Low-Content: Reloading

Okey-doke,

When playing cash games i play predominantly 6-handed micro stakes PLO. I can't get the hang of STT omaha nor am i any use at NLH cash games but thats for another topic.

Right, when playing, i used to wait til i busted before reloading. A couple of monster hands with loadsa action and no cash to back it up soon cured me of that and i usually reload when below 80% of the maximum buy-in.

Recently i've started reloading when i get below 90% of the max because of the following reasoning:

You have $10 in a .05/.10 game (= 100 bbs) and lose a relatively small pot and drop to about $8.20 (= 82 bbs). 3 or 4 hands later, you flop a straight flush against the bigstack's (who is the only person who covers you) nut flush and double up. You now have roughly $16.40 (=164 bbs) but if you'd reloaded after losing the small pot you'd have roughly $20 which is a difference of 36bbs. (I realise it's a small amount of money but it's the percentage of the buy-in i'm looking at here. In this case it's a third of a buy-in).

So my quetion is this (1) Is my thinking flawed here , (a) should I/do you reload at every available opportunity? Even after posting the BB and folding to a raise? and (iii) Does this have as big an effect on our bankroll when we have a losing session? (i.e. we obviously end up losing more when we're not playing well/getting shafted by variance but do the extra big pots when we're running gooot make up for that?)

Thanks in advance for your comments/opinions

dvdfan

I and id image the vast majority of players here Reload almost automatically, sometimes i forget but usually when i feel im done with a hand and putting no money in after a cbet or something ill topup and get ready to check/fold.

I suppose if your a losing player over a large sample then youll obviously lose more but if your a winning player then youll win more. If you were a losing player it would make more sense to move down levels though and improve your game.

phantom_lord

i reload everytime i fall below 100bbs.

if you're a winning player it's obv. gonna be good for your bankroll .

RoadSweeper

i always make sure i have a full stack at the table.

I dont think it has a big effect on your BR, even in losing session.
Possibly it does if your a fish tbh.

Imposter

I don't. If I go under 40BB's (or sometimes 60BB - kinda depends on the table and how it's being playing) I will top back to about 100BB. My reasoning behind this is that at the levels I play (.50/1 and 1/2) I feel I can better use my image with the good players to make more money than if they notice that I continuously top-up. Someone who continuously tops-up is automatically pigeonholed by me as someone who understands bankroll management, stack sizes, winrates and probably a lot of other things a fish wouldn't. I would imagine most people would think similarly. So basically you are telling the good/observant players all these things and you probably cover the fish anyways or you are more likely to get a call from them if you have a smaller stack.

If playing at higher levels I guess it would make sense especially if you knew your opponents quite well and there were no obvious fish there.

phantom_lord

i'd imagine the value you get by having a bad image wouldn't offset the value you lose from being half stacked.

Macspower

Imposter wrote:

I don't. If I go under 40BB's (or sometimes 60BB - kinda depends on the table and how it's being playing) I will top back to about 100BB. My reasoning behind this is that at the levels I play (.50/1 and 1/2) I feel I can better use my image with the good players to make more money than if they notice that I continuously top-up. Someone who continuously tops-up is automatically pigeonholed by me as someone who understands bankroll management, stack sizes, winrates and probably a lot of other things a fish wouldn't. I would imagine most people would think similarly. So basically you are telling the good/observant players all these things and you probably cover the fish anyways or you are more likely to get a call from them if you have a smaller stack.

If playing at higher levels I guess it would make sense especially if you knew your opponents quite well and there were no obvious fish there.

I wouldn't like this line of thinking at all... the fish at the table only see their own two cards and good players will mark you from your play and not your reloading abilities...

I'll reload as soon as I drop below the max buy in ammount... often reload for as little as 2 dollars

cooker3

I reload when I fold in the sb

phantom_lord

nothing more annoying that losing out on $$$ when u stack someone cause u weren't topped up.

BobSloane

When I first started playing cash my system was that I would play until I doubled up or went bust(or ran out of time and had to stop).
This is obviously not the best method but it was good for confidence building as it means your losing sessions are not as severe and you end up with more winning sessions. I was not comfortable playing with 200bb+.
After a month or so the deeper the stacks were at the table the more I enjoyed it as the hand values changed.
I often spot players at tables now with 200bb+ who do not understand hand values and position as the game gets deepstacked. Well I don't have fully understand it myself, lol, but I mean people who really don't have a clue whatsoever.

I generally play loose and aggressive when i join a table for the first 15-20 hands and this will often result in losing 20-30bbs. Not sure if this is a leak but I think i get it back from the image that is created and sometimes it works out really great in those first 15-20 hands. Also it has to mess a bit with other peoples immediate pt stats on me.

I've also tried this thing since july 1st where I raise the first hand when I join a table. I always join from the cutoff. I've only played 22 tables since then but its a winning play so far as I think people just don't want to get involved with an unknown oop with a marginal hand. I know its only 1.5bbs but it all adds up! If i get a caller they generally fold to a cb and its a nice start.

But yeah reload and play with the full 100bbs if you feel remotely comfortable with the table. If you don't feel comfortable leave and find one where you do and play with the full buy-in

BobSloane

double post

Imposter

Macspower wrote:

I wouldn't like this line of thinking at all... the fish at the table only see their own two cards and good players will mark you from your play and not your reloading abilities...

I'll reload as soon as I drop below the max buy in ammount... often reload for as little as 2 dollars

Think about why you might drop below the max by more that a few $'s. You either fold a few hands, probably after raising and getting continuation bets snapped off or you lose a biggish pot either calling with a worse hand or overbetting a worse hand (or your opponent plays very weak) or you are caught bluffing (this should rarely be the case in the first few hands with a lot of unknowns, missed draws being the possible exception).

Now the good players (assuming they see your hole cards) will think something of your play that you can use to your advantage if you know they are thinking that.

Most pots are not played for stacks. Most pots you win will be a lot smaller than 100BB's and a 70-80BB stack is more than enough for these.

sikes

not having a full stack is leaving money at the table, there really inst any argument to it. There is no way a meta game concern is worth anywhere close to 20-40BBs.

Mr.Plough

phantom_lord wrote:

i reload everytime i fall below 100bbs.

.

DEmeant0r

What about live cash? Do you reload if you fell below 100bbs?

Lafortezza

Live cash I usually buy in for way more then 100BBs since you just can. I like to be one of the bigger stacks at the table if possible.

CaptainNemo

Recently I've mostly been playing $0.50-$1 and $1-$2 PLO and on the tables I've been playing the standard of play mostly hasn't been very high. I always buy in for the maximum (100BBs) and I reload if I fall below about 80BBs, unless I'm running particularly badly, in which case I'm happy to shortstack it for a while.

Some people regard the entire concept of "running bad" as superstitious and there's no mathematical argument against them, but nonetheless sometimes I just feel happier sitting with less money in front of me to lose. Call it a negative frame of mind.

Mostly, however, if I'm at a table of fishy players then it's natural that I want to maximize my profit when I do get paid off on a big hand. I don't reload to the fanatical extent that some people on here are saying because in my experience most of the profit on a PLO table comes when you're overstacked and able to push the table around so I'm not sure how much difference it really makes in the end.

Macspower

Imposter wrote:

Think about why you might drop below the max by more that a few $'s. You either fold a few hands, probably after raising and getting continuation bets snapped off or you lose a biggish pot either calling with a worse hand or overbetting a worse hand (or your opponent plays very weak) or you are caught bluffing (this should rarely be the case in the first few hands with a lot of unknowns, missed draws being the possible exception).

Now the good players (assuming they see your hole cards) will think something of your play that you can use to your advantage if you know they are thinking that.

Most pots are not played for stacks. Most pots you win will be a lot smaller than 100BB's and a 70-80BB stack is more than enough for these.

I always still want the maximum stack in front of me.. think about it... you have half a buy in and you hit set over set against an opponent who more than double your stack!!! no one is suggesting that you have to play for your stack but it's always good to have it...... if your not bank rolled to play with full stacks drop to a level at which your are and play from there....

topping up should never be a concern.... it should be automatic......

Mac

RoundTower

Max didn't you post about how you felt hitting and running was best for you if you got too deepstacked. Why don't the same arguments apply there? After all if a full stack is good a double stack can only be better.

Macspower

RoundTower wrote:

Max didn't you post about how you felt hitting and running was best for you if you got too deepstacked. Why don't the same arguments apply there? After all if a full stack is good a double stack can only be better.

not quite.... what I did say is that when I get to 300bbs I generally blow up and don't play as well this deep.... If I'm covering everyone I often check out... if there is another big stack and I have position I like to play.....

I would never play with less then the max buy in though.....

Mac

Imposter

Ok i've a question for everyone that says they sit with the max. You are playing 1/2. There is no max buy-in. How much do you buy-in for?

Now if you say "enough to cover everyone on the table", what if one guy has 1m in front of him?

How much of a bankroll would you need to play this game (generally without the 1m guy every week)?

sikes

what has this got to do with your reasoning for not topping up?

If you are the best player or have an edge on the big stack, you cover him if your BR allows it. As for your BR ,it depends on how big the 1/2 game plays.

Imposter

sikes wrote:

what has this got to do with your reasoning for not topping up?

Absolutely nothing. The question was asked about live cash and answers were given saying there was no max in the Dublin games. I just want to see how consistent some people are with their always top up to the max theories! I'm sure max buy-in games must exist in Ireland!

If you are the best player or have an edge on the big stack, you cover him if your BR allows it. As for your BR ,it depends on how big the 1/2 game plays.

This is why there is a max online. It is to stop people sitting down with huge stacks.

There is no way a meta game concern is worth anywhere close to 20-40BBs.

If everyone at my table had big stacks and obviously knew what they were doing i'd leave the table but if I had to play against them I would obviously top up but not for small amounts (say <10BB). In more normal circumstances such 'meta game concerns' is worth a lot of money imo. It seems to me that it's far easier to win a medium sized pot when you have a 70BB stack compared to a 100BB+ stack.

The amount of times you get it all-in against the big stack and win thereby not winning as much as possible from the big stack is counterbalanced by the times you get it all-in and lose as well as the meta game concerns as you describe them. If it's a case of not getting it in until you have the nuts then I think these meta game concerns are a lot more important than you think.

Washout

IId rather not reload when Im feeling tilty.

I feel the shorter stack i have the tighter ill play to help me get over the hump of tilt.

robinlacey

deliberately not topping up is absolutely crazy.

think about it this way,your winrate as a good player in a midstakes game online is roughly 10bb/100hands.

so if you drop to a 90 bb stack and hit your set and get your whole stack in the middle,you have missed out on an extra 10bbs you would have had if you had topped up.

now you have to sit at the table for another hour to earn back the money you lost by not topping up.imagine how many hours you waste making up for this mistake if you routinely play with a 60-90 bb stack.

the only time i don't top up is if i'm taking a one buyin pop at a game i'm not bankrolled for with a huge fish in it or something,otherwise i try to do it as often as possible.

metagame considerations don't even enter into it,this is like saying i play badly some sessions so that they won't know i'm a good player!

Imposter

I'm still not so sure it's as clear cut as everyone makes out here.

Robin i'd be very interested in your answers to these questions?
How many times (%) do you win when you put all your chips in the middle?
How often do you get your whole stack (or 100+ BB's) in the middle?
How many BB/100 can you win with these metagame considerations?

What exactly are we talking about here with metagame considerations? Where/how do we make money with metagame considerations?

I think using our image from our first few losing hands can easily be worth 5BB's/100 for however long it takes for our opponents to cop on to how we kinda really play (I'm talking 0-50 hands here no more - usually 10-20). Topping up loses us that against any player that's paying attention.

I would also imagine that the all-in win rate should be something like 55/45 or at best 60/40 for someone. So then if we are 20BB's down on our stack that 60/40 means we win 4BB. At 55/45 we win 2BB's over the long run.

If you only ever get it all-in with the nuts then you have a different problem.

sikes

Imposter wrote:

The amount of times you get it all-in against the big stack and win thereby not winning as much as possible from the big stack is counterbalanced by the times you get it all-in and lose as well as the meta game concerns as you describe them. If it's a case of not getting it in until you have the nuts then I think these meta game concerns are a lot more important than you think.

no, i think you will find its the other way around, if you are a winning player.

Imposter

sikes wrote:

no, i think you will find its the other way around, if you are a winning player.

So you win 100% of your all-ins (or 100+BB's in the middle)?
If not humour me and give me an approximate number.

sikes

Imposter wrote:

So you win 100% of your all-ins (or 100+BB's in the middle)?
If not humour me and give me an approximate number.

Yeah, becuase thats what my post implies. Isn't it?

Im not sure what my all in winning % is, and its probably not a particularily relevant number to look at. But suffice to say I have an edge, by reducing the amount im losing, im reducuing the amount im winning, and i win more than I lose.

robinlacey

imposter i think you're getting side tracked here - it doesn't matter if you only get all in against someone who covers you and win once a week,if you only have 80bbs when that happens you've just wasted two hours of your life (sklansky hours that is!)

it doesn't matter how often you get all in,if you are a winning you want to have as many chips as possible the times you do. i really don't think players are ever going to play differently enough against you when they see that you don't top up to make up for the chips you lose by not having a full stack...

remember that in poker a huge percentage of your profit comes from a very small percentage of your hands-most hands you lose a little bit of money on while you are killing time till you get a hand you can make it all back and then some with,when this happens i want to have as many chips as possible.

robinlacey

incidentally given how agressive games are these days i end up all in for full stacks all the time,but even if this were not the case my point would still stand.

Imposter

sikes wrote:

Yeah, becuase thats what my post implies. Isn't it?

Im not sure what my all in winning % is, and its probably not a particularily relevant number to look at. But suffice to say I have an edge, by reducing the amount im losing, im reducuing the amount im winning, and i win more than I lose.

Here I am not trying to fight with you just for the sake of it, but I really think there is an advantage to not reloading. Everyone here is basically saying that playinng an 80BB stack means you are losing 20BB's each time you get it all-in and win but they are forgeting about the times they are losing. So maybe you are losing 4/8/x BB's by not reloading but not 20 (on average of course).

Similarly I think there are some BB's to be picked up by using your image when a player really doesn't know enough about you but pigeonholes you because of some hands you have lost based on the info he has in how you lost them. Remember I always buy in initially for the max.

If someone could answer with some semi real numbers then the discussion might get interesting.

sikes

Imposter wrote:

Here I am not trying to fight with you just for the sake of it,

You are trying to fight me?!

Imposter wrote:

but I really think there is an advantage to not reloading. Everyone here is basically saying that playinng an 80BB stack means you are losing 20BB's each time you get it all-in and win but they are forgeting about the times they are losing. So maybe you are losing 4/8/x BB's by not reloading but not 20 (on average of course).

Similarly I think there are some BB's to be picked up by using your image when a player really doesn't know enough about you but pigeonholes you because of some hands you have lost based on the info he has in how you lost them. Remember I always buy in initially for the max.

If someone could answer with some semi real numbers then the discussion might get interesting.

Well no one agrees with you but if you get the relevant numbers, whatever they might be, and post them, and give your analysis as to why i should sit with 2/3 stack in the hope that an obvservant player will think im a fish and will try and get into pots with me.

You'd be better just blind tripple barrelling someone from the off and then topping up. Now theres no doubt your image is set, at least against that guy, and sometimes you will suck out against him, or he will fold.

cardshark202

So you don't reload to the full buyin because you lose the majority of the time that you get it all in when you're playing 100BBs? This is really silly.

Imposter

cardshark202 wrote:

So you don't reload to the full buyin because you lose the majority of the time that you get it all in when you're playing 100BBs? This is really silly.

Who said that?

cardshark202

Imposter wrote:

Who said that?

You have definitely implied that on several occasions

Imposter

cardshark202 wrote:

You have definitely implied that on several occasions

Eh no, I said that you will win more than you lose but you winrate won't be the 20BB's or whatever was given as an example as those people forgot that they occasionally lose an all-in. We're talking winning players here so it is assumed they win more than they lose so saying the opposite would indeed be silly.

sikes

Basically you want to sit on a table you have an edge on with a 60BB stack becuase you have a greater earning power than with a 100BB soley because you may have an image of being a fish becuase you didnt top up.

Ace2007

Do many of you players do this in live cash games?

phantom_lord

Imposter wrote:

It seems to me that it's far easier to win a medium sized pot when you have a 70BB stack compared to a 100BB+ stack.

why?

this seems your only argument to why not topping up is good.

personally I've always found it easier to stack people with less than full stacks as they've committed a much bigger % of their stack and generally just shove the rest in whereas a bigger stack would fold.

The amount of times you get it all-in against the big stack and win thereby not winning as much as possible from the big stack is counterbalanced by the times you get it all-in and lose as well as the meta game concerns as you describe them.

i dunno about you but I win a far bigger % of the times I get it all in than i lose.

Imposter

sikes wrote:

Basically you want to sit on a table you have an edge on with a 60BB stack becuase you have a greater earning power than with a 100BB soley because you may have an image of being a fish becuase you didnt top up.

60BB is very borderline for me to top back up again. 80 would be a better example. I would have the image I'd have because of how I lost my money to get to a 80BB stack not because of not topping up. Topping up would tell someone that I understand some concepts that would imply losing this pot like this is not the norm.

phantom lord wrote:

i dunno about you but I win a far bigger % of the times I get it all in than i lose.

How much? You think 95/5, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, 55/45?

An example of a medium sized pot would be one where I would use their image of me to get an extra bet on the turn or maybe on the flop out of someone where if I had topped up then they might give me credit for a hand and folded. I guess that's very unspecific but I find there are a few situations and a few types of players that I get more bets out of after losing 1 or more early pots where they could have an image of me that is not the one they will have after 100+ hands. I think topping up there might set off some warning signals and they'd act more correctly.

Anyways without numbers I guess this argument is going nowhere and these numbers aren't so easy to find.

I guess another way of looking at it is to ask yourself how do you play against someone who you have virtually no hands from and who has lost some early pots in ways that are fishlike or ways that you think are exploitable. Does you immediately change how you play against them or do you treat everyone as being the norm until you have more than 50/100X amount of hands against them?

phantom_lord

Imposter wrote:

How much? You think 95/5, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, 55/45?

I just happened to be looking through my session from last night before reading this post. it's only 2k hands, but I had 5 pots where i won 45bb+, one losing one was 38bbs, next 35bbs, and the rest much less.

if i had only 80big blinds in each one i would have lost out on 32bb in the winning pots and saved nothing in the smaller ones, which would have dropped my wr by 1.36bbs/100.

so at 14bbs/100 last night i would have won almost 10% less by not reloading!

of course it's a small sample size and i may not have needed to reload prior to those hands, but it still shows being topped up is important.

An example of a medium sized pot would be one where I would use their image of me to get an extra bet on the turn or maybe on the flop out of someone where if I had topped up then they might give me credit for a hand and folded. I guess that's very unspecific but I find there are a few situations and a few types of players that I get more bets out of after losing 1 or more early pots where they could have an image of me that is not the one they will have after 100+ hands. I think topping up there might set off some warning signals and they'd act more correctly.

Anyways without numbers I guess this argument is going nowhere and these numbers aren't so easy to find.

I guess another way of looking at it is to ask yourself how do you play against someone who you have virtually no hands from and who has lost some early pots in ways that are fishlike or ways that you think are exploitable. Does you immediately change how you play against them or do you treat everyone as being the norm until you have more than 50/100X amount of hands against them?

I can't see the logic in this. I'd never look at someone's stack as being only 80bbs and call an extra bet or w/e.

if they were an unknown playing badly yeah I'm gonna play a bit differently against them, but i'd never think "hey he didn't top up he's a fish" or the reverse.

tbh i'd never even know if someone topped up or not, i'm not gonna notice playing 8 tables and doubt too many other people would either. in a way you could argue if people are observant enough to pay attention to your reloading frequencies they would be aware of your general play and would not be so easily fooled into thinking your a fish!

anyway you're only an unknown for a relatively short amount of hands, so i really can't agree that there's an image benefit.