When does it pay to play deep?

At least one of 4 things must be true:

• Your opponent will call off his entire effective stack with too wide of a range of hands.
  You opponent will bluff off his entire effective stack too often.
  You can read your opponent's hand well enough to get in an extra value bet or value bluff if you played an additional bet/street.
  Your opponent will fold medium strength hands to implied threat on what otherwise would be an all-in street.

I'll argue that if none of these are true, you're better off with less than 100x the Big Blind. Although I'm not sure about the last one. Any others I might have missed?

-u can profit more when u have big hand, read well
-ur opponent can make bigger mistakes
-u have implied odds to play some more hands
-ur bluffs seem more dangerous
-u get bluffed less ? hm this is not true because u are more scared to call of bluffs in amrginal situations for same reason as ur opponent. tho at high stakes ppl call of their stacks in marginal headsup situations.

i think what matter is if ur opponent is willing to play for stakcs or u can make him play for his stacks... i just think with bigger stack u can win more money and play more speculative stuff, which i like. 100bb seem about right tho with 200-300bb stacks u can do more variety of stuff.

and i agree that with big stack ppl are less inclined to play off their stack with top pair or other marginal situation, call of bluffs.... short thats almost instacall.

I try to think about condition (1)

Let's say, we open with 99, 200BB deep, villain will call with A4s. We flop 9's Full, he flops trip 4's. All the money go in on flop, villain get stacked. Did he misplay the hand and falls to condidition (1)? What if flop is A94? Where is the line between "cooler" and "overplaying"?

What about winning the battle of mistakes, taking advantage of tilting players, setting up big steals, big calls or big traps?

Shallow stack can simplify decisions but doesn't allow for max exploitation.

Deep stack is more about exploiting and winning the battle of mistakes.

Originally Posted by Fnord

At least one of 4 things must be true:

• Your opponent will call off his entire effective stack with too wide of a range of hands.
  You opponent will bluff off his entire effective stack too often.
  You can read your opponent's hand well enough to get in an extra value bet or value bluff if you played an additional bet/street.
  Your opponent will fold medium strength hands to implied threat on what otherwise would be an all-in street.

Against solid regulars #4 is often the only reason to play deep. But it can be a compelling one.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I'll argue that if none of these are true, you're better off with less than 100x the Big Blind. Although I'm not sure about the last one. Any others I might have missed?

Those seem to sum it up. Another might be if your opponent doesn't widen his range pre-flop to take advantage of implied odds, but that also depends on #1 or #3 being true to be profitable. I'd also add that if you don't have position on the other deep stack(s) that's a good reason to leave the table.

crazycrazy, your reply has a lot of misconceptions. Many of those ideas put you in the spot of being the deep money street sucker.

Originally Posted by Fnord

crazycrazy, your reply has a lot of misconceptions. Many of those ideas put you in the spot of being the deep money street sucker.

well thats quite possible. i dont see too deep into it. anything in particular ?

It's easier to click the "Full Amount" button when you're buying in rather than type in an amount that puts you at risk of being timed out on your 13 other tables.

Nah, in all seriousness, why isn't:-

"We are able to manipulate our equity/potsize ratio (i.e. get all the money in with the best hand more often) in a more profitable way than our opponents" an excuse?

I'll argue that if none of these are true, you're better off with less than 100x the Big Blind. Although I'm not sure about the last one. Any others I might have missed?

I think, that all four points covered reasons for deep play.

Maybe I'd consider buying shorter, but I just make too much money from #1 , #4 and #2-1 combo (lol stack-a-donk)

#1 exploits LP's
#4 exploits nits and weak taggy wannabes.
#2 maniacs

#3 is interesting, especially "value bluffs". This is probably high stakes concept, when you fire 3rd barrel with middle pair because you think villain is bluffcatching with bottom pair etc.

Or is it an idea "I can flip my hand now and see if it's good, but betting will get to fold some extra hands in opponent's range"...?

You missed "when we make better decisions in general than the other players". Playing more streets allows us to make a better decision more often.

Originally Posted by Vrax

#3 is interesting, especially "value bluffs".

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I mean putting in a big bet where your opponent figures to rarely be able to call a big bet.

Also, I think this mostly applies to higher buy-in games where your opponents have adapted well to deepish stack play and know how to put you into difficult spots for your stack. By buying in short you can catch them making 100+ deep plays when you've changed the game to 50ish on them. You also make it harder to push you around because you can just commit when you have a pretty good hand on the flop or turn, then throw in an occasional all-in bluff back that they can't do much about without lots of outs or some showdown value.

Originally Posted by Ash256

"We are able to manipulate our equity/potsize ratio (i.e. get all the money in with the best hand more often) in a more profitable way than our opponents" an excuse?

Deeper means the big money bets tend to go into the pot on later streets. If you want to set-up big flop and turn bets (by tending to play tight), you're probably better off playing 50bb deep.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

You missed "when we make better decisions in general than the other players". Playing more streets allows us to make a better decision more often.

Not true online, also in NLHE some decisions are wayyyy more important than others. You should put yourself in a position to get the real money in on streets where you figure to have the biggest edge.

You have position.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by HalvSame

You missed "when we make better decisions in general than the other players". Playing more streets allows us to make a better decision more often.

Not true online, also in NLHE some decisions are wayyyy more important than others. You should put yourself in a position to get the real money in on streets where you figure to have the biggest edge.

Why is it not true online? Of course some decisions are more important than others, but still if we're better at making those decisions then multistreet play will benefit us.

I'm not sure about the last point, I think that if we're 10% better than someone on the flop, and 3% better than them on the turn and the stacks are deep enough to play both streets, then we're better off than if we're 15% better than them on the flop and the stacks are shallow. Sure, in the second case we get the stack in with a bigger edge, but the pot isn't as big so his mistake isn't as expensive (the term "real money" obviously depends on the stacks).

Looking at the flip side, if we are playing worse than our opponents we should prefer a short stack and getting it early. Isn't it then obvious that if we're playing better than them we should prefer a big stack and getting it in later?

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Why is it not true online?

Online players tend to play more tables against unknown opponents and pay less attention to the finer points of their opponents' play. Then they bitch and post a difficult hand without reads (or LOL HUD stats) when someone wants to go deep against them and they don't have a set.

If you're going for volume against fish that tend to be short-stacked anyway, life is easier if just go all-in for ~50bb...

+EV = nothing but hwen u multply it with $$$ = profit, so u just have to invest as much as u possible when the situation arise = having deepest stack on table and getting into those situations = poker...

there are prolly deeper strategy concepts behind stack sizes which i dont completely understand but still u get my point.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Why is it not true online?

If you're going for volume against fish that tend to be short-stacked anyway, life is easier if just go all-in for ~50bb...

Really good point. + the fish above 25NL tend to buyin for 20-60BB anyhow.

How about adjusting the stack size to the suckers?

Fnord you once again prove that you're a genius that should be playing the highest games online and also prove why people should love the fact such a genius is working on SC2

Originally Posted by Fnord

Your opponent will fold medium strength hands to implied threat on what otherwise would be an all-in street.

You said you are not sure about this one, but I think it is where poor hand readers such as myself get in the biggest trouble. I think if you can exploit this tendency, it is the most important of the deep stack list you have created.

Originally Posted by Fnord

At least one of 4 things must be true:

• Your opponent will call off his entire effective stack with too wide of a range of hands.
  You opponent will bluff off his entire effective stack too often.
  You can read your opponent's hand well enough to get in an extra value bet or value bluff if you played an additional bet/street.
  Your opponent will fold medium strength hands to implied threat on what otherwise would be an all-in street.

I'll argue that if none of these are true, you're better off with less than 100x the Big Blind. Although I'm not sure about the last one. Any others I might have missed?

One of the reasons i dont play deep anymore in med stakes games is because all decisions 100bbs deep are 'standard' with enough hands played for experience.
One reason i would play much deeper is if a player is not just bad for above reasons but if they are incapable of second+ levels of thought in medium-large pots, which probably indicates point 4 you make.

i like to play deep on nitty tables because 100 bb is optimum for medium pot bluffs against the right opponents. there are also of course a lot of donks around who play with 100bb, just make a hand and take it to them for their stack, simple enough.

any more than 100bb works sometimes as an intimidating influence on certain players narrowing their calling range on cheap streets, i like to follow through on my bluffs more if they are playing scared. There is also of course the odd occasion when a donk luckboxed a giant stack and you want to cover him.

Looking at the flip side, if we are playing worse than our opponents we should prefer a short stack and getting it early. Isn't it then obvious that if we're playing better than them we should prefer a big stack and getting it in later?

interesting concept...defense wins championships?

this one has made me think a bit. shorter stacks can force more action/inaction than deeper stacks. in short (see the pun), we can capitalize on MORE mistakes this way. opponent either folds too much, or calls too much with worse hands? we are effectively forcing the opponent to make a "final" decision much earlier than he/she wants to.

buying in short (35-45bb's) can have some serious advantages against deeper stacks. (not the point of the post, i know)
1. they dont take you seriously
2. you can force commitment on flop after a big pfr.
3. you take away their ability to bluff/semibluff you on later streets.

you kind of cut them off at the source of their powers.

interesting.

Originally Posted by Chopper

this one has made me think a bit. shorter stacks can force more action/inaction than deeper stacks.

I dont really see how. First of all noone can force inaction. Secondly we tend to play 2 big cards stronger against a short stack than against a tall stack, but we dont play speculative hands at all because we dont have implied odds. This isnt more or less action its just action with different types of hands.

buying in short (35-45bb's) can have some serious advantages against deeper stacks. (not the point of the post, i know)
1. they dont take you seriously
2. you can force commitment on flop after a big pfr.
3. you take away their ability to bluff/semibluff you on later streets.

you kind of cut them off at the source of their powers.

I think you missed off the biggest one.

Deep stacks tend to (or at least try to) size their bets/raises and opening ranges for optimum play against other deep stacks. If an 18/15 opens from UTG and we have two reasonably big cards and a short stack we should be happy to play because we are so far ahead of their range (which includes things like 22, and maybe 67s) and postflop playability doesnt matter with these stack sizes. If we had a deep stack and 2 offsuit broadways then calling would suck and raising would be very dangerous because we can hit the flop and still be unhappy about our hand with alot behind. If the deep stack was paying attention to us they wouldnt be raising things like 22 or 67s because they are way behind our hot and cold range. The fact that they dont tighten up on speculative hands against us is a BIG advantage.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ge=3&fpart=all

berggren playing 5/10 on stars?

if its the same sn he plays 1/2 2/4 on ap with me.
hes good, but not enough for 5/10 on stars for sure.

Originally Posted by Phoenix1010

[censored]' campers.

Best post by far in that thread.

its quite apparent that EVERYBODY hates a shorty, unless they are one. that thread made me laugh, but it also made some good points.

i dont like the 20 bb BI thing. its almost too short. and if it is the chosen BI, everything i've read suggests taking small pairs out of your range and sticking with TT+, AQ+ roughly. so, that guy pushing 66, 88, and whatever else, was just a bad shorty, imo. you simply enter too many "races." not enough of an edge to profit...big.

fnord, i liked YOUR idea of buying in with 50ish (i prefer 40). you can play a bit more "wide open" because you actually have some margin for error, imo. you can still open your range from late, and play pp's, open the pot with a bit more marginal stuff (to keep your villains guessing a little and dont forget...thinking you suck), and still get it in quickly when you hit something you like.

however, you cap off the damage that can be done against you when you get "trapped" or c/red AI on the flop. it takes out the later decisions, but still gives an opportunity for doubling up (which in todays environment is getting tougher, imo). not to mention that a lot of people dont buy-in full nowadays anyway...so, why not BI just short of them? doesnt that give you max value against "them?" if you have someone covered, dont you leave value on the table when you go HU w/ them? i hate when my set gets a shorty AI, and i win $6, instead of a full $25+.

i dont like it fundamentally, especially, the hit-n-running, but if it is "against the grain" of most, mentally, and PUTS THEM ON TILT more often, then i say give it a shot. that has to be advantageous (putting villains on tilt).

http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality.htm

Also, I've noticed that when I play this way I leave a lot of tables with around 80bb as I tend to win a lot of small/medium pots via aggression I'm willing to put my stack behind.

Originally Posted by Chopper

if you have someone covered, dont you leave value on the table when you go HU w/ them?

You say some really weird things. The limiting factor is their stacksize. If they have 60bbs and you have 60bbs you can win 60bbs. If you have 100bbs and they have 60bbs you can win 60bbs. How are we leaving value on the table by covering them?

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by Chopper

if you have someone covered, dont you leave value on the table when you go HU w/ them?

You say some really weird things. The limiting factor is their stacksize. If they have 60bbs and you have 60bbs you can win 60bbs. If you have 100bbs and they have 60bbs you can win 60bbs. How are we leaving value on the table by covering them?

you are missing a potential 40bb's if they dont buy in full. i know in absolute terms, you getting all that is possible.

i guess what i am asking is: what is the point in sitting down w/ 100 bb's when most, if not all, of the players are carrying 60ish? it may not be technically leaving value on the table, but doesnt it feel like it to you?