Why I Feel Short Stacking Sucks

Disclaimer: This is discussing people who are not capable of beating $2/4 at a typical online no-limit hold'em game when buying in for 100bb and who aspire one day to make a lot of money from poker.

The people who take what seems to be the most consistent abuse from fellow online poker-players are the people who buy in for 20-60bb in no-limit hold'em cash games. There are a wide variety of insults that have been thrown their way, but short-stacking does have certain promise for the player who chooses to buy-in short. You can read about the types of advantages and whatnot players can get in various threads that have been started here, but I'd like to discuss a few somethings that I'm fairly certain haven't been addressed (here at least) concerning short-stacking.

First, I'd like to point out that you can't move up as far in online poker if you're exclusively short-stacking as you can if you play with a near-full buy-in. Short-stackers need a large number of tables at their stake so they can rathole and jump over to a new table, and at higher stakes this is much harder to do since there aren't nearly as many tables running.

Also, many poker sites are taking active steps to keep short-stackers out of the games, especially at high stakes, like the introduction of 50BB minimum buy-in tables at PokerStars; we can only expect these measures to expand in the future to make it harder and harder for short-stackers to infiltrate games that other players don't want them in.

Second, no-limit hold'em with a relatively large buy-in is where the money is these days in online poker. If you don't cultivate the skills needed to play the game this way (late street play, etc.) then you're going to be way behind as the average player improves his game and you do not. The games are harder now than they were a few years ago, and while part of that is due to the US legislation and whatnot, the games were getting harder before that.

Let all hell breaking loose commence.

shortstackers suck, i hope people who thrive to be great dont try it out... there are successful methods of winning as a shortstack but I believe its very high variance...

i despise shortstackers too fwiw

It takes a real piece of work to actually strive to be a great ratholer. You have to not care about your skill developement, what your friends think of you or about ever being anything more than a wannabe poker player. Funny thing is, if your only after the money, there is easier ways to make it. I can not imagine short stacking $200NL and under for any length of time and think it's enjoyable. Unless you think being a dick and pissing everyone off is more fun.

Let's keep in mind here, I'm not talking about buying in short. I am talking about the assholes that buy in for less than 50BB, make 20 or 30BB and leave before the next hand is dealt.

The goal of the game is to make money. Short stacking is one approach to do that.

Also, most short-stackers are just terrible players trying to limit their losses yet play big enough that they might win big for entertainment.

That said, raising the buy-in floor to 50 or 60bb is probably the right move. 40bb and under plays so much differently.

Shortstacking is filled with tough decisions too, just the weight of decision is shifted into earlier streets.

Originally Posted by Vrax

Shortstacking is filled with push/fold decisions too, just the weight of decision is shifted into easier streets.

FYP

Originally Posted by Vrax

Shortstacking is filled with tough decisions too, just the weight of decision is shifted into earlier streets.

To be fair, what tough decisions? I also think we need to define what constitutes shortstacking. I am usually referring to the min buy in crowd. Not the 50BB-60BB minority.

Originally Posted by Vrax

Shortstacking is filled with tough decisions too, just the weight of decision is shifted into earlier streets.

If this is true then why do people cite "easier decisions" as one of the reasons that they short-stack?

It's interesting to consider the psychological state of and effects on the player who decides to exclusively short-stack.

The main reason players turn to exclusively short-stacking is that they are avoiding the parts of the game in which they feel they have a disadvantage. This is taking the "easy way out" so to speak, in that instead of moving down to a level where he or she can work on their game, they choose to avoid the struggle and work involved in improving.

This choice to avoid has its roots in fear, laziness, and pride. They have too much pride to move down to a level where they can work on their game. They are too lazy to put in the work required to play no-limit hold'em with deeper stacks. They are also afraid of not being able to win if they do try to improve.

A reason that the typical college student could try to use to justify their actions is that they are more profitable short-stacking than full-stacking, and that if they played with full stacks, they wouldn't be able to support themselves. Instead, it would be much better if they just put their pride aside, got a part time job and worked on their full stack game. This choice would pay massive dividends in the future, and is [rather obviously] better than wasting their time in a situation that has a very limited earning potential.

lol shortstacks. id instakill'em all if i could

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

<spoonitnow> There is a guy who I know has been short-stacking 100nl for at LEAST 6-8 months
<spoonitnow> I have between 60-80k hands on him
<spoonitnow> And he plays a lot
<spoonitnow> His justification in a March 2008 thread on 2+2 was that he sucks at no limit, so he short stacks
<spoonitnow> If instead of wasting his time short-stacking for a small profit, if he would have taken those 6-8 months to improve, then who knows how much money he would be making
<@euphoricism> ... or losing

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Saying "Well, all he has to do is get better and then he'd win" is a pretty pointless statement.

I've decided to use this to illustrate an example of the typical defense that short-stackers give when trying to justify what they do as pertains directly to my post above.

The game is just less complex shortstacking, as there are less decisions to be made and you have less options per decision, compared to deeper stacked games.

I guess reasons for someone shortstacking seriously are that he can't handle/isn't ready for the complexity of deeper stacks, or doesn't like losing full buyins, or doesn't feel like putting the effort in to learn the complexer decisions, or feels like his opponents are making bigger mistakes against shortstacks than full buyins.

Originally Posted by minSim

The game is just less complex shortstacking, as there are less decisions to be made and you have less options per decision, compared to deeper stacked games.

I guess reasons for someone shortstacking seriously are that he can't handle/isn't ready for the complexity of deeper stacks, or doesn't like losing full buyins, or doesn't feel like putting the effort in to learn the complexer decisions, or feels like his opponents are making bigger mistakes against shortstacks than full buyins.

Everything that you just said except the very very last thing is what I just said.

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

imo 2/4 and up are hard enough that theres not as much shame in shortstacking it

1/2 and below though its like LOLOL R U JOKING WTFFFFFFF

Long live shortsackers, imo. They are usually noobs to the game/stakes, are generally bad and are net donators to my bankroll.

A certain site about which we have received much spam of late actively encourages noobs to shortstack exclusively, buying-in with 20bb. If it helps stock the pond, I'm all for it.

Couldn't we say the same thing about the people who 24-table .5/1 and 1/2 instead of playing fewer tables and really focusing on improving their game so they can move up?

Beating 2/4+ for a solid winrate is freaking hard. Most people give up and choose another way to make (less, but still a lot of) money playing poker. I chose donkaments, you chose to multitable the crap out of small stakes games, other people chose to short-stack 2/4+. None of us are really cultivating the skills we need to beat big games as much as we could be, but we're still making good money in the meantime, so what's the problem? However, I do agree with Renton's post. Short-stacking nano-stakes games is just a waste of time.

Also, if you're playing big games then it's not as easy to be a winning short-stacker as some of you think it is. There's A LOT of math to be done in order to work out a good pre-flop strategy. For most of the short-stack bashers in this thread, I'd be happy to prop-bet that you wouldn't be a winner if you tried it.

get your reason and logic out of this thread!

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

If you don't like the truth then I suggest you stay out of my threads.

Originally Posted by Renton

imo 2/4 and up are hard enough that theres not as much shame in shortstacking it

1/2 and below though its like LOLOL R U JOKING WTFFFFFFF

I agree 100%. Short-stacking is a nice skill to have, but limiting your no-limit cash game options by only being able to short-stack is going to hurt the player in question pretty bad in the long run (and somewhat short run).

Originally Posted by Warpe

Long live shortsackers, imo. They are usually noobs to the game/stakes, are generally bad and are net donators to my bankroll.

A certain site about which we have received much spam of late actively encourages noobs to shortstack exclusively, buying-in with 20bb. If it helps stock the pond, I'm all for it.

I do agree for the most part, however, I've taken a lot from this community, and I like to give back when I can. This post is just a warning to those players who may be tempted to short-stack instead of working on their deep-stack game, and that is all.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Couldn't we say the same thing about the people who 24-table .5/1 and 1/2 instead of playing fewer tables and really focusing on improving their game so they can move up?

Beating 2/4+ for a solid winrate is freaking hard. Most people give up and choose another way to make (less, but still a lot of) money playing poker. I chose donkaments, you chose to multitable the crap out of small stakes games, other people chose to short-stack 2/4+. None of us are really cultivating the skills we need to beat big games as much as we could be, but we're still making good money in the meantime, so what's the problem? However, I do agree with Renton's post. Short-stacking nano-stakes games is just a waste of time.

Also, if you're playing big games then it's not as easy to be a winning short-stacker as some of you think it is. There's A LOT of math to be done in order to work out a good pre-flop strategy. For most of the short-stack bashers in this thread, I'd be happy to prop-bet that you wouldn't be a winner if you tried it.

Yes, you could, as long as you're absolutely sure that they're not improving their game so they can move up.

Yes, beating 2/4+ is hard. That's exactly why new players who aspire to beat those stakes should not be just short-stacking and should be working on their game, like I've said time and time again.

Be careful about making assumptions about things you may not be very familiar with: multitabling does not mean you're not building the skills needed to beat higher level games. We are making alright money, but people who have to short-stack microstakes are not, and that's where the problem lies, which you seem to agree with.

How much would you like to prop bet me? Any stakes up to 10/20?

Originally Posted by euphoricism

get your reason and logic out of this thread!

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Disclaimer: This is discussing people who are not capable of beating $2/4 at a typical online no-limit hold'em game when buying in for 100bb and who aspire one day to make a lot of money from poker.

Fair enough. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of short stackers who are making a killing in big games, but if your post was only directed at the guys shortstacking 100NL or lower then I agree with 90% of what you said.

BTW the last paragraph of my post wasn't really directed at you, it was directed at some of the other guys in this thread who were acting like short-stacking is really easy, when it isn't. I wouldn't make the prop bet with you.

Harrington on Cash Vol 1 has a few applicable observations. Pages 126-128 are basically making the point that the effective stack size is making one style of play optimal. Fnord has often made the same observation I think regarding 2-street poker, 3-street poker etc.

Ed Miller's Getting Started in Hold'em is making the point that a starting hand can have pre-flop equity value and post-flop strategic advantages, where shorter stacks favour pre-flop equity and larger stacks favour post-flop strategic advantages.

Harrington I think it was who made the just as relevant point to this discussion that many card rooms limit the maximum buyin. Like a lot of online card rooms limit the max buying to 100bb. The way he describes it true deep stack play seems to begin at 100bb and get really fun at 250-300bb. The relevant point here is that deeper stacks allows players to leverage more comprehensive skills. Card rooms limit the max buyin to take some advantage away from the most skilled players and level the playing field to give less skilled players a chance.

A similarly relevant point is my own and this: You can't play deep stacks without knowing how to play short stacked, but you can play short stacked without knowing how to play deep stacked. The important part of that statement is not the latter but the former.

Personally, I favour deep stack play because the learning opportunities are richer, but spending a little time short stacking for educational purposes is still on my to-do list. I think that if I spend some time playing short stacked it will give me a better understanding of how short stacked play can work and make it easier for me to counter.

I don't think short stacks should be banned, but I wouldn't be opposed to having the range of possible buyins made more narrow by raising the minimum buyin. It creates a more even playing field where everyone is playing the same style of poker.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

I'd like to add that this is the first time ever on this forum that I've been personally attacked for a contribution.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

For most of the short-stack bashers in this thread, I'd be happy to prop-bet that you wouldn't be a winner if you tried it.

i'll get back to you

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

I'd like to add that this is the first time ever on this forum that I've been personally attacked for a contribution.

He's just being defensive. Still pretty lame though. I appreciate your post.

To be fair, what tough decisions? I also think we need to define what constitutes shortstacking. I am usually referring to the min buy in crowd. Not the 50BB-60BB minority.

So, it's all about those little pests who sit with $10 on 50nl table? They can be annoying OOP, I agree.

I was referring to 50-60BB minority because I played like this for a while.

It looks like 100bb and above is more weighted in flop/turn play, while 50-60bb is more preflop/flop poker.

If this is true then why do people cite "easier decisions" as one of the reasons that they short-stack?

They have easier decisions on turn and river. Turn is shove/check, and they don't get to the river without full commitment.

The tougher decisions are preflop, like getting 3bet or facing big early 5x opening and not having AA/KK. Those decisions are for smaller mony (at the moment) but it's the key point of hand planning for 50-60bb'er.

choo choo!

Fwiw, ive asked for a shortstack coach because id like to understand what they are doing and be able to do it.

Sure ill be building a real game too, but i feel you need the balance of all knowledge to play good

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

I'd like to add that this is the first time ever on this forum that I've been personally attacked for a contribution.

It seems he's so embarassed about shortstacking that he thinks any shortstack discussion is a direct discussion of him.

It's like a poker Napoleon Complex.

Originally Posted by Ash256

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by euphoricism

You guys can split the nobel prize. Srsly brilliant stuff here.

I'd like to add that this is the first time ever on this forum that I've been personally attacked for a contribution.

It seems he's so embarassed about shortstacking that he thinks any shortstack discussion is a direct discussion of him.

It's like a poker Napoleon Complex.

Well hell I knew that.

Food for thought, why do we play for stack stakes? It's perfectly feasible to have an online game where each hand is 100bb and once you can't cover the stake, you're delt out. It's almost an artifact of a game with chips and cards.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Food for thought, why do we play for stack stakes? It's perfectly feasible to have an online game where each hand is 100bb and once you can't cover the stake, you're delt out. It's almost an artifact of a game with chips and cards.

I've thought about this before a few times, and I think there's a good chance that eventually no-limit games will be played online like this.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I've thought about this before a few times, and I think there's a good chance that eventually no-limit games will be played online like this.

I strongly disagree here and why you think the way you do about this says a lot.

That said, I agree that there will be measures put in place to protect the bigger games from hit-and-run short-stacks so the regulars can play deep stack poker with less fear of being made to play 1 or 2 street bingo against a well balanced range after they've put money in intending to play at least 3 streets if they make a hand.

Spoon, have you ever played in a big public card room? Do you have much insight into how the people who feed our winnings (if even indirectly) think?

Originally Posted by Fnord

Food for thought, why do we play for stack stakes? It's perfectly feasible to have an online game where each hand is 100bb and once you can't cover the stake, you're delt out. It's almost an artifact of a game with chips and cards.

Wait I don't get it? Every hand is straight up 100bb? What do you mean can't cover the stake?

No Comment
Yes
You don't get delt in if you can't cover the full $100 from your account

It's like spread-limit. The maximum that anyone can wager on a hand is 100 BB.

Can't see online poker ever changing to a system like this, the fish would just bust way too fast.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

The fish would just bust way too fast.

Meh, I think the problem with the structure isn't so much an edge problem as it is the fish would be less inclined to play such a game.

I wonder if there is anyone who consistently beats the crap out of the capped NL games on FTP.