Anything to be said for buying in short?

corblimey

I'm introducing a few of my friends to the joy of cash poker, and the target game is a Texas 1/2. The min buy in is e50, and one of them is thinking about just sitting down with that amount. His reasoning being that he doesn't want to go broke. There are so many things wrong in my mind with buying in short, you can't get rid of calling stations, you won't get full value for your hands, etc etc and if losing e50 means you're broke then you shouldn't be playing 1/2, but he's adamant.

Is there any justification for buying in short?

Mr.Plough

when you cant afford to sit down with more, then its justified. assuming hes not going to play online. he'll lose it though

bohsman

Get him to buy into 25c50c with $50 instead.

Killme00

You see it all the time at the weekend, guys go out for a few drinks and come in to play poker and buy in for 50 quid. I thinks its fair enough, they arent doing it to win stacks of cash, just to have a game of poker and talk sheit for a while. The rarely leave with their buyin intact and will never win longterm but for them thats ok, its only 50 quid and a game of poker.

Chucky the tree

corblimey wrote:

Is there any justification for buying in short?

If he has any interesting in learning poker he shouldnt buy in short. By the sounds of him, he'll lose his $50 fairly quickly anyway.

Ste05

If he's adament he wants to play and can't afford to lose more than €50, then fire away, but he will almost definitely lose it.

He really shouldn't be playing anything like 1/2 if he can't afford to sit down with more than €50, just take it to the roulette table and get some free drinks while he's at it and then hope to get lucky, he'll win more there if he gets lucky than he will at the poker table.

Van Dice

corblimey wrote:

you can't get rid of calling stations

I've read/heard this line a lot, and it's such a terrible understanding of poker

BarrierReef

With regards to live cash, I don't think you can sit down with the min and be a winner, of course you could win a couple of early hands etc...

Online however I have seen some very effictive shortstack players. But in order for this to work they need to play a very LAG game and not be afraid to get it in when they have a slight edge or are getting great pot odds.

Chris Fergusson is currently trying to turn 0 into 10k and I seen him play 5 tables of 2/4 on tilt with only the 80min buyin. Obviously he has a massive edge in these games, so why would he not buy in full for 1 or 2 tables instead of playing short in 5 ?

ianmc38

I'd recommend just buying in at 50NL instead with a full tank

CaptainNemo

Why would you want to get rid of calling stations?

corblimey

Van Dice wrote:

I've read/heard this line a lot, and it's such a terrible understanding of poker

off topic, but why?

Van Dice

corblimey wrote:

off topic, but why?

Why exactly do you think you need to bluff calling stations out of pots?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

corblimey

Van Dice wrote:

Why exactly do you think you need to bluff calling stations out of pots?

Who said anything about bluffing? I'm talking about a situation where you can only bet a small amount after flopping a good hand cos that's all you have left. A station may call a tenner with a J-high ("gettin' value") but may not call a e50 bet in the same situation. That is all. I don't think it's displays "a terrible understanding of poker" at all.

Ste05

corblimey wrote:

off topic, but why?

There's no point trying to bluff a calling station, he'll do what he does best ... Call ... so you need to adjust your game knowing what he'll do, i.e. Call. So expect him to call when you bet, therefore, bet into him if you have a hand and don't if you have nothing.

You won't make someone else change their game, you need to change your game to adapt to the players.

Van Dice

corblimey wrote:

There are so many things wrong in my mind with buying in short, you can't get rid of calling stations

Maybe just crossed wires. Your original line which I quoted as displaying a bad understanding of poker, I took to mean that with a shorter stack, you can't bet calling stations out of pots. Generally the only reason you would want to bet someone out of a pot is if you are bluffing. With a strong hand, you obviously don't want to get rid of calling stations.

corblimey wrote:

Who said anything about bluffing? I'm talking about a situation where you can only bet a small amount after flopping a good hand cos that's all you have left. A station will call a tenner with a J-high ("gettin' value") but may not call a e50 bet in the same situation. That is all. I don't think it's displays "a terrible understanding of poker" at all.

Why on earth would you want him to fold J-high?


Anyway my point that those people who think they need to bluff calling stations don't understand poker properly is perfectly valid. It's along the same lines as people who think it's easier to play better players 'cos you can get them to fold' being generally retarded.

phantom_lord

Why on earth would you want him to fold J-high?

cause they always suck out!

Ace2007

maybe he should use the €50 on buying a few poker books... i wish i had of done that first.......

meathman 007

lol, would make an interesting research project - id say on average, if a person was to buy a few poker books before playing a lot of poker for money, they would save around 1000 euro....

Ace2007

meathman 007 wrote:

lol, would make an interesting research project - id say on average, if a person was to buy a few poker books before playing a lot of poker for money, they would save around 1000 euro....

i think that it was the most sensible commnet i've made on boards and best piece of advice i've given...

meathman 007

lol, its advice that nobody will ever listen to, nobody ever reads the instructions when they get a new computer, tv etc etc..... its only when you lost some money that the idea of learning the theories behind the game sounds like a good idea.....

phantom_lord

Ace2007 wrote:

i think that it was the most sensible commnet i've made on boards and best piece of advice i've given...

lol, i was actually thinking that after i read it.

hotspur

meathman 007 wrote:

lol, its advice that nobody will ever listen to, nobody ever reads the instructions when they get a new computer, tv etc etc..... its only when you lost some money that the idea of learning the theories behind the game sounds like a good idea.....

Speak for yourself, I and all my friends who took the game up seriously read every book that was out there when we started. I guess it's a gambler - game player discrepancy. Not that that's the only discrepancy between the types of people who approach it in each way, but I'm being diplomatic

Ste05

It's actually a good point, loads of my friends have no interest whatsoever in learning how to play the game, and it's just gambling for them, just like a day at the dogs or horses and they're happy with that, I've completely given up even trying to educate them.

Whereas myself, and I'm sure most people here, take a completely different view.