Jason Somerville quote:- "Why should we buy in with 100 big blinds"?

Posted by

Posted by posted in Gen. Poker

Jason Somerville quote:- "Why should we buy in with 100 big blinds"?

I was watching Jason Somerville during the Sunday Million and he briefly spoke about cash games.

He recommended not to buyin at a cash table for 100 big blinds. ( I am pretty sure he would personally but more towards lower stakes & lower quality players)

This is not an exact quote but he said something like, "Who decided that 100 big blinds was the correct amount to sit at table with, "Who said that? Some random guy 30-40 years ago and now its the norm". I think I remember he said he would suggest something around 75bb.

It actually got me thinking, sitting down with 65-75% big blinds has great advantages like: if your not the best player at the table you would not lose as much. It also makes your game play easier as there are less spots for you to make mistakes in, and it provides you with more buyins to take shots at the next level.

Obvious disadvantage is if you are the best player at the table you want to extract the most money from your opponent.

So my question is, is this maybe a closer optimal strategy and what makes 100bb the norm?

16 Comments

Loading 16 Comments...

So_Nitty 9 years, 10 months ago

I try and play at tables where I am competitive and would always want to have the max buy in if it is 100 BB. I think my favourite stack level is 200-300 BB. It gives you a clear advantage over the table even if you have to be a little careful. You also have good fold equity on semi-bluffs when you have most people covered. I always auto top up to the max. Playing short stacked brings in another type of strategy but I'd rather build from 100BB

Riverbanged 9 years, 9 months ago

If your playing to win money and not purely recreationally, having the max buy in (usually 100bb) means that you have the maximum amount of money to cover opponents so that you win bigger pots and win more on average.

Samu Patronen 9 years, 9 months ago

100bb is norm because it's the highest amount you can buy-in, and you should always have that (unless you're some kind of smaller stack specialist), because big stack allows you to have a bigger edge. You should not sit at the table if you think that you don't have the edge.

"Yes, but what if I'm already playing very small stakes?"

In this case your goal is not to win money. Your goal is to learn how to play poker. And with 100bb you learn to play with 100bb, which allows you to have a big edge when you actually get good and you move up.

Also small stack limits your options a lot, which is not good for your overall improvement as a poker player. I would suggest to always buy-in with 100bb, unless you really want to specialise to shortstack play.

Don't take twitch poker streamers too seriously, they're not THAT good of a players (compared to RIO coaches for example). Twitch is for entertainment mostly, RIO is for serious learning.

Edit. Short stack strategy is a nice way to start your poker career though. I did that myself. But you should start big stack strategy as soon as possible, because of the reasons above AND because of the fact that most learning material is for 100bb+ deep.

Zyzz 9 years, 9 months ago

It actually got me thinking, sitting down with 65-75% big blinds has great advantages like: if your not the best player at the table you would not lose as much.

i don't think think you should sit down with 65-75% big blinds so that you won't lose as much if you don't think your good enough for the table then play a different table where you are good enough

So_Nitty 9 years, 9 months ago

Short stackers can be hard to play against if they start jamming with weak made hands but denying you odds to draw to anything

Matt Percival 9 years, 9 months ago

Anything over 100bb would create worse games for NL I'd imagine, simply because being deeper would result in an even more "pot-control" strategy in more spots. 100bb just seems like the sweet spot for an average buy-in, for no-limit at least.

MrSneeze 9 years, 9 months ago

Let's say you are an experienced MTT player that also plays cash games. You play against a lineup of CG regs (and maybe a short stack fish) ; they have much more experience as you do 100bb deep. Sitting 40bb deep probably increases your potential edge tremendously, as most cash game players don't play well at this stack size.

As for sitting above 100bb, let's say in a live setting with very good players very deep and very bad players shallower, well it's a decision that depends on your level of confidence / position at the table / exposition of your roll, etc. If you have two top regs at your direct left with 400bbs and two fishes with 70bb on your right, and you choose to sit with a stack covering everyone while you're not as good as the two top regs... well you're the fish my friend.

I often sit with 70bbs in live games where I don't know anyone. On splashy tables I'd sometimes sit with 125bbs because most of my experience comes from online, and on many live tables 125bbs 'feels' like 100bbs online (merely because preflop raises are usually a bit bigger, pots get bloated a bit more). Once I have more infos, I can bring my 500bbs if I want to.

Rauin 9 years, 8 months ago

It is ok to buy in 70bb on your situation, as long as you admit the reason is YOU ARE NOT A PRO ON CASH GAMES

E4Bandit 9 years, 8 months ago

A friend of mine always buys in for 75-80% of the max. I always wondered, but never asked, so I texted him when I saw this. Here is his response:

"Whenever you watch a video on Grinderschool or any other poker training website, the instructors always target players who have less than a full stack saying they are usually fish. I buy in for less to look like a fish because I crush my current stakes. I get a lot more play if I buy in for less and am not auto topped off. People also call more when they shouldn't if they have me covered because I can't "stack" them. I just get more money."

I do know he table selects aggressively as well, so that probably doesn't hurt. He plays at 100NL.

E4Bandit 9 years, 8 months ago

Not your traditional short stack buying in for the minimum (usually what, 30 BB?). He buys in with around 80 instead of 100.

If he stacks someone, he doesn't leave or rathole. Instead he bullies with his larger stack. His buy in strategy is moreso to target regs.

midori 9 years, 8 months ago

100bb is the norm because of the decimal system.. If we used a hexadecimal system instead, or had 16 digits instead of 10 on our hands, I'm sure the norm would have been a different number.

EasyPeasey 9 years, 8 months ago

There's an incredible amount of merit, especially live, and especially in games with good loose aggressive players to buying in short if you are not one of the better players at the table. Until the end of time in NL if you actually play a short stack reasonably well you will be able to make a somewhat comfortable living in my opinion doing this. I have been grinding midstakes NL in Vegas for over two years now and see it all the time. I think Jason was broadly speaking of the stigma attached to what you 'need' to buy in for, and pointing out that you don't have to do something just because someone tells you to (many of his viewers are recs/penny players/etc).

However true the above may be, I find Samu's post to both be factually accurate, and in line with my thoughts on the opinion side of things. If you are a great poker player, or you want to be a great poker player, you should play with the maximum chips allotted in almost every conceivable scenario.

I think it's pretty ho hum online because industry standards just don't vary and heaps of stakes are available, but the discussion about what buy-in limits should be at each stake in live poker rooms is always interesting to me. I play the majority of my poker in Vegas at 5/10NL with an uncapped buy-in where the minimum is only $500. Sometimes I play in the 5/10 $1500 max, the same max buy in as my favorite $2/$5 game in town. They all have pros and cons in different lineups, generally speaking the $1500 max $5/$10 is my least favorite game in town but it's often a lot easier for someone to lose $1500 3x than $4500 once (solely in terms of how tight they will play, not the obvious it's harder to get in a $4500 pot) and sometimes I find when a few of us regs are sitting with $5k to $20k it discourages some recs from bringing their $1k or they buy in with $3k-$4k once and play much tighter than they otherwise would.

Anyways end tangent, there might be some rich people playing short or capped games online, but outside that exception (and many of them are probably successful in learning deep poker strat too) I am of the opinion that the majority of wealthy people in this game are great at playing deep stacked poker and will always buy in for max/cover in uncapped games if their bankroll allows it.

Be the first to add a comment

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy