Best recovery short stacking strategy.

Here's my predicament.

I built up my bankroll to a suitable amount to give a shot at 25NL, unfortunately, variance hit then and after a thousand hands I was down five BI, but rather than piss and moan I dropped back down to 10NL to build it back up and a few more to give me some more padding for the next attempt.

The only thing is I think I'm ready playing wise for 25NL but I don't want to waste time at 10NL getting back up so I thought maybe (even though it doesn't improve your skills, I hear it's a great way to make money) I could short stack my way back up to 25NL and then resume regular 100bb play.

I'm not sure exactly what a good BR requirement would be to short stack however.

I have roughly $450, so would buying in for $5 at 25NL be a good idea? Or should I just give it a shot at 10NL with $2 just to see what it's like.

I'd like for those who have done this to give their input on the situation.

Thanks.

why would you buy in for $5 in 25NL when you buy in for $10 at 10NL
if you're going to shortstack buy in for 12.50 or something

However, the problem is you're probably not that familiar with shortstacking. Just bite the bullet and grind your way back up.

Well how can I get used to short stacking? I think it would be a valuable skill to learn at any rate.

Do you play SNGs or Tourneys? When I am short stacked in a tournament I wait for the best possible starting hands that I can have over pairs, paint suited connectors or (low pairs and middle suited connectors are good for limping). I try to keep the pot low to start until I am sure that I can win the pot or fairly sure that I am going to win the pot.

Imagine that every hand you play is for the rest of your bankroll or your tournament life don't play cards that are likely to bust you or bluff at the pot when you have nothing. You never know the other person may have the nuts.

your goals and intentions with the short stacking strategy don't sound healthy. if you're gonna do it start at 2NL or something and slowly work your way up because the dynamics are gonna change so drastically from 2NL-10NL

So when is it good to do a short stacking strategy?

Originally Posted by surviva316

your goals and intentions with the short stacking strategy don't sound healthy. if you're gonna do it start at 2NL or something and slowly work your way up because the dynamics are gonna change so drastically from 2NL-10NL

I agree with this. I would not advocate someone short stack and have no experience with doing so in cash games, however, if you can't be persuaded otherwise, drop back down and start from scratch learning how to profitably play that way. If you want to play what I consider "real" full 100BB stack poker, then continue doing that @ $10NL until you have at least $750 to move up to $25NL. I think trying to find an in between solution is only going to make things tougher for you.

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

The only thing is I think I'm ready playing wise for 25NL but I don't want to waste time at 10NL getting back up so I thought maybe (even though it doesn't improve your skills, I hear it's a great way to make money) I could short stack my way back up to 25NL and then resume regular 100bb play.

This sounds like a dangerous thought process because you say you think you're ready for $25NL, despite the fact that you played at the level and didn't have success. And, instead of patiently winning back your money @ $10NL, it sounds like you're trying to shortcut your way back up. If you're truly ready to profit @ $25NL full stacked, then you should have absolutely no problem winning enough money @ $10NL. Yet, it sounds like you doubt the time it would take or think you can expedite the time utilizing a strategy you apparently have no experience playing with. It just seems like an odd logic line

But, good luck with whatever you decide - full stacked, short stacked, or a hybrid based on your bankroll and level.

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

So when is it good to do a short stacking strategy?

When the competition is clearly better than you, so you can reduce the game from 4 streets to basically just one street: pre-flop. Short stacking makes the commitment threshold arrive quicker so you therefore have an easier decision to push all-in or fold as opposed to having a full-stack and playing street by street knowing at any moment your entire stack will be on the line. In short, being short stacked reduces decision making and complexity, which are components that usually give better players their edge. If YOU are better than the competition, you should WANT to be full stacked if not deep stacked, so when they make a big mistake, you double up through them. No limit play IS all about stack sizes. You may play a lot of small pots or steal some blinds, but at its core is trying to double up or NOT lose your stack.

I've heard some players say that short stacking is a viable, profitable strategy, and maybe there are players who can work it well, but honestly, all the short stackers I've come across from $2NL to $10NL have been largely bad and I generally see them as easy money and players I can apply easily apply pressure to. Theoretically, being short stacked may take away another player's edge, but I don't see how it gives the short stack an an edge.

I am not a fan of shortstacking. The way poker works is that occasionally, you get put in situations where you can make a big profit. And what you are doing when you short stack is decreasing your profit margin on those hands. Meanwhile, you continue to win small amounts of money on the smaller stakes hands you win on and lose small amounts of money on the smaller stakes hands you lose on. Thus, I suspect shortstacking = -EV for most players.

That said, I REALLY don't like it as a "cure" for running bad or playing poorly. You have to figure out how to make money with a full stack before you even consider shortstacking-- shortstacking isn't a magic bullet that can cure whatever leaks are in your game.

Well,

I can beat 25NL. I can give you the 6 hands that knocked me down 5 BIs and I think that going all in with a set on a dry flop is +EV, it sucked they hit theirs too, but I'm not griping.

I did take your advice though and started short stacking 10NL with 20BB, just to give it a shot and it worked well. I massively multi tabled up to 20, and it did make my decisions easier, although I don't think I got "better" at poker, so I think it's a quick fix. Great for FPP, but then again that's not my entire goal.

I might split up my day into 3 sessions where two go towards real poker and one for SSing.

Any other ideas?

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

Any other ideas?

Yeah. Don't short stack.

First, how do you know you can beat 25NL? So far all we've heard here is that you moved up, played 1,000 hands, lost 5 buy-ins, and moved back down. Whether they were coolers or bad beats or whatever, who cares? The fact is that I don't see anything there that suggests you can beat that game. Quite the contrary.

Second, as has already been pointed out by Jason, short stacking takes away your edge, so even if you can beat 25NL, why would you handicap yourself like that?

Third - and this is the surely the most obvious point of all - you said you're buying in for 20BB at 25NL (which is $5) so that you can get your BR back up to fully rolled for that level. Lets look at your two options:
- $5 stacks at a harder level (25NL) and a style you're not used to; or
- $10 stacks at an easier level (10NL) playing your normal style.
Which do you think will be the more profitable?

By the way, if your response to that last question is that you can play more tables short stacking, well, maybe you're beyond help.

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

Well,

I can beat 25NL. I can give you the 6 hands that knocked me down 5 BIs and I think that going all in with a set on a dry flop is +EV, it sucked they hit theirs too, but I'm not griping.

I did take your advice though and started short stacking 10NL with 20BB, just to give it a shot and it worked well. I massively multi tabled up to 20, and it did make my decisions easier, although I don't think I got "better" at poker, so I think it's a quick fix. Great for FPP, but then again that's not my entire goal.

I might split up my day into 3 sessions where two go towards real poker and one for SSing.

Any other ideas?

Your results sound like random variance to me.

Before my poker life, I was (and I guess still am) into horse racing and handicapping. And one of my downfalls was that I would see some bad results over a couple of trips to the track and immediately declare that things weren't working, and switch to a different strategy. I'd never stick with anything long enough to see if it would work long term, in part because for much of that time my bankroll was more limited than it is now.

If you lose 5 buy-ins, but you are playing poker properly, you just have to write that off and be rolled sufficiently for it not be a problem. (Of course, if in fact there are leaks in your game, you have to fix them. But even a leak-free game is going to run into variance.)

I played 8 hours of 15/30 limit at Hollywood Park yesterday. I ended up plus $56 for the day. Over the course of the session, I was down as much as $850 and spent much of the session down more than $600. I ended up in the black because of two hands:

1. A hand where I hit a flush on the flop with Kd9d from the small blind.

AND

2. A hand where I was wrongly convinced I was ahead in a multiway pot with a pair of 6's (on a paired board with a pair of 2's showing) because two other players were slowplaying their high pocket pairs, only to get really lucky and hit a 2 out full house on the river with another 6.

In other words, in all the hands in which I played reasonably good poker, I was down a bunch of money, and I made it all up with a "small blind special" and a hand that I horribly misplayed but where I was lucky because my opponents misplayed it even worse than I did!

And that's poker.

Short stacking isn't going to solve whatever leaks are in your game, and it isn't a cure for variance either.

It's boring and been said 1,000 times, but you just need to do what Spenda, Iopq, Fnord, and every other FTR regular says to do, which is focus on the long-haul, getting better, grinding it out, proper bankroll management, and posting your hands and hand histories and getting better.

Shorstacking does lessen your vairance somewhat, but also reduces your profit, so grinding it out as a shortstacker to make money faster off a small BR is not a sound strategy.
Learn to play with a 100bb stack properly.

Moving down is very important. If you don't have the discipline to move down now, you probably won't have it when you're at 200NL, and you can loose a lot of money fast.

It tells a lot that you are confident that you can beat a game that you are a looser in so far. I'm not confident I beat a game I'm winning at unless I have a really significant sample fwiw.

I did move down, I'm not thick, I've been playing full stacked 10NL because i have beaten that and when I move up to 25 NL I'll play 100bb deep.

I gave short stacking a shot for 2000 hands at 10NL so I bought in for $2 on each table and did reasonably well. I know that's too short a sample size, but I don't think I'll try that at higher levels. I can see where short stacking doesn't pay off...but why do some people still prefer SSing?

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

I did move down, I'm not thick, I've been playing full stacked 10NL because i have beaten that and when I move up to 25 NL I'll play 100bb deep.

I gave short stacking a shot for 2000 hands at 10NL so I bought in for $2 on each table and did reasonably well. I know that's too short a sample size, but I don't think I'll try that at higher levels. I can see where short stacking doesn't pay off...but why do some people still prefer SSing?

I would compare it to playing loose aggressive. IF you learn how to play ABC poker and can show a profit over a significant sample of hands, then you can experiment with loosening up your ranges and outplaying other players post-flop. But it's an absolute disaster when someone tries to play loose aggressive without having the background in standard tight play.

Similarly, if you have shown the ability to play with a deep stack, there may be various strategic reasons to play short stacked, for example, to be able to shove all in and be more likely to get called, to stack off often against a maniac loose aggressive without making your variance intolerable, etc.

But it's a strategy that good players can incorporate; it isn't a substitute for learning how to play poker consistently with a deep stack.

Short stacking is much easier, because you rarely play beyond the flop. Basically your bread and butter is good preflop strategy. A good shortstacker is playing fairly aggressive - that's the only thing that's good about shortstacking - you don't have to worry about people playing back at you. You're not going to get bluff raised on the flop if you have less than a psb left and so on.
When you do it right it's hard to get exploited by regulars... I don't think it makes any sense until maybe 400NL where there are good players.

If MP3 was a shortstacker he'd have $20 more in his account.
http://weaktight.com/1116910

If you want to learn then play full stacked and just a few tables. If you want to make money, get a job.

So shortstacking is actually more profitable at higher levels than lower only because you play more of the numbers of poker than actual poker. Gotcha.

Yeah, actually I learned something today while short stacking. I won uber amounts of money today, almost 6 buy-ins just playing with short stacking and I was telling myself. "Hey, why not just do this? It's easier, and less risk." But then I didn't do anything different except play more pairs which I usually shy away from when I'm deep stacked because I'm so afraid that they have that set or something, but now I've realized that people just think their 2nd pair is good or they think I'm bluffing, so I actually learned something from short stacking, and you're right, it really just takes away from EV situations.

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

I can see where short stacking doesn't pay off...but why do some people still prefer SSing?

1. They're trying to play levels for which they're not rolled
2. They're trying to play levels above their ability
3. They suck

Usually all three.

No one has mention the other benefit of ssing. Grinding points/benefits. On Full Tilt players are awarded partial pts for just being dealt cards. If you trying to grind that 600 dollar bonus fast there no better way. Especially during happy hours where u earn 2x if not 3x the pts.

I don't think SS is such a bad idea and especially at these levels. If there is something to learn from doing so then I say go for it. Since you can rock the 10nl pretty easily from the way it sounds. Then loosing $2 here and $2 there isn't bad AS LONG AS YOUR LEARNING....but yeah, I agree mostly with everyone else about not doing it if your ultimate goal is to make money.

IMO:

Short-stacking will help you develop a better sense for ranges before the flop. It won't help your postflop game really, but what it will do is give you the opporunity to learn about how other players react to short stackers and help you practice with ranges before the flop. You can't really short stack very profitably without thinking about ranges, imo. Though you can't really profit that much without thinking about ranges deep either

I don't think Short Stacking is a bad thing, I mean it's a viable part of anyones game, that could probably improve the way you play all together.

But it should be something you actively choose to do while properly rolled for the level... not an act of desperation. This thread reeks of desparation.