1/3 Live 10-Handed (No Rake, Time Charge)

This was my very first hand in the session so I have no reads on the Villain.

UTG, UTG+3, and LJ limp.

I’m in the HJ with $100. I raise to $25 with Ah Qc.

Everyone folds except UTG, who calls. He has me covered. He is a tall skinny 45ish white guy.

Flop ($60): 6c 5d 4s

He checks to me.

Your play?

Check and buy in deeper.

I can't. My bankroll is too small.

If your BR is that small just wait for hands you can comfortably jam on the flop with like AA KK and QQ. You can just fold AQo. As played just jam flop and hope he folds TT face up.

Nobody is folding TT to a jam, or even 88 for that matter. You might get pocket 2s to fold but better hands call and all the worse hands fold.

What's the rake like? Can you beat it playing a 33bb stack?

Actually, where I'm playing now is free. No rake and the time charge is $0.

Too much pre, even though it’s prob a shove theoretically if raising.

Obv ck and give up post. Play pairs.

As played, I would go all in on the flop.

not sure why you think shortstacking is a good idea on a short roll given it increases your variance. i would play lower or just get a higher paying job first.

Shortstacking does not increase variance. It's typically bad in an environment where the smallest pots are raked the most, but rakeless I think it's actually a pretty valid strategy with a small bankroll.


No trolling strat threads.

evidence for this? with shortstacking you are essentially pot committing yourself preflop which means you are at the mercy of the flop in 30-50bb chunks.

example, raise 1/4 of your stack pre with AKo, Qxx board vs. two or less opponents, you have to shove all in when checked to if you're first to act. if you were deeper stacked, you dont have to commit yourself preflop.

I might raise just a smidge more to leave myself with a PSB shove for the flop.

I shove the flop (and if we left ourselves with a PSB shove instead of a slight overshove it gives ourselves just that better of odds to hit our overcards if called). We likely fold out AK. We give pairs a tough decision. We can still get called by draws (which we're technically ahead of). Even if we're killing completely missed hands like KJ there is no reason to give a free card. And if we're called by pairs we're still going to suck out 25% of the time by the river.

ETA: I'll leave it up to OP whether he wants to play a deepstack versus mediumstack versus shortstack versus supershortstack strategy. They all have pros and cons. A supershortstack strategy can still easily be a winning one. If he shoved flop, well played hand, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG

1/3 Live 10-Handed (No Rake, Time Charge)

This was my very first hand in the session so I have no reads on the Villain.

UTG, UTG+3, and LJ limp.

I’m in the HJ with $100. I raise to $25 with Ah Qc.

Everyone folds except UTG, who calls. He has me covered. He is a tall skinny 45ish white guy.

Flop ($60): 6c 5d 4s

He checks to me.

I check.

Turn ($60): 6c 5d 4s 7h

He checks. I check.

River ($60): 6c 5d 4s 7h Td

He bets $30. I fold.

----------------------------------------------------

It seems like people here are split on checking or shoving on the flop in these types of situations.

What do you think of betting $25 on the flop?

This bet gives us good odds if we just need a pair to win. It usually gives us a free card on the turn. And it has some fold equity. Also, check-raises by unknowns in this spot are super rare because most of them are way too passive.

Your thoughts on this bet?

With a stack that short a small bet is generally bad. It will work against some fit/fold fish but in general will just get you in trouble. Against typical loose/passive/sticky villains it just gets them more pot committed with under pairs you want to fold while letting their air off the hook. Against better ones it will work sporadically because they will realize they are pot committed if they call but they won't flat, they will fold or shove.

The other big problem with $25 on the flop is you started with $100, if you invest $50 and don't win you will have <20BB. You will be stuck in shove/fold territory.

Makes it so hard with your stack. If you were to bet on ANY street, you are pot committed.

The best chance you probably have is on the flop where you still have fold equity imo. But really, range of V is heavily influenced with PP (UTG limp) that they might call you down if you shove on flop.

Thinking about it again, giving up is probably best here. With a regular stack, the best would be to cbet and get a idea of where V is at and then maybe fire another street if you think V is floating or playing with a weak PP.

Not of the fan of a small bet which will leave us with < 1/2 PSB for later streets. You shouldn't be sticking in half your stack to possibly not get to the river / fold.

FWIW, playing a supershortstack like this makes the TP hands (like TT+/AQ+) easier to play, not harder. We simply raise preflop to setup a PSB shove on any flop (possibly slowplaying flops we actually hit if it ain't too drawy against bluffy opponents). If people are putting in 1/4+ of their stack to outflop us (plus not get outdrawn by us by the river when they do) or not folding any remote piece when we shove our overpair/TP (which we'll often have), good for them; we're still printing money overall (even though we'll run into a non folding 33 here and don't hit some of the time).

GcluelesssupershortstackingnoobG

Shortstacking is a fine strat, people call light in low stakes. You'll find lots of low stress double ups.

Pre is too big. With a single limper we can make it 15 in position.

Check flop

Check turn

Fold river

Jaming flop is 50/50 you can do it but the glory of shortstacking is that you get called when you shove. You are getting called by all pocket pairs, pairs and draws. Against that range we're probably only about 40%.

It'll probably work less then 50% of the time on this texture vs a limper. This board kind of smashes them and limped pocket 8s are feeling great here. I'd rather jam a board like J10 where I can get called by draws that are worse then ace high and have two overs + gutter. Plus folding out all low pocket pairs.


Well played.


This would be a clear jam pre if there was already at least 20$ in the middle from straddles/limps/raises or otherwise.

Also if the raise didn't come from a omc.

There are three limpers.

"UTG, UTG+3, and LJ limp."

Oh my bad

In that case 25$ is fine. We don't want to take this to the streets vs 3.


Almost a shove with 13$ in the middle but not quite there. Though you could just shove here and it would be proftiable in the long run. 13$ is a 13% boost to our stack and if we're called were likely not in rough shape.

Im jamming flop.

I've made the argument before and the people who disagree with me were neither convinced, nor able to present convincing reasoning/evidence themselves, so I'm not really keen on making it again.

Don't think in terms of buy-ins, but in dollars or BB. Deeper stacked we are playing bigger pots more often because we have more dollars. Shorter stacked we are getting all-in much more often, but for smaller amounts.

Variance has a formal definition which can be used to show an upper bound as a function of stack size. Another way to think about the problem is by looking at extremes. Would a 1BB stack player have higher variance than a 1000BB stack player? Obviously not as the size of pots the 1BB player can play is extremely limited. Even if he goes all-in blind every hand he will have pretty low variance.

The problem with this discussion is that variance has a colloquial meaning that contradicts with the formal definition. For most people variance is ill-defined which allows many different beliefs to arise in conflict with the formal definition. It would be best if every poker player just studied entry level statistics, but I don't have high hopes.

A final note is that there are two variables that are important to consider when comparing strategies. People often talk of variance but ignore win-rate. If variance is decreased, but win-rate is decreased as well, it may be less likely for a player to win over the same period of time and they may require larger bankroll requirements despite lower variance. I believe this is the case for typical short-stacking strategies where rake is huge in small pots, but I think short-stacking probably has lower bankroll requirements than full-stacking in a rakeless environment. I can't prove this though.