To Max Buy-in Or Not To Max Buy-in

While this blog has steadily been a place to post my poker exploits at different cash games during the past year, I would like to step out of my comfort zone a little bit and discuss buy-in strategy.

I stumbled upon a forum discussion a few weeks back about the perspective of buying into a game with less than the maximum allowable amount. For the most part everyone was against such a thing and shunned those who thought otherwise. The two most common viewpoints were that not buying in with the full amount meant you were either too scared to lose the money and therefore shouldn’t be playing at the dollar level you have chosen or having less than the maximum would cost you money when you came to an all-in moment during the game. There is certainly some validity to these arguments, but I just don’t think that it can apply to every person in every game that chooses to gamble for an amount less than the maximum allowed.

Take for example the Weatherford game I participate in once a month. Among those who manage the $1-2 Hold’em game, they have never stated that a maximum or minimum amount is required to get in the game, however, 95 percent of the players put up $100 each time chips are needed. There is one guy who buys-in for $200 at the beginning of the night, but he is the only one who prefers that option. To start with $100 at a $1-2 game in most casinos you are getting into the game for the minimum amount allowed and most everyone who does so is marked among the others at the table as a potential ATM. Yet, in Weatherford this is the norm.

Players who adhere to the principle of maximum buy-ins would frown upon not putting down more than everyone else at the table because it limits the amount of bullying you could do toward the other players. I disagree with this notion because an all-in from your $100 is the same as $200 or even $500 when your opponent has only $100. With everyone holding the same amount of money there is no strategic advantage or disadvantage with having more money.

One could argue that should you lose the all-in hand with a $100 buy-in you are now broke whereas having $200 is going to keep you afloat with $100. My line of reasoning against that mentality is if you are someone who wants to have more than everyone at the table anyway, you are going to put in another $100 when you have $100 in order to get back to the $200 mark. Either way you are spending the $100 again.

Let’s take a look at normal circumstances, such as a casino, where $200 is the maximum and $100 is the minimum. Regarding the “too scared to play at this level” mentality, in most cases the $1-2 no-limit game is the lowest stakes available. If a college kid comes to play at the casino and only wants to spend two or three hundred for the night, such was the case many times in my collegiate poker career, in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable to have multiple buy-ins of the minimum to make his or her experience last longer should the worst happen. If the casino offered $0.50-1 stakes and the max buy-in was $100, then maybe the college kids and similar types of players would be content to expose more of their bankroll at that level, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are scared to lose the money. It simply could be they want the experience to last longer.

Looking at the other dominant belief about minimum buy-ins is missing out on lost money in an all-in situation. Some people’s style of play, like my own, is not necessarily to rush into an all-in situation. They way many folks talk about poker is they are constantly hoping for all-in moments, ignoring the strategy of winning numerous small- and medium-sized pots to build a bankroll. It is as if in these players’ minds, the only way to win money at Texas Hold’em is to push all-in and get lucky. Is television to blame for this line of thinking when the majority of tournaments seen for poker are final tables that have become an all-in free-for-all extravaganza? Thanks World Poker Tour.

By starting with an amount of money less than the maximum, who is to say that when an all-in moment comes around you have not already been playing for several hours and have taken down multiple pots that helped put your chip stack at more than a majority of your table opponents.

I personally do not buy-in for the minimum amount, excluding the Weatherford game, because I do feel hampered by being effectively short-stacked with only $100 at a $1-2 game, but I don’t necessarily buy in for the full $200 every time either. Sometimes I get in for $150 and other times I put down $180. But I certainly wouldn’t berate someone for believing that a minimum buy-in wasn’t the way to go in certain situations. It is your money. Do what you desire with it.