Just would like to know if there is an easy way to know how much money you should always have at a table depending on what level the stakes are at?
Reason i'm asking is because I played alot of games and then suddenly hit a big hand and I wanted to bet/raise all the time but at the end (on River) I just had a few cents left so even though I won the hand I still could have won more if I would have bet on River aswell...
Originally posted by taavi1337
at least 12 BB, that is, 24 big blinds
Now i'm lost... Isn't BB = big blind? >_<
Originally posted by i5bet72o
it would be kinda fun to come to a 0.01/0.02 with 10K just to be cocky.
did that before...but only with 5k
the others had like 30c
Oddly, some players will tilt if you bring a large amount to the table, even though the extra chips can't hurt them.
If you are playing on a site which allows unlimited raises when you are heads-up, then you should buy in for a lot because you will run into some maniacs who will put in ridiculous amounts with mediocre hands. I put in about 40 big bets on the turn with a 1-card royal flush, while my opponent greatly overplayed the low straight-flush.
Usually you want to have at least 12 BB so that you can cap each street. However, it is not a large mistake, or even a theoretical mistake not to have 12 BB. Of course you will sometimes run out of money while you are trying to bet for value, but you will also run out of money when your opponents are betting for value against you. The latter may not be as memorable, but it happens about as often if you don't have 12 BB, so the costs and benefits roughly cancel.
In some other games like 7-card stud, it can be a significant advantage to have a short stack if that is allowed. This is because short stacks can have a significant advantage in multiway pots in 7-card stud, since the larger stacks will often push each other out of the pot while you can get all-in profitably.
Originally posted by pzhon
In some other games like 7-card stud, it can be a significant advantage to have a short stack if that is allowed. This is because short stacks can have a significant advantage in multiway pots in 7-card stud, since the larger stacks will often push each other out of the pot while you can get all-in profitably.
Can't wait for this strategy article/vid!
Originally posted by pzhon
Usually you want to have at least 12 BB so that you can cap each street. However, it is not a large mistake, or even a theoretical mistake not to have 12 BB. Of course you will sometimes run out of money while you are trying to bet for value, but you will also run out of money when your opponents are betting for value against you. The latter may not be as memorable, but it happens about as often if you don't have 12 BB, so the costs and benefits roughly cancel.
I like to assume that I am better than my average opponent, so on average I will put in my 12bets good more times than I put them in bad, so they do not "cancel". The real reason why it is not a big mistake to not have 12 bets is that the situation where we have a chance to put it all in does not come up very often.
It might be that your playing style means that you would cap each street while ahead more often than you would cap each street while behind. However, do not confuse skillful play with getting your money in ahead. The goal of winning money often conflicts with getting your money in ahead.
If you are more used to dealing with situations where you might end up all-in, then your skill should be reflected in taking better advantage of this complexity. This is one of the advantages I have in limit tournaments, since I adjust my strategy due to the possibility of getting all-in, and my opponents do not adjust as accurately. If you make sure that you have 12bb at all times, you are simplifying the game, which might be ok, but it removes a possible source of an advantage.
Originally posted by Waiboy
Originally posted by pzhon
In some other games like 7-card stud, it can be a significant advantage to have a short stack if that is allowed. This is because short stacks can have a significant advantage in multiway pots in 7-card stud, since the larger stacks will often push each other out of the pot while you can get all-in profitably.Can't wait for this strategy article/vid!
I don't plan to put that into a video, but I believe this is discussed in The Theory of Poker by Sklansky. If you are all-in for the ante in stud, then you have an insurmountable advantage. If there are 7 players, and the ante is $1, then you pay $1 for a share of the $7 main pot. You will win at least 1/7 of the time, when your hand would be best if all the cards were dealt out. However, some of your opponents will fold hands on 3rd street which are weak, but which would improve to the best hand if played. So, you will actually win more like 1/4 of the time, for an average return of $1.75 for your $1. That is much more profitable and safer than playing poker.
One online site actually let you buy in for the ante, and some people were abusing this ability. I do not know if it is still possible; I doubt it.
If you are not all in for the ante, but only have a couple of small bets, then you very often have a very profitable call with a marginal hand like a low pair which would be unplayable with more money behind. A low pair has a lot of equity, but reverse implied odds on the later streets because it often makes a mediocre two-pair hand which could be good, but does not give you good value bets. Also, in 7 card stud, there are many isolation plays where you raise with a hand which may be second best to face a third player with a double bet, not closing the action. Being immune from these plays is more valuable than being able to make them.
Almost every rule in poker favors the short stacks. The short stacks are free to ignore the chips beyond their stacks, to optimize their play to take the big stacks' chips, while the big stacks can't simultaneously optimize against each other and against the short stacks. An exception occurs in tournament play: If two players are eliminated simultaneously, then it is not the player with the weaker hand, but the player with the shorter stack who is eliminated first. If the next player misses the money, then the shortest stack should be very risk-averse about overcalling all-in, and it is often correct to fold QQ while apparently getting good pot odds because of the multiway penalty. This applies more to NL tournaments than limit, though, since it is more common in limit tournaments for players to check the pot down when a player is all-in, while in NL they might already be all-in before you can overcall.
Originally posted by pzhon
If you are more used to dealing with situations where you might end up all-in, then your skill should be reflected in taking better advantage of this complexity. This is one of the advantages I have in limit tournaments, since I adjust my strategy due to the possibility of getting all-in, and my opponents do not adjust as accurately. If you make sure that you have 12bb at all times, you are simplifying the game, which might be ok, but it removes a possible source of an advantage.
It's one thing to adjust to the fact that we are short in a tourney, and another to say it has greater expectation than playing full stack. I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, so if you would elaborate or illustrate with a couple of examples that would be great.
Originally posted by Foxxxen
It's one thing to adjust to the fact that we are short in a tourney, and another to say it has greater expectation than playing full stack. I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, so if you would elaborate or illustrate with a couple of examples that would be great.
To clarify, I am indeed saying that starting a hand with a stack of 4 BB can mean that you expect to gain more chips than if you start with 12 BB, not just that you should adjust to having a shorter stack. One source of the advantage is that short stacks have an intrinsic advantage from the rules of poker. Another is that having a short stack adds complexity which can provoke errors from players who are not used to the situations which arise.
If you have 4 BB, then you can pretend that all of your opponents have at most 4 BB. You can optimize your play for this, playing more hands (e.g., 3-betting after a raise) which would suffer from reverse implied odds, and fewer hands which rely on implied odds. Your opponents can't simultaneously play the right ranges of hands for 4 BB and for 12 BB, and this gives you an advantage.
When you are close to all-in, you can sometimes make a defensive push. Let us suppose that it is the turn, you have 2 BB left, and your opponent bets (or raises you 1 BB). You feel that your opponent sometimes has a mediocre hand (perhaps with a few outs), and sometimes has a strong hand, but rarely has complete air, and that you are clearly behind his range. With many hands that you would ordinarily call on the turn, and then call on the river, you should raise all-in on the turn. This takes the option of checking the river away from your opponent, while you pay off better hands the same amount. When you catch your opponent with a mediocre hand, he either has to fold on the turn getting great pot odds, or else you get full value. This is like a raise for a free showdown with no risk of getting 3-bet.
In tournaments, many players do not adjust their flop hand evaluations properly. You normally give up with some hands on the flop due to the threat of later bets. However, if the effective stack depth does not allow a full bet on the turn and river, then calling down may be significantly cheaper, and you may be able to call on the flop with much weaker hands than normal.
I don't think this is worth a lot in cash games, but it is interesting that starting the hand with under 12 BB is not a mistake in theory, even though many poker players incorrectly believe that it is.
Ok, cool, thanks for clarifying. Sounds basically like a FL SSS which is interesting. Vs. certain types of opponents and table conditions I suppose that it could be doable, but then there are probaly other, more profitable tables around, it is not something that I will try at least 
