Blinds question

spymoose

Dunno where to post this...

Have played some little home games and stuff with friends and online, but am looking to branch out to real games.

Some around here are $1/$2, wondering how much I should buy in for in order to play properly at those blinds?

Would rather play with lower blinds, just looking for info. Thanks

GTA Poker

depends what you mean by properly...if you think you are one of the better players then always buy-in for as much as possible to cover the weaker players and maximize your hands...in most games around the GTA that would be $200

adammc

That would depend on the preflop action of the game too, some the blinds are an irrelevancy to the preflop raises of 5 or more times the bb, which can be found evident at cadino niagra for example. 200 dollars with blinds of 1/2 where preflop raises are to 15 - 20 dollars every hand doesnt give you a lot of room to work with either. For games like this that play high, you should buy in for the max and have more money to top up to the max everytime you lose a hand so you don't have to play anally tight til you double up, which is how I play. That way you dont have to muck 67s or something like that on your button because somebody raises to 8x the bb. If you are topping off everytime then it makes this play okay.

Unfortunately you probably aren't going to find home games with blinds lower than that, so I don't really know what to tell you.

ChrisWinsor

ME and my friends play .25 .50 cents with 20$ buy-in with unlimited rebuys. But we don't allow buy in over 20, unless they're real big fish.

For $1 $2 i'd suggest at least $100. You don't want to be bullying around too much..

beanie42

I like to have at least 100BB if possible, and enough to be top 3 in chips. You want to get paid on your good hands and enough not to be bullied.

adammc

Would you care to explain why you recommend at least 100 (50bbs) for 1/2 but only buy in for 20 in your home games (40bb)?

Also why you let the "fish" buy in for more than you so you don't have them covered at all times?

Just wondering.

haddon

I don't really understand your posts Adam...

In a post on a student robbing a bank to pay debts you typed something like:

"I hope I have felted him many times."

Here, you are asking how to buy in and why its good to let a fish have lots of chips.

Whats the deal?

beanie42

adammc wrote:

Would you care to explain why you recommend at least 100 (50bbs) for 1/2 but only buy in for 20 in your home games (40bb)?

No idea what you're talking about. Either this is from a while ago (over 6 months, when I was still dumb) or you're thinking of the wrong guy. I'm one of the few who refuse to play when the buy-in relative to the blinds is too low.

adammc wrote:

Also why you let the "fish" buy in for more than you so you don't have them covered at all times?

Good question, and probably remnants of my "online habit". Online, since I'm multi-tabling, I usually buy-in for 75% max. Also, most bad players do NOT buy-in for decent amounts (in a $200 game they buy-in for $40 or $75), so you will have them covered if you are in top 3. To be honest, most of my live games haven't been filled with fish, and everyones smart enough to buy in for max anyway, so there isn't much of a decision.

adammc

I suppose I should have been more clear. If you read the post by "ChrisWinsor" he states that he likes to buy in for 100bb at 1/2nl minimum, and then also states that his home game is capped at a 20 dollar buy in (.5 x 40 = 20.00) save for the "fishes" who they allow to buy in for more. Personally I would like to have the bad players covered, so I was asking why they would cap a buy in for themselves, yet let a bad player have them covered.

The post had nothing to do with beanie42.

Also, I said I would like to have felted him as a joke haha, apparently not taken as such.

ChrisWinsor

Hit the quote button next time to clear things up. I suggest he buy in for that amount cause it sounds like that is what the rest of the players are doing. And it's ok to have a few less chips than them, but not too many.

As for letting the fishies buy in for more, they think they'll have a big advantage have 50$ when we have 20$... and so he goes all in on his flush draw, loses and is now at 20-30$ If you have the fish covered and he busts out in 10 minutes he gets very angry and storms out.

beanie42

adammc wrote:

The post had nothing to do with beanie42.

No problem, Adam!

ChrisWinsor wrote:

As for letting the fishies buy in for more, they think they'll have a big advantage have 50$ when we have 20$... and so he goes all in on his flush draw, loses and is now at 20-30$ If you have the fish covered and he busts out in 10 minutes he gets very angry and storms out.

I'm not sure I'd play in a game like this. Your skill should be enough of an edge without distorting the rules to take further advantage of a less talented player. Increasing the buy-in is ok, if it's across the board. Having one set of rules for good players and one set for bad players sounds a little confusing and highly unethical (even for a poker player ).

adammc

Yes, I mean if they move in on a flush draw, have them covered, cleaning out one 50 dollar buy in in one shot is easier than multiple buy ins.

And if you truly have a skill advantage over them then allowing you to play deep stacked against them should allow you to win a lot more pots in the long run, deep stack poker is a lot more skilled, and if you truly feel they are bad players, then you would be better off to buy in to cover them. This really turns friendly home games into a battle though, so perhaps your $20 cap is good so that there is no harshness between friends.

But you should truly reevaluate how deep you buy in if you are really trying to bust people up. The deeper the stack, the more skill that is involved because every street gets played, and with a lot of money. I know when I play at Niagra all the time, I like to go at 9 pm and play through the night because usually around 5 am (early in the week) the game is broken to one table, and by this point it is not uncommon for several players to have $400+ in front of them. At this point in the night I play every pair, suited connector etc, and find less value in AK and AQ, because when you flop a set/straight/flush its often times feasible to felt an over played big pair or AK on an A high board. Whereas when your starting stack is small, there is little to think about when you make top pair top kicker and only have 70 back in a 5 way raised pot. In a capped buy in like at Niagra I play fast with any hand, and try to play a lot of hands, because a double up wil allow me to play a lot more "poker" and a lot less "cards" against them when I have a deeper stack, if you understand what I am saying. Anyways I am rambling.

Something you should really think about.

Oh and about buying in online: If you are going to be among the best players at the table, always buy in to cover every player. You can't afford to sacrifice equity when you find oppurtunities to get in big pots with bad players. It's simple as that.

ChrisWinsor

beanie42 wrote:

adammc wrote:

The post had nothing to do with beanie42.

No problem, Adam!

ChrisWinsor wrote:

As for letting the fishies buy in for more, they think they'll have a big advantage have 50$ when we have 20$... and so he goes all in on his flush draw, loses and is now at 20-30$ If you have the fish covered and he busts out in 10 minutes he gets very angry and storms out.

I'm not sure I'd play in a game like this. Your skill should be enough of an edge without distorting the rules to take further advantage of a less talented player. Increasing the buy-in is ok, if it's across the board. Having one set of rules for good players and one set for bad players sounds a little confusing and highly unethical (even for a poker player ).

Hehe, i think i made out our home games to be a little more proffesional then they are. We do generally just play for 20. We'll let people buy in for 10-15 if thats all they have. The only times we ever really let the fishies buy in for more, was a couple times there were these 2 guys (i'm pretty sure they were drug dealers, but meh that's not my conern) were really bad at holdem, but got into the glamour after watching it on T.V (like most fishes). They made a couple dumb moves and busted out twice, then pulled out a wad of cash and grabbed a 50$ bill and said F**k you guys i'm in for 50! By that time we're all up, some of us to even more than 50$ So of course we let him lose his money to us.

Anywho, ya deepstack pocker takes alot more skill, and would be easier to take the fishes money, but none of us really wanna put 50$ on the table just to have the fish covered ( we like to drink alot:D), when most of the time 20$ is enough to take his money.