hand, with a full stack you can lose more to a better player...
Do people in general go more aggro vs short stacks than vs large stacks? I seem to respect/fear large stacks, they usually play well/better than me.