Max, Min or in the middle?

GoodReads

What do you find is the best amount to take into cash tables?

I use to always take in the max amount but found lately that if start the table with min buy-in people tend to think your a tighter player and bluff more

scotty77

max is the only way.

shortstacking really reduces your equity.

there are some top players tho who shortstack for 40bb, but they understand proper shortstacking strategy so it is +ev for them. 

silentbob

I don't really think there's a right or wrong answer to this, it's all about personal preference.

For me, mostly I'll sit down with a medium stack but occasionally will sit down with max/min depending on my mood

OMahonyO

Unless you have everyone covered when u buy in with a medium stack, you may as well move down stakes and buy in full.  Generally, if you dont want to buy in full, its coz ur worried about risking that amount, which also means you should move down.

Like scotty says, there are some very successful shortstackers at all levels but its a different strategy

RickyVilla

Buy in full every time. Like Scott says maximise your equity.

pokerwill

yeh always buy in max, just make sure u have a good enuf bank roll and are happy to buy in for the full amount at ur given stake.

cash games can become a grind tho so you could always challenge yourself with a shorter stack to try and improve different aspects of your strategy!

Sky_Dave

I'm actually one of those who says it depends. 

If you think you have a skill edge then you buy in for the max. If you think you're middle of the field, try and have those players you think are weak covered and try to have less than the strong players. If you're taking a shot or feel that you're not as good as the other players at the table, then buying in short ('going Scandie', as the hacks like to call it) isn't such a bad ploy - keeps your loses down to a minimum.

Of course, what Scott says is correct, so if you're buying in short you're losing equity. The upside is you're exposing less of your bankroll. In one hand, out of the other.

An interesting example of this was Peter Eastgate in the last season of High Stakes Poker. We interviewed him for WPT Poker magazine and asked him about the experience of playing with the likes of Brunson, Greenstein and Dwan and he made a really interesting point. He didn't do too well and criticized the amount he bought in for: basically everyone bought in for $250k with the exception of Tom Dwan and himself, who both bought in for $500k. He argued that it was stupid to match the player he thought was best, and reckons he should have gone in with $250k. 

As an idea for things to add to the site, I'm going to try and encourage players to post their thoughts on something like this in the form of a mini-article. From that, we'll put together a stickie thread of all the best strategy posts to act as a knowledge base. Sound like an idea you guys would be up for? I know they do similar things on a couple of other sites and I don't see why we don't do the same here

GoodReads

But say im on small blinds and i take in £10 (the max) and everyones sitting there with £1.60, i get no calls if i raise as they are worried im able to bust them, do i take in over my bankroll management but not bet anymore than 5/10%?

Oh yeah and why have we got no 10seater 4/8p cash tables? im sure they would be popular

Draig

If you got them covered with 50% go with it, but generally always go with max amount, if going with max amount is a decision for you, your at the wrong level.

BigBluster

I rarely play cash, but surely it makes sense to buy-in for the most money anyone has at the table?

2 reasons:
If you hit a monster, surely you want the chance to win the maximum?
At the other end, why buy in for £100 if everyone else has £20? Why give those with £20 a shot at your ton?