Should We Always Buy In Full in Cash Games?

Some players always buy in for the maximum (100BB or more) to maximize potential winnings, while others prefer shorter stacks for less variance and simpler decisions.

Do you think buying in short in cash games is a disadvantage, or can it be used as a profitable strategy?

How do you adjust your play when facing short-stackers at the table?

Does your approach change between live and online games?

If there are weaker players at the table then you should be buying in to cover there stack, if stronger players are at the table you may want to buy in short but at this point you should be considering game selection

Hey there,
ive watched sharks with short stack strategy asw. I think its really important to take notes on enemies and spectate their actions over the long run. Its not only about their starting stacks. Its their goal to bring you out of line.

I always buy in for the max. It's hard to be taken seriously when you are short.

It looks bad when yo do not buy in full. And you enter the room at a disadvantage compared to others.

I think buying in for 100bb is the way to go. It is how I was taught to play cash NLHE and gives you the right stack for playing speculative hands (and, I think, makes the game way more interesting).

Of course there is an entire short stack strategy, but I prefer having the bigger stack. Against short stacks, I usually tighten up my range and tread carefully when I don’t hit the flop. Like any game, I watch the other players at my table carefully and try to understand their tendencies so I know how to play against them.

Overall, I play cash games the same whether online or live, since my behavior is guided by the other player’s type and behavior.

I think it really depends on the player’s goals and comfort level. Buying in full definitely gives you more room to maneuver and apply pressure, especially against weaker opponents. But for some, short stacking can actually be a solid approach to reduce variance and simplify post-flop spots, particularly when multi-tabling online.

Personally, I prefer buying in full because it lets me take advantage of deeper stack dynamics and build bigger pots when I have an edge. Still, I respect those who use shorter stacks strategically — it’s a different skill set, but when done well, it can be surprisingly effective.

Doesnt make much sense to play short stacked as you limit the amount you can win from the fish

Station_Master said:

Doesnt make much sense to play short stacked as you limit the amount you can win from the fish

Click to expand...

this ^

And I want to add, I can't recall how long it's been since I've seen ANY players (in the games I play) who buyin short (or don't reload to 100bb) who are implementing an effective (good) ShortStack Strategy. I play zoom-style tables and the first thing I do when I see a shortstack is get the 'blue TAG' on him because he is letting me know he is a fish (type of fish will come after I see them play a hand or two... but guaranteed it'll be some type of fish for sure).

Years ago you'd find some players who were able to implement an effective SSS on cash games but I believe it was mostly on Full Ring tables, and back when you could 20-table. These days I never see it happening (although I don't play those tables).

Always buy in for the max, ...there is no advantage to being the short stack in a cash game, none,

if you're afraid to buy in at max, drop down levels ...and then buy in for the max there👍

in my opinion you want to maximize your winnings and also you want to learn poker everyday. When you play 100bbs+ you have more postflop possibilites, you have more possible scenarios and it improves you as a player.
When you play vs shortstackers you want to be focused more on high cards and stuck off them more often with your strong pairs, because vs short stack you have most of the time bad implied odds and also less fold equity. It means playing drawy hands isn't too good.

Short stack has a place still I think. You can move up stakes faster when buying in for 40BB. Its the way I used to play, but now after you double up you cannot leave and buyin again for 40BB so i am told.

I used to know a few very good short stack cash game players.

Always full. If one isn't confident enough to buy-in for full than he 110% needs to reconsider his game selection cause it's terrible. And if he doesn't have the money to buy-in for full than his bankroll management is terrible. Either way he's a losing player.

Cheers!!!

babyrosejr said:

Some players always buy in for the maximum (100BB or more) to maximize potential winnings, while others prefer shorter stacks for less variance and simpler decisions.

Do you think buying in short in cash games is a disadvantage, or can it be used as a profitable strategy?

How do you adjust your play when facing short-stackers at the table?

Click to expand...

In online cash games, buying in for the full 100BB or more generally offers the greatest strategic flexibility and profit potential, especially for skilled postflop players.
Short-stacking can be profitable with disciplined push-fold strategies, but it limits your ability to exploit opponents in deeper spots.
Full stacks allow for more nuanced lines, better bluffing opportunities, and deeper value extraction.
Against short-stackers, I tighten my opening ranges and avoid marginal postflop spots where their shove-or-fold dynamics reduce my edge.
Overall, full buy-ins are preferable online due to the volume of hands and the ability to leverage long-term skill advantages.

If you have done a good job of game selection and you think you have an "edge" at the table you should buyin full.

If you have done extensive work on short stacking- then buyin short.

If you don't know if you have an edge because you didnt game select, ie research the players then you shouldnt be playing.

vectored said:

If there are weaker players at the table then you should be buying in to cover there stack, if stronger players are at the table you may want to buy in short but at this point you should be considering game selection

Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with this bang on.

You can put some added pressure on other regs when you play a short stack against them but you lose out on the ability to stack fish for a full stack when they are also at the table, and as vectored said we can probably make more money game selecting than trying to implement a short stack strategy against regs we don't feel we have much edge over.

As is the case in many spots in poker, there's a lot of low hanging fruit people can work on picking first, are you hitting your RFI and 3-Bet frequencies at 100bbs as it is? Are villains making mistakes you can capitalise on? No? Then why are you at the table? Yes but you don't know how to capitalise on them? GTOWizard will help that!

Hope this helps and gives you some more stuff to think about, I think vectored summed it up well but I wanted to flush it out a little more.

EDS

It's good to buy everything so as not to enter the room at a disadvantage compared to other competitors

MK_ said:

Always buy in for the max, ...there is no advantage to being the short stack in a cash game, none,

if you're afraid to buy in at max, drop down levels ...and then buy in for the max there👍

Click to expand...

Completely agree. When your opponents see you buy in for less than the max, they are already planning a strategy to attack you...they know that there is just a small chance that you can play marginal hands...every hand you voluntarily put in chips, they will know that it is likely that you are quite strong and fold...nothing worse than having the nuts and collecting only the blinds.

babyrosejr said:

Some players always buy in for the maximum (100BB or more) to maximize potential winnings, while others prefer shorter stacks for less variance and simpler decisions.

Do you think buying in short in cash games is a disadvantage, or can it be used as a profitable strategy?

How do you adjust your play when facing short-stackers at the table?

Does your approach change between live and online games?

Click to expand...

Honestly, for cash games, you always wanna be playing deep-stacked—like, a 100 BB effective stack is the sweet spot. And yeah, you should totally use the auto-rebuy feature. The whole point is to maximize your profit when you get into a hand, preferably against another player who also has at least 100 BBs.
Playing with 50 BBs instead of 100 doesn't actually lower your variance. Variance is all about the volume of hands you play over time, not your stack size. Sure, with a 50 BB stack you lose less, but you also win way less. It's a bit of a wash, eh?
Basically, you shouldn't even sit down at a poker table if you're scared. If you're afraid to lose—and let's be real, it's gonna happen, no matter how good you are—you're better off doing something else. Wait for a time when you're ready to accept the losses as a natural part of a risky game. You gotta have the mindset that you're prepared for the downs, but your only goal is to win. You don't sit down thinking you're gonna lose, otherwise why even play, right?
The difference is when you know you're gonna lose a bunch of hands and you keep playing anyway because you understand that's part of the game. That's when you hit a pretty solid level of mental and emotional maturity and you're actually ready to handle the pressure.
Variance is gonna do its thing, for you and against you, depending on how long you play and your hand volume. So, more time and more tables means more variance, for better or for worse. Now, if I play with a 20 BB stack thinking "well, when I lose, I lose less," that just means I'm a scared player. 'Cause it's true, when I lose I only lose 20 BB, but when I win, I can only win a max of 20 BB. That makes no sense. If we've decided to take risks at a cash game, we should think positive and have that 100 BB stack ready so when we hit a big hand, we can win another 100 BB.
Thinking even bigger, the goal in cash games is to grow your stack so you can play in deeper and deeper pots: 200 BB, 300 BB, 500 BB, you name it. The whole point of poker is to take risks while being mentally and emotionally prepared to handle the swings. You can't get all tilted when variance is against you and you're losing hand after hand, and you can't get reckless and make dumb mistakes when it's on your side and you're running hot. It's all about keeping your head in the game.

Yeah, you need to have a max of chips every time for a good profit

Why it is usually better to buy in for the full amount
Maximum profit with strong hands
When you have a full stack, you can win more chips if you hit a strong hand.
More strategic options
A full stack allows you to use more lines of play: 3-bets, applying pressure on opponents, and playing deeper post-flop situations.
Opponents’ mistakes cost them more
If an opponent makes a mistake, you have the chance to win their entire stack.
Experience for higher stakes
Most serious players use a full stack, so it’s good practice for moving up in limits.
When players choose a smaller stack
Beginners sometimes play with a short stack
This reduces risk and simplifies the game (often the strategy becomes push/fold).
Short-stack strategy
Some players intentionally play with 20–40 BB to go all-in more often.
If the bankroll is small
Sometimes it’s psychologically easier for a player to risk a smaller amount. Practical rule
Optimal: sit down with 100 BB (a full buy-in).
Minimum: about 40–50 BB if you want to play more cautiously.
Conclusion
If your goal is to earn money and improve in cash games, in most cases it’s better to buy in with the full stack.

letpic said:

Yeah, you need to have a max of chips every time for a good profit

Click to expand...

I agree and also good idea to top up when you drop under 100bb,

Buying in short is definitely a disadvantage when you are competent, because a deeper stack allows you to extract way more value, which is exactly what poker is about. You get to build bigger pots and get paid off properly when you hit. Short stacking basically takes those spots off the table.


That said, short stacking made a lot of sense back in the day when we had push/fold charts, especially in MTT with very shallow stacks. The decisions were simpler and the math was clear. I remember push or fold table 20BB/25BB deep ^^

Against short stackers specifically, showdowns are really important. Some of them play extremely tight, almost like they have no blinds to defend, while others have very different and aggressive resteal strategies. You need to see their cards to figure out which type you are dealing with before adjusting.

For me the answer is yes — I always buy in for the maximum, and I think it's the right approach for most players, especially at micro stakes.
The main reason is simple: more chips means more flexibility. When you sit down with a full stack, you have access to the full range of plays available to you — you can set mine effectively, call with speculative hands, and put real pressure on opponents post-flop. A short stack limits all of that. You end up playing a much more restricted game where most decisions come down to shove or fold.
There's also the implied odds argument. At micro stakes, players often don't fold when they should, which means when you hit a big hand you want to be able to extract as much value as possible. A short stack caps your winnings in those spots, which is exactly when you want maximum chips in play.
I'll be honest — as someone still new to cash games, buying in full also helps me practice playing deep stacked poker, which is a skill I need to develop. If I always buy in short, I'm avoiding that learning curve rather than facing it.
The only argument I've heard for buying in short is to limit your losses while learning, but I think that mindset can hold you back. If the stake is within your bankroll, you should be comfortable with a full buy-in.

When I played cash games at the micros I would buy 60% or 70% , never or almost never 100% . I thought by my experience that this was better , good protection against the (many) bad beats , and I could play more aggressively when I wanted to . And I think I was better at smaller stack, then good at stack with more [han 3 buy one and last at stack of 80-100% . Especially at zoom 2nl and 5nl . Then again I am not that good , so that's a good protection , although I have read many times people suggesting that whoever enters with less than 100 blonds is an amateur , not good player , that this is not a good strategy on the long run