Starting points at NL

I was flipping through Ed Miller's Getting Started in Texas HE book and found his section on playing a short stack in a cash game interesting. He says that being short-stack is easier to play as opposed to buying-in for the max if you play tight, and includes a basic starting hands chart. Now, he talks about this in the context of a too rich for my blood B&M game (the specific example he has is buying in for $200 in a $500 max game), so it may not apply outside of that setting.

I was just wondering if anyone here had read it and had any thoughts on it. Does it apply to the internet low buy-in game or fishy sites like Party? I tried it on a 0.01/0.02 game and I guess worked out eventually. After getting my few premium hands cracked by unsuited, unpaired, unconnected, low cards I finally more than doubled up when I sucked out on some guy playing T6o with a board of T36 when a 3 came on the turn (and a K on the river for good measure), but it was painful getting there. had I been playing even a quarter blind I would have given up long ago.

The only reason I ask-- Empire gave me a free $10 to play with until Nov 11, so I might as well do something with it and the $10/$25 ratio works out to Miller's $200/$500 ratio. I got lucky and flopped a straight and I almost doubled it on a 6-max NL table (all the 10-max were full with long waiting lists). On the 6-max I'm probably asking for trouble, but at worst I'll have made a little money on it. Any advice from here?

JeffreyGB used to play nothing NL cash games using this shortstacked method. I'd suggest writing him a PM and directing him to this thread, he'd probably have some great things to share...

I will NEVER play the shortstacked game. I want to get PAID, and unless you're all-in against five other people...you're not going to get paid as a shortstack unless you double-up, double-up, double-up......sooner or later you're going to run into a bigger hand and you'll be stuck with nothing, and you'll rebuy.

At this point stack size is the least of your worries. I'm sure T60 is NOT on the starting hand chart in the book, and I've never read it. The stakes your playing are not TAG stakes, btw, because TAG assumes some things that aren't occuring at your table. You're looking at 60% preflop callers, I'm sure, and people who won't lay down their hand in the face of large pot % bets because they are too small $$. In that situation you'll get blasted. Move to Rock poker, get in cheap and push with 2 pair or better (if you aren't obviously beat by a flush or straight). Play anything else very passively - including AA - because it will get cracked as often as not.

My opinion about short stacking, though, is to use it as a deception. You'll get callers when you push - which could be good or bad depending on what cards come next. And players look around the table and judge skill by stack sizes, so you'll be underestimated. But that assumes you're playing with great skill. T6o calls that into question.

The BAD SIDE of playing short - especially at micro stakes - is that you win less when you push. And for the most part, deception is totally unnecessary when you're playing idiots at those tables. Your goal should be to limp with the best cards preflop and double up (or triple up) about once per hour (or less) when you flop a monster. If you're playing to see lots of flops with questionable cards and winning pots with suckouts. You aren't "playing the fish", you are one. Works OK maybe for micro stakes, but when you move up you'll be eaten alive.

So, my advice is to not worry about what your buyin is and start tightening your game, getting some discipline and playing with purpose first.

Originally Posted by aokrongly

At this point stack size is the least of your worries. I'm sure T60 is NOT on the starting hand chart in the book

WHOOPS! My bad, I totally screwed up that example by typing so fast--that account is unreadable. I negleted to mention that my hand was KK and it was the the other guy that had T6o (you must've thought that I was a total retard since it reads like I'm playing T6o. The retard part is debatable, but I wasn't playing T6o ). I made a nice 4xBB raise.

Flop: T36

Turn: 3

River: K.

I pushed the flop and got called by the T6 guy and thought that I had my KK premium hand cracked yet again but got saved by the turn (and filled to Kings full on the river).

Sorry about that!

ah, that makes sense, i was wondering why the 3 and k that came mattered to you in your original post. Look at my post on counter-play at these microlimits. Back to shortbuying:
good news - when you get punked all in, you lose less
bad news - you're more likely to get punked if your ai move is a smaller portion of someone elses stack.
bad news - if you do pot bet flop and turn - or bet and call a raise, etc. by the time it gets to the river you may not be able to take drawing odds away from the other players. Again, I don't think it matters that much on micro nl. I would go with counterplay - which is VERY VERY BORING. But it's the professional way to play to the CONDITIONS OF THE TABLE. Why be a "book bound play" idiot and keep playing TAG/Pot sized bets, etc. when it's not he optimal way to play the table.

Again, here's why - TAG ASSUMES CERTAIN HANDS ARE FOLDING. TAG ASSUMES YOU CAN SPOT WHEN YOUR BEAT. TAG ASSUMES IF YOU RAISE STRONG PREFLOP THAT YOU WILL LIMIT YOUR OPPONENTS TO 1 OR 2. These conditions don't apply typically to micro NL. Also, that pot sized bet of the flop that's called by 3 players makes the only sized bet possible on the turn to take away odd, the AI bet. See, they idiots playing bad % calls aren't total idiots, when they hit they get paid big. Stay out of middling hands and just push monsters THAT ARE MONSTERS AFTER THE FLOP. AA preflop on micro nl isn't a monster. AAA postflop IS.

However, micro-nl players will call and AI bet on the river if they have a good hand. So camp, be a rock, play good cards cheap instead of carging YOURSELF to play them with big bets and raises, and then push when your good cards become unbeatable monsters.

Play with a full stack if you're going to do this. IF you're tired of losing huge by suckouts, then buy short. That way you won't lose huge.

This is quite an interesting post on buying in short at 25NL ring. I tried this strat for a few hours a while ago, and it is quite dull, but seems to work.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...pic.php?t=1406

I'll sometimes go in low as a deception tactic. Rather than pick a nice, even figure like $10, though, I just put in something seemingly random, like $11.86. Anyone paying attention on the table might conclude I'm at the end of my BR and desperate. I find it also helps if I can get into a relatively cheap pot that goes to SD that makes me look like a complete donkey. First impressions on the poker table often stick, and getting that target on your stack right out of the gate can pay off quickly.

I find I can get paid more (and faster) if I buy in short. I think it has something to do with they equate not buying in for full = you don't have a lot of money or are too stupid to buyin for full. Either way, I love some nice shortstack game.

Nothing quite like buying in for $2 at 10NL and leaving with $40 in 2 hours.

Originally Posted by edudlive

I find I can get paid more (and faster) if I buy in short. I think it has something to do with they equate not buying in for full = you don't have a lot of money or are too stupid to buyin for full. Either way, I love some nice shortstack game.

Nothing quite like buying in for $2 at 10NL and leaving with $40 in 2 hours.

Where do you play? Stars? Bodog?

I'm happy to buy in short occasionally for three possible reasons:

• There are hyper aggressive taz types that I can't read yet, and I know I could lose a couple buy-ins working out the read.
  
  There are some "any two" players that successfully play based on Implied Odds, and when I buy in with one of the largest stacks at the table, my AA becomes an instant target for unreadable shenanigans.
  
  When I moved up stakes, I don't want to play with scared money, or I might be pushed off a hand because of my stack at risk, rather than the strength (or relative weakness) of my hand. A short stack helps me keep mental control.

This is indirectly related, but is a more personal call for advice.

A few thousand hands ago, I started to focus on only one limit in an attempt to sharpen my skills and improve my game. This was based on Aok's advice.

I've been playing $2NL at Paradise and have just over 4000 hands in. Of that 4000, only about 1600 would be what I consider with what so far has been my optimal strategy, both pre-flop and post-flop.

I am currently at just under 6BB/100 hands.

I used to play 5 different sorts of limits and games. Of that 5, the next limit up in NL was one. I used to buy in with $4 at the $10 table.

In the opinion of any who read this, would that be a wise way to re-dabble in the higher limits again?

I am not completely convinced that I'm ready to move up, but after a couple thousand more $2 hands, and if I'm still showing positive numbers, I would like to experiment a little with moving up.

Thanks for any advice.

Jigs