Sizing Up A Game
Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.
Many students want to know how I size up a game. Once the brush assigns me a table and a seat, what do I do then? How much do I buy in for? What’s my strategy on the first few hands? What am I looking for? How do I use those initial moments to gain an advantage that will last throughout the session? I’ll share with you how I approach these initial decisions. Other players I know do things completely differently, so know that my way isn’t the only way. But even if you do things differently, you might find it useful to know how other people approach the game.
I beat no-limit games by outthinking my opponents. In order to do that, I need two things: knowledge of their weaknesses and a strategy to exploit them. Without those two, I can’t outthink anyone, and I’m stuck relying on fundamentals to beat the game. Over time, solid fundamentals will win, but a custom-tailored exploitative strategy will win faster and better.
When I first sit in a game, I want to learn about my opponents as quickly as possible. To that end, I generally buy in for about half the maximum. For instance, in a $2-$5 game often I’ll buy in for $300 rather than the $500 maximum. In previous columns I pointed out that playing a shorter stack than your opponents bestows a couple of inherent advantages. So when I first sit in a game, while I still know relatively little about my opponents, I harness those advantages by playing short. Usually after an orbit or two, I top up my stack to the table maximum. But occasionally if I feel I’m better off playing short, I won’t buy more. Buying in less than the maximum gives you flexibility: Before any hand you can always buy more chips, but you can never take chips off the table.
The remainder of this article is insider content available to premium members only. Log in to your account or become a premium member and get instant access.
Tags: 1-2-no-limit, 2-5-no-limit, card player, cardplayer, deep-stack, no-limit-holdem, poker, short-stack, sizing up a game

Great article as usual. I might have to seriously consider subscribing to CP if Ed’s writing stuff like this for them now.
I just played a three-day session of B&M in Tunica for the first time in a few months where poker played a much smaller role in my life. Coming back after some time away focused my thoughts on some of this stuff. I’m getting better at making the intuitive judgments Ed profiles here, but I would have had to work hard at writing it down as a process as Ed has done here.
It’s implicit in Ed’s suggestions, but probably worth making this point: Like all intuitive small-sample judgments in poker, you really need to be open to reconsidering your conclusions throughout a session. Maybe the “loose” player or the “table bully” actually got a run of three overpairs and two flopped sets in the course of 20 hands. But all that said, an inadequately-warranted judgment is usually better than no judgment at all. Be ready to test your judgments as more evidence comes in, but don’t disregard them just because of a small sample. If someone looks loose-passive (or alternatively, looks like the table rock), he usually is.
Observation at the table really is both essential and fun. One woman showed a somewhat uncommon combination of behaviors. She was very loose and called flop and turn pot-sized bets with any pair, gutshots, etc. But conversely, she was pretty aggressive when sensing weakness, often betting to pick up orphaned pots. Tailoring a plan to beat her wasn’t hard — I’d need good hands, because she’d take marginal hands to showdown. I wouldn’t need monsters, because she was calling with many sub-TPTK hands. And I could use her aggression to put more money in the pot. So each time I flopped TPTK or better, I check-raised, expecting to get called and have very low SPRs for the turn!
And pride compels me to mention my two successful PF reraises to burn two respective table bullies (and their callers) with 66 and KJs, even though they’re probably pretty standard fare. Both hands seemed like great semi-bluffing hands — the 66 reraise was all-in, so it was quite plausible I had the better starting hand and was racing if called) — and both semi-bluffs got the bully to back down, winning decent pots with no flop.
I’m sure thinking about how to exploit my opponents’ tendencies will become more natural over time. But even constrained by my present rudimentary poker ability, it’s very satisfying.