Ninehanded Game No Limit Hold Em

 Type of single ANTE-GAME ANTE i th BLIND multiple BLINDS BUY-IN* general each 1st Seat only absolute description player Button 1st Seat 2nd Seat minimum Very Low \$ 1 \$ 2 \$ 1 \$ 2 \$ 5 \$ 200 Low 2 5 2 5 10 400 Medium 5 10 5 10 25 1000 High 10 25 10 25 50 2000 Very High 25 100 25 50 100 5000
• Twice the minimum buy-ins listed here would be much better. More than twice would be better still.
• Twice the minimum buy-ins listed here would be much better. More than twice would be better still.

In the above table, the very low ante game where each player antes \$1 (with or without the Blind) would be approximately equivalent to the game with the multiple Blinds of \$1, \$2 and \$5. Assuming there are nine players, it would cost you \$9 a Round in the first case. (It would be an additional \$2 if each player had to take the Blind once a Round.) In the game with the three Blinds, it would only be \$8 a Round. As you can see, it doesn't make much difference whether everyone antes or the multiple Blind structure is used.

Sometimes, the game is structured where the "dealer" (Button) and the first Blind have to blind it for an identical amount. This would be the case when the Blinds in the low ante game were \$5, \$5 and \$10 instead of the \$2, \$5 and \$10 seen in the table. Also, there are some games that have four Blinds. The effect of that would be to move a game as classified in the table to a higher classification. For example, a game with four Blinds of \$5, \$10, \$25 and \$50 would be a high ante game. . .not a medium ante game.

Of course, all the terms in the table from very low to very high are applied to the ante on an absolute basis. That is, because of the antes, they would be called very small and very big No-Limit games, respectively. But, when you consider the various games listed relative to the minimum buy-ins in the table.. .there's actually very little difference between them. (To get around the table in each of the games shown, it'll cost you about 4% of your buy-in if you sit down with an absolute minimum buy.)

You wouldn't want to sit down with less than the minimum buys shown. As the footnote states, you should definitely consider buying-in for more.

When I play in a game with three Blinds of \$25, \$50 and \$100. . .1 never sit down with less than \$20,000. What's more. . .1 like to have as much as (or more money than) any other player at the table. If my stacks are not approximately equal to the guy with the most money then I couldn't break him, could I?

And. . .1 practice what I preach. I start playing fast right away. I've always played like that. Even when I was just starting out. Back then I'd buy-in for a thousand (in a small No-Limit game) and I'd usually get stuck (lose) that first thousand. Then, I'd pull-up and start playing tighter and I almost always got even. . .or won.

About three out of four plays, I'd lose that first thousand. . .but, on that fourth play, I'd get on a rush (winning streak) and I'd more than make up for those first three losses. I mean, I'd be playing so fast and winning so many hands when I was rushing that I'd literally break every player in the game. It's because whenever I hold a bunch of hands, I usually get action on them.

I've never won a bunch of pots on the bank (watching the other guys play). If I'm striking (making a bunch of hands). . .I'm in there — I'm not on the side. If you're going to have a rush.. .you've got to let yourself have one. You've got to sustain that rush. And to do that, you've got to get in there and play.

After I've won a pot in No-Limit. . .I'm in the next pot — regardless of what two cards I pick