Quote 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.