Short Stacks

Some people were talking about it in the High Stakes Forum. I have been seeing alot of it lately. There are 7 tables at the stakes and site I play right now. 5-7 of the 10 people at each table are short stakes. 50$ NL and alot of people have less than 20$. Its pissing me off. Its all in or fold, and even if I beat them I still dont win much. People buy in for the minimum. Then rebuy for the min again when the lose their stack. So its not like they dont have enough$.

Why do people do this? It seems totally stupid to me. What if you get a chance to double up? Instead up doubling up a full buyin or more. You double up a 1/4 of it. Thats alot of money to miss out on.

I guess one reason they do it is cause the suck. With a real short stack they dont have to think much. Raise PF move all in on the Flop. Keeps things simple.

How do other people feel about this? What could be the benifits of it?

it's dumb, just buyin full and call those fuckers when they push

Originally Posted by ItDepends

it's dumb, just buyin full and call those fuckers when they push

** Acclaim [Hold 'em] (1.00|2.00 No Limit - Cash Game) Real Money

- lemmmm sitting in seat 1 with $124.05
- church_fart sitting in seat 2 with $297.85 [Dealer]
- bajslars sitting in seat 3 with $543.30
- Miffed sitting in seat 4 with $38.00
- heyne1469 sitting in seat 5 with $178.80
- BENZBOY1969 sitting in seat 6 with $73.70

bajslars posted the small blind - $1.00
Miffed posted the big blind - $2.00
** Dealing card to Miffed: Ace of Diamonds, Ace of Clubs
heyne1469 folded
BENZBOY1969 folded
lemmmm folded
church_fart raised - $4.00
bajslars folded
Miffed went all-in - $38.00
church_fart called - $40.00

** Dealing the flop: Jack of Spades, 5 of Hearts, 4 of Hearts

** Dealing the turn: 7 of Spades

** Dealing the river: 4 of Clubs
Miffed shows: Ace of Diamonds, Ace of Clubs
church_fart mucks:
Miffed wins $78.00 from the main pot
Miffed has left the table

Ima fish.

Just buyin full and open push.

If you're playing with a bunch of nut camping bonus whoring full buyin nits, you take away odds by short stack ninjaing.

If I get to a table with too many shorties I just leave.

Originally Posted by AHiltz

If you're playing with a bunch of nut camping bonus whoring full buyin nits, you take away odds by short stack ninjaing.

If I get to a table with too many shorties I just leave.

You also lose your implied odds with hands like SCs which are very profitable against these players who very often dont get away from overpairs.

Originally Posted by andy-akb

Originally Posted by AHiltz

If you're playing with a bunch of nut camping bonus whoring full buyin nits, you take away odds by short stack ninjaing.

If I get to a table with too many shorties I just leave.

You also lose your implied odds with hands like SCs which are very profitable against these players who very often dont get away from overpairs.

you can 20 table 6max with a 10vpip short stack game

Now theres a thought for $'s per hour...

Depends. I've always played with a full stack, but short stacks do have an inherent edge over the rest of the table. Fortunately, the large majority of them are donks that don't know proper short-stack strategy. This mitigates to a point as you move up in stakes.

if im at a table and a short stack has position on me i leave

Originally Posted by theDEEPdish

if im at a table and a short stack has position on me i leave

I see the merits to this, but it really depends on the entire table. IE if this is a terrible short stack, I'd much prefer to have position on them, but if I can't, I'll just tighten up and expect to get paid, fully knowing that I may be losing out on certain edges on the rest of the table (ie raising small pairs with this player still to act).

I tend not to put nearly enough effort into game selection or seat selection though, fwiw. They are both very important, but I often just open up and sit down in the first 9 spots/tables that I can. It's better then waiting on a bunch of waiting lists and hoping that the right players leave...

its stupid to shortstack if you could have ordinarily beat the stakes playing with a deep stack.

Its kinda like since aces and doggz shortstack 25/50 now its become the new hip thing. Its only good for them because they are fish in the 25/50 game and thats the only way they can extract an edge in a game so tough.

If you can beat the game, then play with a full stack and maximize value.

Originally Posted by Renton

its stupid to shortstack if you could have ordinarily beat the stakes playing with a deep stack.

Its kinda like since aces and doggz shortstack 25/50 now its become the new hip thing. Its only good for them because they are fish in the 25/50 game and thats the only way they can extract an edge in a game so tough.

There are certainly fish in that game, but they aren't it.

Note that I'm not saying that I think they have an edge on the good regulars, because I don't.

If you can beat the game, then play with a full stack and maximize value.

What if you can beat the game with a full stack, but your edge is bigger and your variance is smaller shortstacking it?

btw I hate short stacks just as much as the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Lukie

the large majority of them are donks that don't know proper short-stack strategy...

i'm curious as to what the general consensus is on what proper short-stack play is. of course no more sc's, calling 5xbb raises with small pairs, and push over raises with hands like AA-TT and AK, AQ - what else is there to know? how much does a proper short-stack player buy-in for? 20BB's? 25?

EDIT: also, how do things change once a short stack doubles up to a 1/2 stack or so? is the strategy then "leave the table"?

Originally Posted by Lukie

What if you can beat the game with a full stack, but your edge is bigger and your variance is smaller shortstacking it?

Thats a nice hypothetical, but it won't happen. Shortstack variance will always be worse than deepstack variance for the same reason that LHE is swingier than NLHE.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

i'm curious as to what the general consensus is on what proper short-stack play is. of course no more sc's, calling 5xbb raises with small pairs, and push over raises with hands like AA-TT and AK, AQ - what else is there to know? how much does a proper short-stack player buy-in for? 20BB's? 25?

EDIT: also, how do things change once a short stack doubles up to a 1/2 stack or so? is the strategy then "leave the table"?

Very good points. My humble input, plz rip it apart:

I once saw aces buy in for $1200 at the $5000 so 24BB should be good. Seriously though, shortstacking is best done for 20-25BB imo. AA-TT and AK, AQ push over raises.. increase range if people tend to fold.

A question, short-stacking passive games where everyone is like PFR 1%, then you just standard raise these hands 4BB (+1 per limper) instead of shoving allin right?

Originally Posted by jackvance

A question, short-stacking passive games where everyone is like PFR 1%, then you just standard raise these hands 4BB (+1 per limper) instead of shoving allin right?

Did you think aces and doggz get AA and just open push for 20 BB?

Originally Posted by pantherhound

Originally Posted by jackvance

A question, short-stacking passive games where everyone is like PFR 1%, then you just standard raise these hands 4BB (+1 per limper) instead of shoving allin right?

Did you think aces and itdepends get AA and just open push for 20 BB?

doggz has been banned for 4 months?

its stupid to shortstack if you could have ordinarily beat the stakes playing with a deep stack.

Its kinda like since aces and doggz shortstack 25/50 now its become the new hip thing. Its only good for them because they are fish in the 25/50 game and thats the only way they can extract an edge in a game so tough.

If you can beat the game, then play with a full stack and maximize value.

I dont know if im a fish in a 400nl or 600nl game yet

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by Lukie

What if you can beat the game with a full stack, but your edge is bigger and your variance is smaller shortstacking it?

Thats a nice hypothetical, but it won't happen. Shortstack variance will always be worse than deepstack variance for the same reason that LHE is swingier than NLHE.

Please ellaborate more on this.

*i was asked to delete this post for a stupid reason*

improve? who wants that? give me the money!

Originally Posted by pantherhound

Originally Posted by jackvance

A question, short-stacking passive games where everyone is like PFR 1%, then you just standard raise these hands 4BB (+1 per limper) instead of shoving allin right?

Did you think aces and doggz get AA and just open push for 20 BB?

I doubt these games qualify as passive PFR 1% games ^^. In such passive fishy games you might start getting (somewhat loose) callers if you sometimes push allin preflop...

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by Lukie

What if you can beat the game with a full stack, but your edge is bigger and your variance is smaller shortstacking it?

Thats a nice hypothetical, but it won't happen. Shortstack variance will always be worse than deepstack variance for the same reason that LHE is swingier than NLHE.

Please ellaborate more on this.

Because shortstack nl and lhe rely on taking mostly 5-10% edges to win at showdown for most of the value. And its easy to roll a 10 sided die 50 times before you land on the desired number.

Fold equity exists at shortstacking, sure, but generally you are only pushing when you know you are ahead of the range he'll call with, meaning you are taking a modest edge vs villains range most of the time.

Originally Posted by Renton

Fold equity exists at shortstacking, sure, but generally you are only pushing when you know you are ahead of the range he'll call with, meaning you are taking a modest edge vs villains range most of the time.

i like edges...yum

Because shortstack nl and lhe rely on taking mostly 5-10% edges to win at showdown for most of the value. And its easy to roll a 10 sided die 50 times before you land on the desired number.

Fold equity exists at shortstacking, sure, but generally you are only pushing when you know you are ahead of the range he'll call with, meaning you are taking a modest edge vs villains range most of the time.

pokerstars 100nl full ring players wouldnt agree with that, i just tried em out. They like to flip/call miles behind.

i think the edge is more than modest most times. you'll get calls on the flop lots of times when you have TPTK vs. their draw or overcards or TPWK, and anytime you get AA-QQ and there is a raise in front of you, you are almost guaranteed action if you have about 20 BB's vs. a full or deep stack. i think you get action that you wouldn't normally get if you had a full stack, and you can also be presented with triple-up opportunities pretty easily. yes there are times when you could've made more $ with a full stack but 10-tabling as a shorty doesn't sound half-bad to me, and i know i'd be happy i only had 20 BB's when i got a beat put on me

EDIT: what is the general hand range when doing this? i mean for shoving over a raise in front. is it AA-TT, AK/AQ? also, does the range change when someone 3-bets you? example...100NL you have $23 UTG with AQ and raise to $4. CO 3-bets to $12. do you still push here or does the range tighten?

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

raise

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

Uh, I'm not going to get too wordy about it now (gg laziness) but Sklansky and Miller basically claim that short stacks have the advantage in NLHE ring. Apparently you could play almost robotically-tight with a short stack and show a profit in even some very tough games. A very good player would make more with a deep stack against other deep-stacked opponents, so playing short would significantly affect his rate. But it is still +EV over the long run.

It would seem that the only reason to buyin deep, is because the bad players are.

P.S. Just go buy the book you nits.

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

Uh, I'm not going to get too wordy about it now (gg laziness) but Sklansky and Miller basically claim that short stacks have the advantage in NLHE ring. Apparently you could play almost robotically-tight with a short stack and show a profit in even some very tough games. A very good player would make more with a deep stack against other deep-stacked opponents, so playing short would significantly affect his rate. But it is still +EV over the long run.

It would seem that the only reason to buyin deep, is because the bad players are.

P.S. Just go buy the book you nits.

you were supposed to scan every page and photobucket it.....what's the name of the book again?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

Uh, I'm not going to get too wordy about it now (gg laziness) but Sklansky and Miller basically claim that short stacks have the advantage in NLHE ring. Apparently you could play almost robotically-tight with a short stack and show a profit in even some very tough games. A very good player would make more with a deep stack against other deep-stacked opponents, so playing short would significantly affect his rate. But it is still +EV over the long run.

It would seem that the only reason to buyin deep, is because the bad players are.

P.S. Just go buy the book you nits.

you were supposed to scan every page and photobucket it.....what's the name of the book again?

if you play short and raise, everyone is already losing money.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

Uh, I'm not going to get too wordy about it now (gg laziness) but Sklansky and Miller basically claim that short stacks have the advantage in NLHE ring. Apparently you could play almost robotically-tight with a short stack and show a profit in even some very tough games. A very good player would make more with a deep stack against other deep-stacked opponents, so playing short would significantly affect his rate. But it is still +EV over the long run.

It would seem that the only reason to buyin deep, is because the bad players are.

P.S. Just go buy the book you nits.

you were supposed to scan every page and photobucket it.....what's the name of the book again?

No Limit Hold Em Theory and Practice.

And, I may be a villian, but copyright violation just isn't my thing.

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

You guys need to read Sklansky's new book. It sheds a lot of light on the short-stack issue.

why don't you just tell us about it?

Uh, I'm not going to get too wordy about it now (gg laziness) but Sklansky and Miller basically claim that short stacks have the advantage in NLHE ring. Apparently you could play almost robotically-tight with a short stack and show a profit in even some very tough games. A very good player would make more with a deep stack against other deep-stacked opponents, so playing short would significantly affect his rate. But it is still +EV over the long run.

It would seem that the only reason to buyin deep, is because the bad players are.

P.S. Just go buy the book you nits.

you were supposed to scan every page and photobucket it.....what's the name of the book again?

No Limit Hold Em Theory and Practice.

And, I may be a villian, but copyright violation just isn't my thing.

bump

if you buy into a 00nl or 200nl fr or 6max game for 50bbs and only play premium hands like AA-TT and AK-AJ, how +ev does it become for set hunters to play against you if you make if 5bbs preflop instead of 4?

50 bb is too much. 20bb is much better for short stack play.

And I know I didn't answer your question, but I'm tired. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

50 bb is too much. 20bb is much better for short stack play.

And I know I didn't answer your question, but I'm tired. Sorry.

well, 45bbs would be about right, but yeah.

So what you are basically saying is that I am doing the wrong thing by buying in to the max when I go out to the tables at Stars and Party?

I've always though that having the ability to match a push with a bit of bankroll behind you when you are holding the nuts is preferable to _not_ being able to make the most of a good hand by being short-stacked.

J

Originally Posted by jameseyb

So what you are basically saying is that I am doing the wrong thing by buying in to the max when I go out to the tables at Stars and Party?

I've always though that having the ability to match a push with a bit of bankroll behind you when you are holding the nuts is preferable to _not_ being able to make the most of a good hand by being short-stacked.

J

full ring games are all about making sets at the moment. You see campers on 100nl tables with the tinniest of vpips just set camping.

If they cant ever expect to win more than 40bbs from stacking you but have to call 5bbs ten times to flop a set on you, then they dont have any positive ev by trying to set up on you. In effect they are losing money

Originally Posted by jameseyb

So what you are basically saying is that I am doing the wrong thing by buying in to the max when I go out to the tables at Stars and Party?

I've always though that having the ability to match a push with a bit of bankroll behind you when you are holding the nuts is preferable to _not_ being able to make the most of a good hand by being short-stacked.

J

No, I'm not saying that at all. But you should realize that playing short has certain advantages that playing deep does not.

Here's a rough example:

Say you have 20bb in a SSNL FR. Everyone else has you covered. You are on the button with JJ. UTG+2 (who is a fairly loose player) limps, everyone folds to CO who also limps, you raise to 5bb. Blinds folds, limpers call.

Flop comes T74 rainbow. Both limpers check to you. The pot is 15bb (well actually 16.5 if you count the blind money, but just assume that gets raked) and you have 15bb left. You push AI. UTG+2 calls and CO folds. He shows KTs. Turn is a 5, river is a 7. You drag the pot.

However, let's say you have 100bb in the same scenario.

Preflop action is the same, but on the flop you pot it instead of going AI. UTG+2 calls. Pot is 45bb.

Turn is the same card. He checks, and you bet 20bb. He calls again. Pot is now 85bb, and you have 60 left.

River falls the same card, and this time Villian goes AI. Do you call? Many times at these stakes, I don't think we are calling this bet alot in this situation, despite the slightly more than 2 to 1 pot odds. Without reads I fold one pair hands almost always to a lot of heavy action on gay boards.

Point is that for many players, playing a short stack is better, because it gets rid of all the difficult play on fourth and fifth street. In our first example we are all-in on the flop and get called (probably correctly so) by TPGK. In the second example we keep getting called and then villian pushes: not a fun thing unless a) we have a monster or b) we have a read on villian that he has air.

Of course, you cannot make as much money playing short as you can playing deep, and playing deep allows you to hone your postflop skills. However, many players (even alot of aspiring poker afficiandos) can lose way, way more with a deep stack. They press an overpair too far, they bluff raise at the wrong time, etc etc.

FWIW, I don't like playing short. THe only time I play short is when I'm bored, tired, distracted by AIM/drunk roommates and I just want to screw around. I just don't think it's smart for alot of "good" poker players to dismiss buying in short as "stupid". There is a definite reason why short stacks are "annoying", "gay", and "donks". They are irritating you because they have the theoretical advantage.

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Point is that for many players, playing a short stack is better, because it gets rid of all the difficult play on fourth and fifth street. In our first example we are all-in on the flop and get called (probably correctly so) by TPGK.

sorry, but poker is supposed to be about making tough decisions - And the short stack Ninja thing might work better for larger games, but the short stackers in the 25NL games are morons, IMO - they are buying in short because they are scared and don't have the bankroll - for me, personally, the more mistakes I made, the more I learn...and when i lose a stack, it bothers me but i try to figure out why and what i could have done...if im playing with a short stack im not maximizing wins, nor am i pushing anyone out of the pot -

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Point is that for many players, playing a short stack is better, because it gets rid of all the difficult play on fourth and fifth street. In our first example we are all-in on the flop and get called (probably correctly so) by TPGK.

sorry, but poker is supposed to be about making tough decisions - And the short stack Ninja thing might work better for larger games, but the short stackers in the 25NL games are morons, IMO - they are buying in short because they are scared and don't have the bankroll - for me, personally, the more mistakes I made, the more I learn...and when i lose a stack, it bothers me but i try to figure out why and what i could have done...if im playing with a short stack im not maximizing wins, nor am i pushing anyone out of the pot -

you are both getting the reason why short stacking (when done effectivly) is both highly effective and totally missing what is being said here.

If you take away the need for 4th and 5th street from the campers who are now quite rife in the game you take away any edge or money making ways they may have had in just being campers.

In effect, you are taking away the need to make big pot decisions with marginal hands becuase your stack size already makes another players actions -ev and your own actions on making top pair +ev.

Originally Posted by LimpinAintEZ

Originally Posted by Krieg1984

Point is that for many players, playing a short stack is better, because it gets rid of all the difficult play on fourth and fifth street. In our first example we are all-in on the flop and get called (probably correctly so) by TPGK.

sorry, but poker is supposed to be about making tough decisions - And the short stack Ninja thing might work better for larger games, but the short stackers in the 25NL games are morons, IMO - they are buying in short because they are scared and don't have the bankroll - for me, personally, the more mistakes I made, the more I learn...and when i lose a stack, it bothers me but i try to figure out why and what i could have done...if im playing with a short stack im not maximizing wins, nor am i pushing anyone out of the pot -

I don't think you understood all of my post...

I've already stated that very good deep stacked players would make much less playing short. The main reasons they play deep are:
a) many bad players play deep as well, and winning 100+bb off a guy who donks off with TPNK is much better than winning 20-40bb.
b) they know how to get away from a hand when a big pot is forming, or vice versa, when to push a hand strongly in a big pot. Tight, efficient, short stack play keeps one out of trouble, but their hand reading skills/experience allows them to take the odds they like and refuse the ones they don't. It's smart gambling.
c) they want to get better. Deep stack play makes fourth and fifth street play much more important. They do this so that (b) becomes more reinforced.

Playing short eliminates difficult decisions, and although is not as profitable to a great player as playing deep, it makes some tough games surprisingly beatable.

And when you say poker is about making difficult decisions, well, that's just your view of the game. It's the way you handle it and how you want to progress as a player. That's perfectly ok. Just remember that from a theoretical standpoint, you want to spend most of the time making easy decisions, while forcing your opponents to make difficult ones. That's the heart of good NL poker.

What does a Short Stack do when they double up leave the table and go to a new one?

Get to that new table and buy in short again. They've just "made" their stack double and so think that it's profit.

Hell, if the tactic allows them to think that they have made money, let them bank it. Personally, I leave when i get tired or bored or hungry and _then_ bank my chips. That way I get a feel for how well I have done in my session. The other way makes me feel like a thief.

J

Well, at least no one is posting "short stack is gay" and/or "never buyin short" anymore.

Geez, it's just like when Columbus said that the world wasn't flat.