The Buy-In Amount

A tale that has been passed on from generation to generation, but whose origin and veracity is unknown, is called an "urban legend." An example is the young couple who parked on a lovers lane, heard a strange noise, and drove off. When they got home, they found a metal claw-hand stuck in their door handle. I first heard that story in the late '50s, and it still survives.

Poker has its own "urban legends." One of them goes like this (there actually are several different versions): A total stranger comes into the cardroom and takes a seat at a $10-$20 poker table. He is willing to spend a few hundred dollars to "have some fun," and is attracted to this game because the buy-in is set at only $100. (A sign over the poker table publicizes this amount.) He is obviously a rookie who knows little about the game. He enters lots of pots, with the expected result for this method of play. He often runs out of chips, pulls out more money, and buys back in $100 at a time. (Some versions of the story have him allowed one short buy for each full buy, which he finds attractive.) The fellow buys in 18 times, finally walks away broke, and is never seen again. This event can be perceived by the cardroom employees as good for poker, because Santa has donated a windfall of money to the cardroom regulars. This poker urban legend is often given by floorpeople as the reason the buy-in amount to each game should be kept very low. But what is good for the local players is not necessarily what is good for poker in general.

I do not have a quarrel with small Las Vegas cardrooms having a game using a $20 buy-in when it really ought to be a higher amount. They want a $20 buy-in game where you can park your spouse cheaply while you lose big-time in the pit, and they need that game to be a certain size so the game can be raked what it costs to spread it. But I strongly object to the "cheap buy-in" philosophy being extended right up the ladder to every game in the house. Having a low buy-in amount is particularly out of place in a cardroom that has a wide range of games and stakes, because there is a game the right size for a player's bankroll and abilities, but the player is enticed by a bigger game than is suitable for him.

The buy-in amount ought to give a player a decent picture of what it takes to sit in a particular game for a little while. One should be able to play a couple of fair-sized pots on a buy-in. For hold'em, a fair-sized pot means something like a bet and raise preflop, a bet and raise on the flop, and three big bets on the last two rounds. That is five big bets per hand (10 for two hands). That is why I think a total of 10 times the upper limit constitutes a reasonable buy-in amount. For a $10-$20 game using $5-$10 blinds, this would be a $200 buy-in as the minimum that should be used. Anything less than 20 times the big blind for the minimum buy-in is in my opinion deceptive, giving a false idea of how much money is an adequate amount to play on. This is not good for poker, even if it allows the local top dogs to have a bone thrown to them once in a while. Most poker players are honest, up-front people. We are willing to win money in an aboveboard manner, but do not want to make a hustle out of it.

For a pot-limit or no-limit game, the buy-in has a much greater influence over the character of play than it does for a limit game. It controls the amount of the swing that is won and lost in big pots, because the entire amount of the buy-in is in action. The ratio of stack size to the big blind determines in large measure what hands you build and how you build them.

For those of us who play no-limit hold'em for a living, our mortal enemy is the short stack. A shortstop (a player with little money) leans real hard on the blind money. A small pot to us is a big pot to him. He raises pots on far weaker hands than the bigger stacks, protected by the fact that the raise puts him all in. We often have to face a large raise, and fold hands that have the potential for doubling through an opponent and dragging down a humongous pot. It's no fun folding a moderately small pair and seeing that you would have flopped a set and won a few grand. A shortstop is bad for the game, and any house rule that produces shortstops is resented. I am talking about the house setting an absurdly low buy-in amount, or allowing one short buy for each full buy. This type of rule takes bread out of our mouths, and makes the game less enjoyable, as well.

What should the minimum buy-in be for no-limit hold'em? In my opinion, it should be at least 40 times the big blind. This is $200 in a $5-to-go game, $400 in a $10-to-go game, and $1,000 in a $25-to-go game. Anything less results in a bunch of shortstops who screw up the action. A buy-in that is too low is also deceiving the inexperienced player as to how much money is needed to play the game in a reasonable manner.

These days, we see a new wrinkle that is used on a number of Internet sites that spread no-limit hold'em. A maximum buy-in amount is also set. Perhaps you are expecting that I am going to preach against any device that stops the game from getting bigger. Not so. I like the maximum buy-in rule. Look at some of its advantages. First, it stops some high roller from sitting down, pulling out a big wad, and beating you in one pot out of all the money you have managed to win in a day's work. Second, it gives the new player an idea of who is a winner in the game and who is a loser. We know that how a player stands can be a guide to how he plays. Third, it deters the big winners from playing lockup with the money they have won because they fear it all being at risk. A portion of that money is now free and clear from most of the players, so the winners do not hit and run as much. A good figure for the maximum buy-in is 100 times the big blind.

The minimum (and maximum) buy-in set for a game affects the play. It also helps steer a player to the stakes most suitable for him. The buy-in amount specified for its games is an important marketing tool for a cardroom – and in my opinion says something about its philosophy. Let's cut out the use of artificially low buy-ins for middle-limit and bigger games; it is bad for poker.