Short stack theory question (JeffryGB)

I have a question reguarding buying in short for NL ring games. I think I basically understand the strategy and advantage doing this, but I just want to make sure it's right. When you buy in short (say $25 at a NL100 table), you are looking to get all in on the flop or preflop w/big hands. Basically you are monster camping for big pairs to get all in preflop and hands like TPTK, sets, and 2pair to get all in on the flop. Drawing hands like suited connectors and Axs decrease in value because your implied odds are basically shot with your short stack. Is this correct?
Also, when you get up to the full buy in amount or close to it, do you just leave the table or adjust your play to full buy in strategy? Right now I 4-table NL25, so I was thinking about buying in for the same amount, $25, at a NL100 table and using this strategy. I know JeffryGB does this and I was wondering if my reasoning is accurate. (I know you probably explained this somewhere before, but I couldn't find it) Thanks.

I would say that buying in for 25$ is a bad strategy if you are a better post flop player than the average guy at the table. If you are gonna buy in short then buy in for like 12-14$ at a 100NL table. This way you can more effectively play the pre flop value of your hands or push after hitting top pair on the flop pretty much eliminating turn and river play. On an aggressive table with a lot of raising going on this can be very profitable. It does require a good deal of table changing though.

Just to confirm: My bread and butter for the last 3 months has been $20 buyin to NL$100. $25 should work just about the same, I'd think.

You have part of it right. Honestly, I don't sit down expecting to move in on any random hand. I'll easily do it if I think I have a decent advantage. I basically just play straight up poker, taking into account the differences in odds that you noted. Typically, I'll camp for the first 2 or 3 orbits at a table, then open my game up as I see people start to fold to my raises. If all you do is camp, then you get no action from the more aware players at the table (in which case you could move...I tend to exploit their passivity instead). Depending on the competition, a session may be mainly about camping (Party & Prima are often here), or I may be able to double and triple up just playing taggy positional poker (CRL sites and sometimes UB).

As far as leaving the table, that's kinda up to you. When I started out with a roll of $300 (playing at this level simply because of the insanely awesome bonuses I found at the time), I'd tend to leave once I built over 1/2 the full buyin, simply because while risking $20 was easy enough, risking $60 on a $300 roll was more than I was willing to lose. Now that I'm comfortable lossing a couple hundred in a given day, I'm likely to stay around 'til the game gets bad or (more often) I have something I need to go do. Most of my sessions tend to be 50-100 hands, two tabling.

I'm going to put together as comprehensive a post as I can on the subject at some point this summer - I haven't yet, so that's why you couldn't find anything. The point is, you're risking a lower amount of your money to win a greater amount than you would playing as a big stack. You don't want to play maniacal poker and move all-in all the time (well, you can, but for advice on that, talk to Rippy...). You're just playing to bring in a bigger bang for your buck.

I don't know if I answered your questions or not...I'll be happy try again if not

I have read a lot of your posts Jeffery and I see many people pointing out that a min buy-in is bad. I have varying opinions on it.

I tend to do min buy-ins when I'm playing LaGGier. I feel that I'm not as shy to call some pre-flop raises as I am when max stacked.

Let me ask you this, specifically: Are you looser with your preflop calls and starting hand requirements? Do "chase" more when short stacked? What about post-flop opening? Do you feel that a short stack is less feared and people are more "apt" to call you when you open or push?

What about bluffing? Do you feel it has effectiveness when short, as compared to deep?

I see the value in short play. To me, it allows you to play riskier, without denting your BR. Do you use this short buyin mentality to be more risky?

Big stacked, I'm camping a little more. More tight play.. Trying not to get into betting wars with an unsure hand, etc. Short, I'll (for lack of a better word) gamb00l more and make plays similar to deep tourney where I'm trying to bulldoze.

Thanks for any insight. I enjoy both buy ins and it certainly has an effect on "how" I play, at any stakes.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Let me ask you this, specifically: Are you looser with your preflop calls and starting hand requirements?

No. I maintain the same starting hand requirements no matter my stack size (save in certain tournament situations). I may raise easier with position than I would with a big stack, but I hope not (or rather I hope I'd make the same play with a big stack; if I wouldn't, then I've reached a point that I need to leave the table so that I can keep playing comfortably).

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Do "chase" more when short stacked?

No. If anything, you chase less due to the lack of implied odds. Similarly, aware opponents will draw out on you less.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

What about post-flop opening?

I think I'd play about the same in either situation...position/reads/cards all have more to do with my play here than stack size.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Do you feel that a short stack is less feared and people are more "apt" to call you when you open or push?

When first joining a table, or when playing against opponents who don't pay attention, yes. Absolutely. You also run in to players who try to push you around because they assume you'll be scared of their big stack. Once you identify these players, you can often push with TPTK.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

What about bluffing? Do you feel it has effectiveness when short, as compared to deep?

Similar to the last point, bluffing (in some cases with any size stack) requires aware opponents and the image that you know what you're doing. A big stack adds a greater element of fear to your bluffs, probably making them work more (I don't have the big stack experience to say for sure). However, frequently I find myself with a tight enough image that after a few orbits I can easily bluff my opponents if they are smart enough to pay attention to my play.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

I see the value in short play. To me, it allows you to play riskier, without denting your BR. Do you use this short buyin mentality to be more risky?

In some cases, yes. I've also used it to play "above my bankroll" by buying in to a NL$100 table when I only really had the roll for NL$25, for instance.

I would say that buying in for 25$ is a bad strategy if you are a better post flop player than the average guy at the table.

I am not saying that I'm necessarily a worse post flop player than the people at NL100 (I don't really know since I've never sat at a NL100 table) but I'm advocating this simply because I don't have the BR to buy in for the full $100.

Also, Jeffry, did you find that your ROI increased when playing at a NL100 table versus a NL25 table w/ the same buy in ($20 or $25)? How about variance? Do you experience greater variance using the buy in short strategy?

Let me post some hypothetical situations. Say you have AQ in the CO, so you raise to $4. 2 people call. Flop is A49, 2 suited. They both check to you. How much do you bet here, since any sort of bet will almost commit you to this pot? Do you just push? What if the flop is all blanks? Do you use a continuation bet, keeping in mind that if you are called, you are basically commited to the pot.
Next, say a guy in MP raises to $4, you hold 44 on the button. Do you just call the raise, even though your stack is much less than 10x the raise? Thanks.

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

Also, Jeffry, did you find that your ROI increased when playing at a NL100 table versus a NL25 table w/ the same buy in ($20 or $25)? How about variance? Do you experience greater variance using the buy in short strategy?

I can't really speak to this. I started buying in short long before I moved up to NL$100. Basically had to when my BR was $10, and since I knew I could outplay the competition at the next higher level, rather than ever trying to buy-in full, I moved up to take advantage of the higher payouts. At no level (save NL$50, due to limited experience and the presence of nearly all of my major downswings during this level) did I make less than 5BB/100 (over thousands of hands). Usually it was significantly more than that. But again, I don't have full-stack experience to compare my win rate.

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

Let me post some hypothetical situations. Say you have AQ in the CO, so you raise to $4. 2 people call. Flop is A49, 2 suited. They both check to you. How much do you bet here, since any sort of bet will almost commit you to this pot? Do you just push? What if the flop is all blanks? Do you use a continuation bet, keeping in mind that if you are called, you are basically commited to the pot.
Next, say a guy in MP raises to $4, you hold 44 on the button. Do you just call the raise, even though your stack is much less than 10x the raise? Thanks.

AQ in CO w/ A49 flop: Assuming no reads, I'd bet this. Unless there's a reason no alter it, basically every one of my bets is 2/3 pot. So here, assuming you start with $20, bet $4 w/ 2 callers => pot = $12. Bet $8. If you get a caller you're betting your remaining $8 on the turn almost regardless. If the flush card comes and they put you all in, probably fold, but anything else is a call/push. Backing up a minute though, I'd probably bet $5 preflop if there were already 2 limpers. I increase my raises according to the number of limpers to discourage multiway pots.

Continuation betting a blank flop: Depends. If you haven't yet established an image at the table, I'd bet it about 1/2 the time if you're in late position. If the table knows you're tight (and responds in kind), I do this more often. If you were in EP in the same situation, I'd probably drop that down to 1/3. Reads change everything.

Holding 44 on the botton to a $4 raise: Depends. If there are callers ahead of you, or a bunch of limpers ahead of him, probably call. If it was folded around to him and then subsequently folded around to you, probably fold. Reads can change everything. If you can reliably put him on high cards, you might even reraise to ensure it's HU and prepare for a post-flop bet (where you'll likely take it down unless he hits).

Great. Thank you for the insight.

I feel that continuation bets go out the window with short stack. I hate the idea of raising 1/5th - 1/6th of my stack pre with AK and pushing on a useless flop. Once I'm called, I'm like.. blaaaah.

One thing to remember is that you usually have enough to bet as much as a full stack would preflop and on the flop. 75% of the time, that's enough. A big part of the other 25%, you want them to call for all your stack on the turn/river because you have the best hand.

If you bluff and it gets called, drop it unless you have a good reason to believe they'll let it go to another bet. This is the one place where it would be nice to have a bigger stack; you can't always even bet someone off of bottom pair.

I've always disagreed with short stacking it, but i may have to change my mind cause i bought in for $215 dollars at 1000nl and walked away with $1778 after 3 hours. Thanks for making me try it . I don't think i will do this normally but it was was nice to do so well.

Originally Posted by Bmxicle

I've always disagreed with short stacking it, but i may have to change my mind cause i bought in for $215 dollars at 1000nl and walked away with $1778 after 3 hours. Thanks for making me try it . I don't think i will do this normally but it was was nice to do so well.

And here I was thinking that higher stakes would translate to short-stacked play working less well...Nice job!

Some rough thoughts...

AA/KK/QQ/AK/AQ all go up in value with less money behind.
JJ/TT/AJ maybe KQ can be played aggressivly pre-flop.
Smaller pocket pairs still rule. You will have an easier time getting calls for your stack when you hit.
You can put your stack behind TPGK and better.
You don't have to make difficult decisions as often when draws hit on the Turn/River because you often won't have much (if any) money left behind.
Suited connectors become garbage.

Basically you're playing more of a pre-flop and flop game than the deeper money. You can also hose anyone with deep money that tries to get cute pre-flop with a hand that has poor all-in value.

Yep, basically all my profit came from AA, KK, QQ and a set a hit when i called a min-raise. Also, i'm not sure if short stacking it would work at normal high stakes games, but i've found a good fishing hole.

Think you're handicapping yourself in the long run. Higher stakes is all post flop play not all in preflop with AA vs some suckers JJ. Think short stacking like this hurts your game in the long run and its certainly going to hurt your confidence wielding a deep stack, which is also a skill you need to learn. If you're making money, more power to you, but I bet you'd be making more money and be learning proper poker skills playing with a full stack.

Originally Posted by Hubris1

Think you're handicapping yourself in the long run. Higher stakes is all post flop play not all in preflop with AA vs some suckers JJ. Think short stacking like this hurts your game in the long run and its certainly going to hurt your confidence wielding a deep stack, which is also a skill you need to learn. If you're making money, more power to you, but I bet you'd be making more money and be learning proper poker skills playing with a full stack.

Originally Posted by Bmxicle

I don't think i will do this normally but it was was nice to do so well.

Maybe i'll try this sometime. The only problem I see, is I am skeptical that you're taking advantage of any higher payouts. All that's happening, to me, is you're paying bigger blinds, almost like you're not fully taking advantage of the betting power that you're paying for with your blinds if that makes sense. I think if you bought in with 20 at 100NL, you'd make more just buying in with a full-buy-in at 25NL. But that's just the vibe that I get, I have absolutely no proof of that, maybe i'll try buying in with 25 at 100NL and see what happens to compare.

Originally Posted by Hubris1

Think you're handicapping yourself in the long run. Higher stakes is all post flop play not all in preflop with AA vs some suckers JJ.

Did you even read the rest of this thread? I'm pretty sure I specifically said that this style of play is not all about camping and then pushing preflop with AA/KK.

Originally Posted by Greedo017

I think if you bought in with 20 at 100NL, you'd make more just buying in with a full-buy-in at 25NL.

That this is not (necessarily) the case is exactly the reason I do this style of play. 5-10BB/100 (apx. 10-20 times the big blind per hand) is generally considered to be a good winrate (from what more experienced play. Over 15,000 hands, I've been able to maintain that through short stack play. The difference though, is that maintaining it for me means doing so at double or better the sized blinds. At 25NL that rate would be (on the upper bound) $5 per 100 hands. At 100NL, that rate is as much as $20 per 100 hands. For that kind of return on the same amount of money, I know what I'm picking.

Sorry i didn't get to fix my post fast enough, my brother started messing around with my aquarium and i got distracted.

I meant to mention that I'm sure since you like this style, you must make more at 100NL than you do at 25NL, kinda messing up my idea. I dunno, I guess i'm just used to disliking shortstacks in my room, so i don't want your idea to be right Guess that's a stupid way of looking at things, it just seems counter-intuitive to me that the average person wins at 5bb/100 with a full stack, and you're winning at 5bb/100 with a 1/5 stack, but maybe it is worth having more people try out. I know i treat a short stack differently, i'm sure everyone does, maybe we're all accidently giving them an advantage.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Originally Posted by Hubris1

Think you're handicapping yourself in the long run. Higher stakes is all post flop play not all in preflop with AA vs some suckers JJ.

Did you even read the rest of this thread? I'm pretty sure I specifically said that this style of play is not all about camping and then pushing preflop with AA/KK.

Ok? You're pot commited by the turn on any hand you play on the flop. You're basically removing any decision elements and eliminating any speculative hands that require decision elements and handicapping all implied odds. If its profitable for you, that's great, my only statement is, if you're playing it you're handicapping yourself and missing out on some important lessons you would be learning.

Edit: Not to mention you're not participating on fundamental things like drawing because you're so short stacked its not worth it. Which you mentioned earlier.

well, who says you have to learn those things? I definitely see a good amount of people at the 100/200 on prima buying in with 2 grand. One guy bought in with 2k, raised it up to like 20k, then sat out for an hour or two or whatever so he could rebuy in with just 2k again.

"you're risking a lower amount of your money to win a greater amount than you would playing as a big stack."

This doesn't really make any sense. If I have $20, end up all-in with A-A, how am I risking less than if I bet the same amount with a full stack?

Besides, only giving yourself a certain amount to risk at the table is more of a hindrance than it is a benefit. Sometimes you *want* to risk a lot. What happens when you flop set over set, but only find yourself with $20 to bet on the hand? Is it wise to risk lost profits in favor of the ease of just going all-in with "decent" hands?

It seems like this is just an excuse to make poker easier and not have to worry about making decisions on the turn and river, or risk losing a sizable stack.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

"you're risking a lower amount of your money to win a greater amount than you would playing as a big stack."

This doesn't really make any sense. If I have $20, end up all-in with A-A, how am I risking less than if I bet the same amount with a full stack?

If you're going to be a big stack at a NL$25 table, or a short stack at a NL$100 table, assuming you can play well enough to maintain a strong winrate, you'll make more at the higher stakes.

The only place this really saves you from making decisions is on the river.

Do you guys really see 10xBB+ raises preflop that you're routinely calling with less than a push-worthy hand? Are you playing pots that remain so multiway that 10-15xBB isn't enough to bet 2/3+ of the pot? Do you really think that if you start playing as a short stack and you do well, you end up still having a short stack? I've left a table with well over the max buy-in MANY times doing this. That's not from one hand. That's from playing well throughout a session. I expect with a big stack I'd have seen at most $50 more profit in these sessions. Further, I doubt I've have come close in NL$25. Do you disagree? How many times have you had $150+ at a NL$25 table? Or $600 at an NL$100 table? I'm not saying you make more than a big stack at the same stakes. I'm saying you CAN make more (if you play it right) than you would at low stakes.

Is this a money making, genius idea that will turn anyone into a better player? No, but if you're a player that can play on par with the opposition at a given level (perhaps slightly above par...since I don't deny that in some ways they have an advantage on you; though I'd point out that you can use it against them as well), then you MAY be able to make more playing short stack at higher stakes.

Finally, I'm no longer going to defend short stack play in this post. Someone specifically asked me for input on a specific strategy of playing. I answered. It had previously (and now has in this thread) been fully addressed that there are trade offs and a lot of people disagree with short stack play. It's not for everyone, but those of us who do it get the point. You don't like it, and you have some reasons. You won't change your mind. I'm not asking you to. No one is. But can we please allow discussion without chiming in to EVERY post with the same generic "Short stack play is bad because of ABC" chant? Hell, I'll write a sticky on the dangers/trade-offs of it to go along with the upcoming strategy post I'm going to make. Just please, DROP IT.

One of huge advantage that a short stack has is that they often can't be bluffed. Its very frustrating raising 5xbb with a marginal hand like AT and getting called by someone with 12bb. The flop comes 3J5, you miss, and you've got an opponent that probably has odds to call your continuation bet with alot of things.

I'm just curious jeffrey, why don't you either buyin in with more or move up in stakes (i'm not arguing about short stack theory) because you have like 85 buyins for what you are currently doing, that seems a bit conservative to me.

Originally Posted by Bmxicle

I'm just curious jeffrey, why don't you either buyin in with more or move up in stakes (i'm not arguing about short stack theory) because you have like 85 buyins for what you are currently doing, that seems a bit conservative to me.

Habit. Actually the majority of my play lately has been in SnGs. I plan to move up in stakes, and would have already if there were ever any players at Interpoker playing 1/2. Also, I was on a pretty ugly downswing there for a while, and didn't want to move up during that period for obvious reasons. And a final reason (since you asked) is that I've had my BR spread between many many sites for bonus whoring reasons. Ultimately, that's caused me to treat each site as a separate bankroll, which is almost definitely a bad thing.

Anyway, I plan to get over that. And I may even try 2/4 at some point soon, after your results (I'd heard that the betting is more aggressive, so more than a 1/4 buyin was need, but you seem to have done well enough). On that note, were you playing on party for this?

Thanks for the inspiration! Just tried some NL$200 @ Paradise. $90 profit while Becky was showering - if only I didn't have to shower and get to bed in prep for work @ 6am tomorrow.

Yeah having your bankroll spread over a number of sites shouldn't really make a difference, although it is frustrating busting out before you clear a bonus, which for some reason i manage to do alot.

I was on noble poker for this, there were a couple pretty big fish that were spewing money. To give you an idea, i doubled from 500 to 1000 with QQ allin pre-flop against this guys T6o. I don't normally push with QQ preflop but as you can see i was justified in doing so.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Smaller pocket pairs still rule. You will have an easier time getting calls for your stack when you hit.

But if you buy in with 20bb, a 3bb raise takes away your implied odds to call with a pp.

Originally Posted by FishMagician

Originally Posted by Fnord

Smaller pocket pairs still rule. You will have an easier time getting calls for your stack when you hit.

But if you buy in with 20bb, a 3bb raise takes away your implied odds to call with a pp.

Only if you're sure your opponent is on a higher pp. Otherwise you're a coinflip against 1 opp, and you have the implied odds you need against many.

Half of that $90 I just made from my $50 @ NL$200 came from 55 when a guy missed the flop raising AK (but called me on the flop + turn because he held overs + had 4 to the flush). The thing about a pocket pair is that you don't have to hit a set to win, even if it's a low pocket pair.

Originally Posted by FishMagician

But if you buy in with 20bb, a 3bb raise takes away your implied odds to call with a pp.

Not if the pot is multi-way.

Good points. I tried the JeffreGB technique, and this hand happened, which prompted me to make this post. When the guy raise I thought "wait a minute, here's a flaw to this system - I'm only getting 6-1." Now I realize I'm just an idiot. "Only 6-1" when I'm actually probably a favorite against 1 player and if there's 2 I'm getting better than 6-1. Live and learn I guess.

Hand #6223617-950 at Machala (No Limit Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 30/May/05 22:46:26

trubby is at seat 0 with $280.75.
xsdudztx is at seat 1 with $113.35.
TripleJack33 is at seat 2 with $123.70.
Ferghus is at seat 3 with $183.
Fishmagician is at seat 4 with $40.
Narwhal is at seat 5 with $205.30.
bhjelm001 is at seat 6 with $21.
dj_digz is at seat 7 with $50.25.
Reis is at seat 8 with $138.15.
Moss8411 is at seat 9 with $92.
The button is at seat 1.

TripleJack33 posts the small blind of $1.
Ferghus posts the big blind of $2.

trubby: -- --
xsdudztx: -- --
TripleJack33: -- --
Ferghus: -- --
Fishmagician: 6d 6h
Narwhal: -- --
bhjelm001: -- --
dj_digz: -- --
Reis: -- --
Moss8411: -- --

Pre-flop:

Fishmagician calls. Narwhal calls. bhjelm001 calls.
dj_digz folds. Reis raises to $8. Moss8411 folds.
trubby folds. xsdudztx folds. TripleJack33 folds.
Ferghus calls. Fishmagician folds. Narwhal folds.
bhjelm001 calls.

Flop (board: 7h 6s Ac):

Ferghus bets $15. bhjelm001 folds. Reis folds.
Ferghus is returned $15 (uncalled).



Hand #6223617-950 Summary:

$1.45 is raked from a pot of $29.
Ferghus wins $27.55.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

How many times have you had $150+ at a NL$25 table?

this is my standard session at a 25NL tables buying in full.

i see jeff can make it work with buying in short. when im playing and i find i have a strong set against someone who is married to their AA, i like to suck his entire stack in, and not just a partial payment.

also buying in with max, gives you better implied odds on your draws. when im playing im looking for an ideal spot to put my stack in and win another buyin.

Originally Posted by Element187

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

How many times have you had $150+ at a NL$25 table?

this is my standard session at a 25NL tables buying in full.

If that's true, then why do you even play $25NL anymore? After a week (assuming one session a day), you'd have a BR of over $1k. Not to mention that you'd be making something like 50BB/100 (assuming 500 hand sessions, which seems a bit long for anyone). That's more than any other player at FTR, and more than I can believe. Sorry, but I have to call Shennanigans here.

At 25NL I would assume most players are either one of two things.

1. Multiple tabling, therefore not paying atention as well to the amount of hands each player plays.

2. Or the stakes are so low that the player is a fish and isn't going to take into account when making a decision how many hands the player has played.

That's why this works fine at 25NL.

I would say it would be much tuffer at 100+ because most of the players would be more seasoned to this, and/or not multi-tabeling so they are going to notice campers more.

Great Idea though and I'm sure the lower the stakes the better it would work also..

Short stack play can be very profitable. Especially so because the typical short stack player on most sites plays like a retard - going all in pre-flop with a wide range of hands, many of which are very questionable. I'm always amazed when I see a guy buy in for $10 at a $50 table and get busted, then repeat, then repeat again. They'll drop a full buy-in eventually just by playing like a moron against people who obviously know exactly what's going on. This gives short stackers a terrible image, and makes it easy for a good short stack player to do well.

I will say though that I dislike this approach for my own reasons. (Jeffrey - no need to defend yourself following this; I'm just stating my own opinion here, not attacking you.) For one, I don't like what it does to the table. One or two people buying in short makes the game less profitable for the rest of us, whether they are good players or bad (although at least the bad ones give their money up easily.) This is doubly true in 6max, which is all I play. If I'm at a table with one empty seat and two short stacks, which is not all that unusual, that's about 1/3 of the money that should be at the table gone. A lot less I can win. Frustrating. For another, i don't like how it cheapens the game. As others have said, it reduces poker to pre-flop and maybe some flop play, and if the table is even remotely aggressive, the short stack will be pot committed on most hands they play. This to me is not fun poker. I don't like to play others doing this on purpose, and I don't like to do it myself. Then again, I consider myself a very good post-flop player so naturally I'm going to want to play to my strengths. To each his own. If I had my way, though, I'd set minimum buy-in for all no limit tables at half the max - no more $10 at a $50 table, you need $25 minimum to sit.

Originally Posted by Surf_Thug

At 25NL I would assume most players are either one of two things.

1. Multiple tabling, therefore not paying atention as well to the amount of hands each player plays.

2. Or the stakes are so low that the player is a fish and isn't going to take into account when making a decision how many hands the player has played.

That's why this works fine at 25NL.

I would say it would be much tuffer at 100+ because most of the players would be more seasoned to this, and/or not multi-tabeling so they are going to notice campers more.

Great Idea though and I'm sure the lower the stakes the better it would work also..

I'm confused about who this is directed at...were you talking to the NL$25 player who buys in full, or to me (currently short-stacking at NL$200 [and NL$400/NL$500 when I have the balls])? I assure you that if you play it well, it can be quite profitable at any stakes. If it matches your style of play. If not, then it's more likely to cause problems than not.

And Dale, I understand perfectly why it cheapens the game for you when others play short stack. I disagree that it turns it into a pre-flop game, but I certainly see how it's annoying and lowers your EV in a given game. For my part, I couldn't imagine short-stacking 6max on a regular basis; There's too big a need to be aggressive w/o the cards there, so you end up getting callers when you don't want them.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Originally Posted by Element187

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

How many times have you had $150+ at a NL$25 table?

this is my standard session at a 25NL tables buying in full.

If that's true, then why do you even play $25NL anymore? After a week (assuming one session a day), you'd have a BR of over $1k. Not to mention that you'd be making something like 50BB/100 (assuming 500 hand sessions, which seems a bit long for anyone). That's more than any other player at FTR, and more than I can believe. Sorry, but I have to call Shennanigans here.

you dont take into account of all the buyins i lose getting there. i put my chips in the middle alot. im bankrolled for NL50 properly and just shy of 100NL .. but im a limit player and im not ready to jump up in NL yet.

Originally Posted by dalecooper

If I had my way, though, I'd set minimum buy-in for all no limit tables at half the max - no more $10 at a $50 table, you need $25 minimum to sit.

i second this.


short stacks lessens the value of the table, and i'll go find another table if there is more then 3 short stacks.

Originally Posted by Element187

you dont take into account of all the buyins i lose getting there. i put my chips in the middle alot. im bankrolled for NL50 properly and just shy of 100NL .. but im a limit player and im not ready to jump up in NL yet.

Understood. Sorry for the attack, but you can see where my "what the hell?" thought came from. I guess I've just run into very few players like you at my tables, as I can count the number of times I've seen people with more than 3x the buyin on one hand.

I'm confused about who this is directed at...were you talking to the NL$25 player who buys in full, or to me (currently short-stacking at NL$200 [and NL$400/NL$500 when I have the balls])? I assure you that if you play it well, it can be quite profitable at any stakes. If it matches your style of play. If not, then it's more likely to cause problems than not.

And Dale, I understand perfectly why it cheapens the game for you when others play short stack. I disagree that it turns it into a pre-flop game, but I certainly see how it's annoying and lowers your EV in a given game. For my part, I couldn't imagine short-stacking 6max on a regular basis; There's too big a need to be aggressive w/o the cards there, so you end up getting callers when you don't want them.

Sorry I worded it bad Jeff. I was basically saying, the lower the stakes, the more camping for monsters would work.

The higher the stakes, would "usually" = more talented players who understand the concept of having to give action to get action.

That's all I was saying..

so the argument is that short stacking causes the other TAG's to leave the table and seek greener pastures.

sounds like a good plan to me.

I frequently buy in short as well, and let me summarize what I've learned here so far:

-Reduces the complexity of the game and decisions post flop (usually pot commited by the turn anyway)
(This is a good and bad thing, I'll explain later)

-Allows you to risk less with just as much earning potential when considering BB/Hr

-Forces you to keep your starting hand requirements tight and not play as much suited crap

-Others at table are not afraid of your stack, therefore your all-in bets are more callable.

-Short stack players have a bad image anyway, which works good for the experienced short stack player.

-Harder to bluff a short stacked player after the flop, cause they may have the odds to call regardless of what they hold.

-Most TAGGS/experienced players don't like the short stacks, so they may leave or try harder to bust them.

The fact that doing this is a "cheap excuse" to not play poker correctly is very true, but is it really that bad? Aren't we all here to make money? Or is it to become a better player? The priority you put on those two items determine if you would want to do this regularly or not. It has it's disadvantages, but it is definetly a strategy that works, as some of our successful FTR members can attest.

As part of my strategy, once I build up to a decent stack size, I don't buy in again short at another table, (or come back to the same table with less money) I just play normal poker. By the time I've built my stack up, I usually have a very good table image, you can bluff more, and you now have more leverage and winning potential. I just like to start out short for all of the reasons I listed above, plus the fact that I really enjoy the challenge of buying in short and eventually becoming the chip leader.

Originally Posted by storm75m

I frequently buy in short as well...

I would have thought this was less effective in 6max, due to the higher aggression/more frequent blinds/reduced time to hit a hand. What kind of starting hand requirements do you go with?

The fact that doing this is a "cheap excuse" to not play poker correctly is very true, but is it really that bad? Aren't we all here to make money? Or is it to become a better player? The priority you put on those two items determine if you would want to do this regularly or not.

precisely. and thats why i buy in for max.

Short stack backfired today. Dealt 88 in 50$ NL Raise 3 with 16$ stack, one caller. Flop comes junk (3 6 10 rb). I go all in. Guy calls.. Turn is inconsequential, river A. Guy turns over AK.

I read his AK perfect, but there was no deterrent.

Would he have called anything? Possibly. I got a bad image and a fan club because of it - the LaGG action image is hurting me and I may go back to tightie to catch my fans off guard.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Short stack backfired today. Dealt 88 in 50$ NL Raise 3 with 16$ stack, one caller. Flop comes junk (3 6 10 rb). I go all in. Guy calls.. Turn is inconsequential, river A. Guy turns over AK.

I read his AK perfect, but there was no deterrent.

Would he have called anything? Possibly. I got a bad image and a fan club because of it - the LaGG action image is hurting me and I may go back to tightie to catch my fans off guard.

Mixing up your play is a must with any sized stack if you have aware opponents.

Aside from that, this fits what was discussed before: people are more likely to call you with a worse hand. Catching a 2/3/6/8 outer is bound to happen sometime. I think if you're getting too many calls, it becomes time to tighten up more (and definitely watch your positional play!) I learned those lessons the hard way this weekend.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Short stack backfired today. Dealt 88 in 50$ NL Raise 3 with 16$ stack, one caller. Flop comes junk (3 6 10 rb). I go all in. Guy calls.. Turn is inconsequential, river A. Guy turns over AK.

I read his AK perfect, but there was no deterrent.

Would he have called anything? Possibly. I got a bad image and a fan club because of it - the LaGG action image is hurting me and I may go back to tightie to catch my fans off guard.

your just playing a crappy player .. calling an all in with Ace high when it missses is pretty stupid.

doesnt matter how big stack size is.. i buy in full, and i'll call the AK raise and notice the flop misses him so i push and get called they catch ..


i think the reason behind this crappy play is they watch way too much WPT and think AK is the holy grail.

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

Originally Posted by storm75m

I frequently buy in short as well...

I would have thought this was less effective in 6max, due to the higher aggression/more frequent blinds/reduced time to hit a hand. What kind of starting hand requirements do you go with?

First off, I don't buy in very short, usually 15-20 at 25 NL and 30-40 at 50NL. This still gives me room to manuever, play some draws correctly, play till the river, and not play scared like I'm in "push or fold" mode. I think one misconception about shorthand is that the game can't be beaten playing like a rock because of the aggression and faster blinds. I don't think this is true. You may have to wait three or four orbits, but all you have to do is show down two or three made hands, and your table image is set. (Table image is so much more important shorthanded!) From there you can start to stray, while maintaining your solid image somewhat. (Not neccessarily a rock, but someone that only bets on made hands.) I'm the type of player that usually starts off very tight and loosens up as time goes by (almost like playing an SnG), then tighten up again, show a big bluff, etc. I use reads ALOT and I mix up my starting hands based on who I'm playing against (this is why I don't multitable very often). (I will sometimes call a 6xBB bet with 75s if I know the player is fishy) But basically my starting hands go kinda like this: (I'll assume I'm MP or CO and the pot is unraised, and you can adjust a little for position.) (Also I mix it up so much I'm not even sure I have standards anymore...)

Raising Hands: Any two painted cards including QJo, and A10o, pocket pairs 99 and higher (sometimes raise with suited connectors and low PP's just to mix it up)

Limping Hands: Suited connectors (as low as 56s), Axs and Kxs, Ace rag (sometimes), and PP's 88 and under. (At 6Max lower limit tables everyone seems to limp, and it's a very contaigous bad habit)

I call weak raises with high suited connectors, Low PPs, high painted cards (AK, AQ, or KQs, etc.) , (prefer to have an ace-in-hand when calling a raise with high cards)

And I re-raise with PP's tens and higher, and AKs. (mostly for isolation)

I play a lot of hands which probably makes up for the faster blinds, but when I hit a hand I stay aggro, and also make strong continuation bets, and RARELY bluff. I'm also unafraid to bet my TPWK hard on the flop, and slow down if I get resistance. (I wouldn't be playing a TPWK type of hand if the pot was raised preflop, so I'm not too scared of my Q7s running into AQ with a Q high flop) And of course it all changes based on my table image, how the other players are playing, how drunk or high I am, etc. (Sometimes I switch to a maniac when I have a big stack, then switch back to a camping fool...) Seems to work pretty good for me. All I've ever played (ring) is 6 Max (about a year and a half) and I think I have a very good feel for when my hand is good. But now after I've typed all of this, I'm not sure if I even have starting hand requirements, I just fly by the seat of my pants.

Got off topic a little, talking more about short handed play than buying in short... sorry. As for buying in short, my main reason for doing this is more of a personal mental thing than anything else. I am very confident in my post flop play, but because I play so Laggy sometimes, I like to establish a solid table image before I get loose. Buying in short makes me think to myself, "I'm behind, lets wait for some good cards and play smart so I can catch up." (I think this is mainly a problem that I have with staying disciplined) Once I've caught up (or usually once I've doubled up) then I can start pulling all of the tricks out of my bag.

Am I an idiot or what? (Wouldn't mind hearing some feedback on my style) But oh well, works for me.

Another short burn:

Cheapie tables (.05/.10):

Dealt AK off. Re-raise from .40 to .80 - 1 caller.

Flop comes A 10 8 rainbow.

Guy bets $.40
I push all in $5.

Guy calls.

Turn 6
River J

Guy turns over A6.

He said "oops.. I thought for sure you were bluffing.."

I asked why he thought that and he said "because people with short stacks make that play so often.."

I can't blame him, I think that way too. Just pointing out the second burn I got from not playing post flop poker because I didn't have many "betting" options left after the flop so I pushed with what I thought (and knew) were the goods.

Originally Posted by Robert Tiltin'

Another short burn:

Cheapie tables (.05/.10):

Dealt AK off. Re-raise from .40 to .80 - 1 caller.

Flop comes A 10 8 rainbow.

Guy bets $.40
I push all in $5.

Guy calls.

Turn 6
River J

Guy turns over A6.

He said "oops.. I thought for sure you were bluffing.."

I asked why he thought that and he said "because people with short stacks make that play so often.."

I can't blame him, I think that way too. Just pointing out the second burn I got from not playing post flop poker because I didn't have many "betting" options left after the flop so I pushed with what I thought (and knew) were the goods.

Two comments:
1. You want someone to call here. AK vs A6 on a board of A T 8 gives you a huge advantage! Yes, bad beats happen. If you can't handle that, then you're going to have a hard time with poker. They may happen slightly more when you're playing as a short stack, because you get calls on outrageous hands like this, however, in the long run you'd much rather get that call than get him to fold.

2. What on earth are you talking about when you say you had no other betting options? You re-raised from .4 to .8 preflop and got one caller. Given that there was probably some dead money, I'll put the pot here at $2. He bet $.4 on the flop. You can easily bet $2 here, for an almost pot-sized raise. That even leaves you enough to bet again on the turn. Instead, you bet $5 - double the size of the pot. If that's your standard raise and you're getting called frequently by worse hands, then kudos. I'd consider re-evaluating, because a better hand than TPTK will come along and it's nice to know when you're beat. Then again, this may apply more at higher levels.

Again, I said in my original post that you will get more callers on outrageous hands with short stack play. It only stands to reason that you'll suffer more bad beats, along with making more money. If that's a problem for you, then reconsider this style of play.

You are correct.. Just frustrated.. I've lost plenty more from more outrageous beats, as have anyone who plays..

Cest la vie thx for insight again.

JeffreyGB--

This is an especially interesting thread. Due to a whole lotta whoring, I'm bankrolled to move up now, but really don't think my play warrants it . I look at my Neteller account and am THRILLED at how far I've come. Then I look at PT and realize all the money is bonus. So perhaps the short-stack idea is a decent way to get my feet wet. As others have said, it makes some of my post-flop play a little easier which is good, since I don't believe I'm unusually skilled there.

Anyway, lets get to my questions:
1.) When you buy in for $25 at NL$100, do you buy back up to $25 if you find yourself down to $15? (That's what I usually do at my NL$25 Tables.) Or just play on? What if your down to $10? Buy up, or just switch tables?
2.) I take it you're camping for raising hands only (at least until you win a pot or two first). You're not limping in with TJ, right. You want to be the raiser and then bet 2/3 the pot if you hit OR check/fold if you miss.

Others may not like having you at their tables, but that doesn't sound like a bad thing for YOU.

Originally Posted by EasyT

JeffreyGB--

This is an especially interesting thread. Due to a whole lotta whoring, I'm bankrolled to move up now, but really don't think my play warrants it . I look at my Neteller account and am THRILLED at how far I've come. Then I look at PT and realize all the money is bonus. So perhaps the short-stack idea is a decent way to get my feet wet. As others have said, it makes some of my post-flop play a little easier which is good, since I don't believe I'm unusually skilled there.

Interesting approach...I use short stacking to play at a higher level specifically because I think I can outplay them - and if that's the case, then I might as well make more while doing it.

Originally Posted by EasyT

Anyway, lets get to my questions:
1.) When you buy in for $25 at NL$100, do you buy back up to $25 if you find yourself down to $15? (That's what I usually do at my NL$25 Tables.) Or just play on? What if your down to $10? Buy up, or just switch tables?
2.) I take it you're camping for raising hands only (at least until you win a pot or two first). You're not limping in with TJ, right. You want to be the raiser and then bet 2/3 the pot if you hit OR check/fold if you miss.

Others may not like having you at their tables, but that doesn't sound like a bad thing for YOU.

1. Varies depending on my mood, basically. I'd have to be a bit lower than $15 to rebuy, but if I'm down to $10, I might. Just depends...and I don't really know what on.

2. Yes. You want to be the aggressor in any pot you play that's not a pocket pair based hand (and a lot that are). This also means you need to pay attention to position for max results from this play - aggression is much easier to maintain correctly this way.

Jeffrey,

I've been following this thread, and have been short stacking by neccessity, like you did when you started out, on party NL25. I'm up to $230 in my BR, which is just fine for buing in for $10-15 in 25, but I could buy in short in NL50 also. Kind of enjoying the elbow room buying in as a mid-stack, but I do recognize the higher payout potential of movin up short also.

What would you reccommend?

Also, I noticed you moved up to NL200. Are you short stacking there as well?

Thanks!

If you haven't had the experience of buying in full, it might be a good idea to try now. It's an opportunity to get a feel for both and make an accurate judgement about which is best for you. That's one thing that I wish I'd done, because honestly, the idea of buying in full at the stakes I'm at (learning a somewhat different style of play for quite an expensive amount) doesn't sound too appealling (though I'll probably change that once I get my roll big enough...).

Yes, I'm short-stacking NL$200 currently.