Ed Miller considers 48bbs short stacking?

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk

I would have to go check the text but I think it was up to 40bb. That short you pretty much take away all io from your opponents due to oversized pf raises so you can cause opponents to make a large range of mistakes even just calling pf especially because the goal is to get it in on the flop to maximize fe. It's far from difficult to get 40 bb all in on the flop with proper pf raise sizing so I would think it would fall on the high side .

Never open limping this. That is horrendous even with like 50 bigs

It's been a while since I read the Ed Miller short stack stuff. 40bb does sound right, but there's no exact dividing line and (as always) how you play post-flop depends on size of pre-flop raise and number of callers etc.

Regardless of where you draw the line the main point is you play tighter and emphasize big pairs and AK/AQ and de-emphasize SCs and smaller pairs as the stack size decreases. (It's really just a simplified version of the SPR stuff for pairs & overpairs that he would write about with Mehta/Flynn in later books, but was somewhat novel at the time, at least to me)

It is fairly boring and like watching paint dry but it's the right way to play if you are short stacked. If you don't like that, then rebuy obviously.

Yeah, that's pretty much the opposite of the way I play. While I feel like a value-oriented strategy is the bread and butter of low stakes, there is just so much dead money in the pot nearly every hand that it's a very suboptimal strategy to just wait around to make hands. Players are limping too wide, raising too wide, betting too wide and virtually nobody is actually rolled for the stakes they are playing...even those that are financially rolled are rarely mentally rolled. The crazy thing about live poker is that one can play a LAG style and still be one of the tightest players on a lot of tables.

Some people are treating QJs like AA in this thread, imo. It's an ok hand, nothing more, nothing less. I doubt it's even profitable in EP at most tables I play at now (which is why I now typically open fold it in EP).

GimoG

It's also important that the stack be significantly shorter than at least some opponents. If everyone has a short stack, it's not quite the same, since you're no longer getting the intrinsic advantages of having V's play different ranges against each other than should play against you, nor of having V's continue to play a hand after you're all in.

I'd disagree only in that I think the average 1/3 player tends to assume that short stack players are bad and too loose and make the mistake of calling short stacks too loosely. (That is, when you are short you'll often get bad calls from bad players who could be short, mid, or big stacks themselves. I don't believe Ed Miller talked about that aspect at all.)

But the bigger point is absolutely true and what I found fascinating in the old Ed Miller book -- you can basically be a monkey wrench in the gears of skilled big stacks who are correctly playing loosely against fish medium/big stacks. Doesn't even take skill, you are just playing the odds in a way that completely negates the poker ability of skilled big stacks.

Btw, it's been forever since I read it, but I think Miller's short stack strategy is arguably just a refinement of Sklansky's strategy for all-in or fold in NL tourneys for someone who knows nothing about poker.

Yeah, it's definitely marginal. Here we are opening from HJ at 48bb's and I think it breaks down pretty easily:

1) if you open and don't get 3bet, this is fine b/c you probably have enough fold equity when 2 or less people call, and probably have enough implied odds when 3+ people call. (Having CO/Button fold and zero to both blinds call is probably the ideal, with all 4 people calling not bad either.)

2) if you limp and don't get raised by any of the 4 people yet to act, this is also fine. (Just getting 4 calls here and no raise is obv not bad at all.)

3) anything else sucks pretty bad

In summary, I think limping is really terrible if CO or button is decent and going to raise a lot of hands behind you, but opening could be fine there as long as they aren't going to 3bet light here somewhat frequently. As long as the 4 people behind you are passive, then either limping or opening probably are mildly profitable I'd expect.

Combined, the stuff in bold makes this a fold pre-flop: laggy image, short stack, positionally aware player on button.

I am opening with QJs here 99.99% of the time given OP's player descriptions. The only way I'm folding is if CO or V2 have super high 3b percentages. There are way too many limpy passive fish at a 1/3 table for Hero to be playing 3b pots of of position against the better players at the table.

I think the hand is fine but I personally like a raise on the flop to around 65, setting up a 1/2 sized pot turn jam.

Anyone suggesting limping should be banned for spreading pathetic nit propaganda.

Does every decision have to be so black vs white? Winning vs non-winning? Do it vs quit-poker-cuz-you-can't-possibly-win-otherwise? No room for alternatives?

I've been re-reading NLT+P a little recently. There's lots of room for alternative views. It's not as if one way = $$$$ and every other way = -$$$$.

G'Merica:everythingisblackorwhiteG

No, that's exactly what poker is. You aren't suggesting alternative lines in creative spots. You're just spreading the most passive attempt at low variance and risk aversion possible every spot.

At least I've made clear arguments for why I fear raising here ain't necessarily a great idea (low SPR that commits us with very mediocre TP, often folds out hands we dominate / limits to hands that dominate us, little FE preflop with loose Button who sounds like he's trying to outplay us in position, etc.).

What are you arguments, other than nit=bad?

Galso,nitcouldeasilybethemostoptimumlinetobeatlows takes/smallstacks/highrakegames,imoG

This is so true. My VPIP/PFR is like 27/25, yet I'm often somehow perceived as a nit. I've been called "the most conservative player at the table" lol. I just silently nod and keep barreling these guys while they think I've got the nuts.

Nit could easily be the most optimum line?

Bad nit! BAD! Shoo!

Seriously though I do empathize with you in that people should not be shouting as much "quit poker if you do x" kind of things, but on the other hand I understand where they're coming from. Nitty thought is ridiculously pervasive in the LLSNL forums. There's a thread going right now where OP and many other posters want to dump suited connectors from every position. Not just stop raising them, dump them completely. You see that kind of thing over and over and it's tilting.

There's no way nitty play is optimal, and I shouldn't have to waste time arguing why every other thread, though I often do. 1/2 fish play way too many hands. They have to get rid of these hands somehow or become calling stations. Most of them get rid of these hands by folding at some point. If you can't find good bluffing spots, quit poker! JK, but you should be able to find good bluffing spots in all but the wildest games. And even in crazy wild games, the most optimal strategy is not to nit it up and setmine but to widen your value ranges because if these guys are playing VPIP 80%, KJ is pretty good when nobody's raised.

Just ask yourself--are the biggest winners at any level nits?

And even if we can construct some theoretical game with high enough rake and tough enough opponents that nitting it up is the best strategy, it's a pretty weak argument. If your goal is ever to move up, you're better off ignoring the rake and playing a strategy that won't get you crushed when you move up.