> and I didn't realize how buying in for [10 or 20 big blinds] was to my immense disadvantage.<p>It's not inherently a disadvantage for those who understand the consequences. When everyone else has bought in for a normal amount, they'll open a wide range of hands that can be punished by an opponent with a stack of that size who has a good sense of what that range will be. (Although 30 or so might work better for this kind of strategy.)<p>The idea is to go all in (i.e., over the top of opening raises - which at a cash game are usually at least 3-4 big blinds; at a low stakes live table they could be quite a bit higher) with hands that have good preflop equity against that range. To adjust, other players are forced to tighten their ranges - otherwise they'll be stuck opening and folding speculative hands, or doing worse by calling (people can be stubborn at low stakes, and fail to understand that a hand that's playable with deep stacks is relative garbage all-in preflop). The shape of the range you shove all-in will be different; random Ax hands go up in value (you're ahead of KQ and you have a blocker that makes it less likely for opener to have an Ace), while e.g. suited connectors go way down in value (you also can't open them, because you can't win big pots to make up for the times you don't hit).<p>If the table doesn't adjust, you keep exploiting it. To adjust, they have to tighten their ranges, and then you can hopefully steal more blinds. Either that or they reduce their opening raise size; if that leads to pots where multiple people committed against a small raise (or even all just limped in), you can punish by still shoving, but only with premium hands.<p>Of course, tournament poker does work differently; but if you're short stacked relative to the rest of the table there, it's not because of how you bought in, anyway.<p>> I recommend it to all my friends and family as the only thing I'll play in a casino. You are actively engaged in decision-making while competing against other players, as opposed to sadly pressing a gamble button with 49% - 51% probabilities the house has set against you.<p>It should be noted that the house does "rake" the pot at a casino cash game, and pays out less than the total buy-in for a tournament. It seems like a small fraction, but the variance in poker is wide enough that it's very difficult to beat, especially at low stakes. (And those who have beat it over some period, may not have a sample size that actually provides good evidence of being able to do so consistently.)