100 BBs or 60 BBs buyin at micro stakes?

[Jossnaz]

Hi everyone

I see you guys saying all the time that poker starts to get interesting after 100 BBs.
Well, i actually wonder why? Of what kind of a situation are you so happy to have more money?
Whats the adjustment to make when playing with full stack?
I mean yes - premium hands like sets, straights and flushes are nice to play with, but one may be very well facing a higher hand after someone calls off his full stack - and are you really willing to fold your set, king high flush or that idiotend straight after you've put lots of money in the pot?

here a hand where (i hope for him) he obviously could have found a fold on the river

i sit at a 25$ NL 6max table with ~15$
villain has 25$



check
I raise
call

pot 2.75
check
i bet 2
call

turn pot ~7
check
i bet 5
call

river pot 16
check
i raise allin 7 bucks
villain calls with K10o

I felt like i bet every street pretty well and i wonder how to play it differently with 25$. Well maybe i'm not used to donks any more since i played too much ultra tight fullring and he wouldn't have given me any respect if i had 25 dollars... but let's just imagine I had 25 bucks and I'd have raised the river for about the same amount and he reraises me all in. What now? his betting pattern stinks to hell and I overplay 2 pairs all the time

[DoctorHandles]

6-max players are considerably better than full ring players IMO.

Instacall if you had $25 and he reraises you all in, it's not even close.

[Semillon]

The larger the effective stacks, the more money the best player in the hand has the chance to win, and just as importantly, the more money a lesser player stands to lose when they over play their hand.

Playing a shorter stack is "easier" with say top pair or two pair, because by the time you reach the river, you only have a reasonable bet left anyhow and dont have to make a decision, but you are losing lots of value when you hit your monsters.

I dont know about you, but almost all my profit comes from sets or better, im fairly close to breaking even on med sized pots.

[black_knight6]

[Jossnaz]

[Delscottio]

[k3nt]

King high flush for a full stack? Hell yeah. Every time. Unless it's a 4-flush board in which case my 1-card 2nd nuts is a lot less exciting. In those cases it depends on how the hand played out.

100 BBs is not that much to win or lose in a hand. If you feel like it is, you're playing at a level too high for your bankroll -- which is another issue entirely.

Here's a hand where I was glad to have had a full stack.

$50 NL at Bodog. I get [5d] in the BB. All fold to the SB who completes. I raise to $2 because I'm going to raise pretty much every time someone completes hu in the SB. He instacalls.

Flop pot $4. Axx with two diamonds. He bets $2, I raise to $7, he calls.
Turn pot $18 brings my flush. He checks, I bet $15, he calls.
River pot $48 is a blank. He checks, I push (less than pot obviously), he calls and flips AT no diamonds.

It doesn't even matter that I had the flush. What matters is that this guy was willing to stack off for a full stack with top pair lousy kicker on a 3-flush board -- when I had shown strength literally on every street. And this happens all the time: a lot of players are calling stations and love to call you down. (Especially in blind battles.)

If I had had only $30 behind, I would have left $20 in profit on the table. Even when you're running really well, it's tough to make much more than $20 per hour at $50 NL (playing 3 tables, the max at Bodog). So by playing short-stacked I would have left an hour's worth of profit on the table in just one hand. Not good.

[Semillon]