Buying in short

[LeeG]

A friend of mine recently started playing online. We got to talking about bank rolls and what level to play at.

He is convinced that it is more profitable to buy in short on a higher limit table than it is to buy in full at a lower limit. IE, buy in $80 on a NL200 table vs BI $100 on a NL100 table.

I am pretty sure this wouldn't work at full ring, but perhaps at 6max.

Any thoughts here?

[miaowmiaowchowface]

so this is how the scums start out...

[Yozman]

if you have no post flop skill and just try and shove premium hands pre flop i guess it is more profitable

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

There are inherent advantages to having a short stack, as it makes many hands (top pair) easier to play, and prevents larger stacks from getting the proper implied odds they need to play certain hands (small pairs, suited connectors). With a short-stack, there is a reasonably good, very exploitive strategy for dealing with larger stacks, but it is excruciatingly boring to play IMO.

NL becomes a very mechanical, almost limit-like game when effective stacks are very short. Case in point: Turbo SnG's.

[KLz]

IMHO playing shortstack is less profitable than fullstack. Having a short stack doesnt allow you to make the most of good hands and often forces you to go all in with scrap...

[jimmer]

Your friend will only need to get 'the nuts' a few times to realise why playing small stacked is a bad idea.

All he needs to do then is learn to play poker post flop.