Yeah it’s kindof counterintuitive. position becomes much less important, IP is denied the opportunity to create indifference against the short stack. Meanwhile the short player gets to leverage his advantage OOP and create indifference vs IP

I have been playing NLHE with a 50bb starting stack the last 2 days. Often I like to test out theory with a particular slant playing live.

Wow. I should absolutely not be getting the action that I am getting.

I still think being a shortie is less EV, but now I understand why the *impression* is that it is an advantage. General randoms have zero clue how to react to it.

Can we get a little more specifics as to why some of us think this is advantageous (exploit aside)?

Yes when the SPR on the turn is near 1 then OOP shortie can jam, but this happens on the river with 100bb stacks often anyway.

The benefits that I remember from a long time ago are it shortens the decision tree/is easier to play and most people call with their normal hands that have terrible implied odds vs your tighter range.

Plus you can get in some good jamming spots early and just take your equity.

Edit: I should say easier here means in game decisions are easier not that playing the strategy takes any less work than playing full

right?! people dont adjust vs short players. thats another advantage: players w/ 100bb use their standard opening ranges, they dont consider that they are 40bb effective now, and how much stronger/dangerous the short players range is

another advantage is that short players sneak into multiway pots where deep players are having a confrontation, and they can capture a lot of these pots while minimizing risk

I played 50bb deep NLH for a couple of years and it always seemed like people stacked off way too loosely against me when I was actually playing tighter than I would if I'd been 100bb deep. A common line for me with nutted hands would be bet flop, check-jam turn, and people would make outrageously bad calls, often drawing dead, presumably because they thought the pot odds were too good and they felt "committed". I think regs also automatically that short-stack players are spewy fish. (Which is often true, to be fair).

One way the shorties get an edge is that they can 3-bet (or 4-bet jam) with linear ranges in every position. They rarely 3-bet/fold, because they only have 50bb (or thereabouts) that they are risking.

e.g. 1: Shorty opens in MP, Hero (with 100bb) 3-bets on BTN, and the shorty just jams 50bb with 77+/AQ+. Hero has to fold everything except TT+/AK. (i.e. hero can't really 3-bet light like he can vs a 100bb villain, because he gets jammed on by a lot of villain's opening range).
e.g. 2: Hero opens BTN hoping to play a pot with a deep stack fish in the BB, but the shorty in the SB 3-bets 77+/AQ/AJs+/KQs, and hero has to fold all his "speculative" hands, because there isn't the right SPR to play A5s, 44 or 76s etc.

It's a common annoyance for deep stack players that when a shorty enters the pot, hero has to play a "short-stack range" instead of his usual strat. e.g. If a 40bb player opens on the button, you can't go set-mining with a small pair (like you could vs a 100bb stack), because the implied odds don't exist.

In live PLO (my game) the big mistake I see short stackers make is they dont adjust their preflop ranges towards showdown value and away from hands that flop draws. Instead, they basically play a slightly tighter version of their normal range. The problem with short stacking PLO live is that you often get into spots multiway where you get 1/3 or more of your stack in pre but called by 4 people and the flop smacks their middle run ranges and you have an overpair and nothing else so you have to give up. Its also brutal on your psychology as once you have it figured out its completely dull with long periods of nothing to do

Sounds like short stacking is very profitable and also quite fun/easy, why aren't more people trying it then?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

I think it is quite boring, and not as profitable as full stacks. Also, it is likely not as easy as some would think. Mostly it profits from weak opponents who do not adjust to the reduced implied odds your stack offers.

There are spots where - say on the right of a maniac, where short stacking is printing money enough to make it worth the absolute boredom. There is also a decent argument in many configurations to start short and then win or add on. Otherwise, I hate it and don't even care to know if it might be more profitable than deep. I do think that it probably is more profitable measured as return on invested captial, but not in possible hourly for a given game

And having read the thread, this appears to be the first time you have discussed wanting to restrict discussion to online games. Yet the question is equally applicable to the live environment.

Some people prefer to short-stack (which is what I would view 100BB to be at some $1/2 games but not at some $2/5 games). Others prefer to buy-in full. There is ALWAYS a risk of doubling someone up, and variance could even allow it to occur more than once. Such is life. However, I would rather take my skill advantage and have a full stack to maximize that ability.

Remember, some with short stacks are playing with scared money. This can be exploited. In live games where $100 bills played, you could also exploit some of the $1/2 and $1/3 tourists by betting the cash note precisely because all of a sudden, it was real money and not just a stack of clay chips. This is yet another reason environment is indeed a viable portion of this discussion...

If you are worried about 'psychological devastation,' then IMO, you are playing with scared money. This is a game. You don't sit with what you cannot afford to lose.

Does this mean I like dropping a $2K buy-in at a $5/10 game? Not at all. But I know the inherent risk when I sit at that game. If I happened to lose it, all of my bills are still going to be paid and I will still be living life in the style to which I am accustomed.

hi michelle, i understand what your saying. my original question was vague, i was trying to clarify in the third post. the psychology thing wasnt what i wanted this question to be about.

the reason i wanted this to be about online is because reloading is not acceptable in live games, and i think most of us would never do this live.

im definitely not scared money. i think its a worthwhile discussion thinking about the loss of EV that comes from being super deep at a mixed depth table

Reloading absolutely IS acceptable in live games...topping off occurs at every casino in the States where I have sat down to play and at all stakes I have played (which admittedly has only been up to $5/10).

What is NOT acceptable is rat-holing, which is the complete opposite direction of reloading.

But since you ONLY want discussions about online, I will back out of this one...

im interested in your opinion i didnt want this thread to be a serious discussion i just wanted to interact with some other players and hear from other people

yes topping off happens, the etiquette ive learned is that its a lame move, in a private game it cant happen etc

What?

I think Michelle refers to removing money as ‘topping off’ in his/her post so I just used the same phrase

I think I misunderstood because then Michelle says rat holing is the opposite direction. But I wasn’t even talking about reloading in that sense, I meant reloading for 100bb cuz that’s what this thread is about.

Topping off typically refers to adding back into a stack that is below 100bb or min buy in. Rat holing was already covered earlier it's taking money off the table to play at min by in or 100bb.

okay thnx, i thought rat holing meant buying in short

when michelle said topping off is acceptable i thought she must have been talking about buying-back-in for 100 bcz obviously topping off is acceptable

Yes, you clearly misunderstood because topping off, at least here in the States, is bringing a stack back to full (or whatever level one is wanting to maintain).

Reloading is something that I would typically view as the rebuy after having been felted in a cash game...could involve pulling cash or chips from the pocket or it could involve the walk of shame to the ATM, but it is MOST DEFINITELY *NOT* pulling money OFF of the table.

The stack one plays with is a comfort level. Some people simply don't know HOW to play deep. Some people are SCARED to play deep. Some tables, 100BB is all you will be able to buy-in with while others allow you to buy in for or match the big stack. I personally always prefer to be at the effective stack of the largest stack at the table but am not averse to playing shorter stack (100BB) if that is the only option that exists.