Which means by my calculations, he needs to fold about 32% of the time for a shove to be correct. Which leads to my final question: Does he fold anywhere near 32% of the time? What hands are in his flat-reraise-fold range?[/QUOTE]

I can tell yoi for sure that his fold% should be way less than 32%. I would think this is a sppt where he never has to have a float or bluff. Its honeslty has to be around 5%. I think if this guy was playing correct he would fold 5% of hand to your shove. In fact he should only fold when he has a pure bluff otf which for most ppl is never. Every other Ax hand that u beat flats for value. Onlyhands raising you have u beat

I agree that some of those hands might be in his range, and he would probably fold a lot of them to a shove, but does it add to your EV when villain folds a worse ace for instance?

He never has a worse ace. He just flats those hands or folds pre.

Was not a bad play if he folded AQ

Kinda grunch:

OP do you have any idea what his 3 bet range is preflop?

Also, the only hands I can even think of that would raise this flop are draws. Unless your read on him is wrong.


Edit: raise folding AQ is lol bad. This guy is just an aggro tard.

The raise/fold from V is completely NON standard but should tell you a lot about what the player population at 2/5 is raising you with. TBH, with a "new to 2/5, tight player only buying in for 300 image" I wouldn't expect someone to raise you light on a flop with an A. Infact, until you show you can mix it up and start c-betting or blind stealing at high frequenices, I wouldn't expect anyone to raise you light since everyone will be putting you on an over pair.

His fold tells me he has you pinged as a super nit and was just raising to find out where he was at.

I agree with others that you should buy in deeper. Unless you play a super aggressive short stack strategy, your stack is going to get withered down by players stealing your blinds, plus you wont have implied odds to play suited connector hands, nor will you be able to call 3bets to set mine. Basically, you are going to have to fold all day and then not get paid off or get any action when you finally get a hand.

But GL with your second shot. If it doesn't work out this will be the reason why.

Grunch:

If you're going to take a shot at 2/5, take a shot, ffs. Why are you sitting in with 64BB? It's just going to create all sorts of awkward situations. If you're concerned about sitting down with a much larger stack than you're used to, it's understandable, but if you're taking a shot because your bankroll can handle it, buy in full and play poker.

As played: Me personally, I'd probably bet a bit larger on the flop but otherwise it's fine. Villain raising here looks very strong, because he still has no information on the BB's hand, who most likely auto-checked to the PFR. I'm assuming BB folded to you.

Normally, I think folding right now is a bit too weak, especially against an 'active post-flop' villain, so my play would be to call and evaluate; often times the turn gets checked through and I've bought myself a turn and river card.

But your stack size makes it a bit tricky; if you call, the pot is like $230 and you have like $215 left. So in this case I hate hate hate calling; I think it's a fold or shove. You only have 64BB, you have top pair good kicker so with a short stack maybe you just have to go with the hand here and GII....but I think Villain's raise here looks pretty strong so I'd lean towards a fold. Especially since the best card to improve your hand - a Jack - could be the gin card for the Villain.

EDIT: OK, read the rest of the thread and spoilers. Villain is lolterri-bad; you will need to revise your 'seems solid' assessment. Raise/folding this flop against a short stack on this board is just awful.

Nothing wrong with buying in short while you get your feet wet. It's not like you don't know how to play 100bb poker and it's going to help you get past the difficulty of making correct calls for $500 at a time instead of $200.

This hand, I probably fold because we are multiway, meaning villain ranges should be stronger and we are OOP.

Villain is pretty funny, raising flop 60bb effective and then folding TP2K.

I see the point you're trying to make - 'minimize losses while getting used to playing higher up'. The problem is, buying in short is not going to help at all and in fact Hero stands to end up losing more because he's going to be stuck in all sorts of awkward situations playing short-stack poker that he's probably not used to playing in his normal game. If anything, having to shove AJ in the hand above kinda proves my point - would Hero ever make his play if he was 100BB+ deep? Hero shoved here and -should- have been been snapped off by Villain's AQ, losing more in the hand then he would have if he had bought in full and been playing three streets of poker.

If you want to move up, and have the bankroll for it, move up and play your game. That, more than anything, will help you acclimate faster; not buying in short and playing a type of poker that simply puts you in weird spots where you have no real maneuverability.

Just IMHO of course.

I don't get all the short stack hate. It's fine if OP sees the pros and cons. As mentioned, you wouldn't use the same strategies and would probably play fewer hands, but can play them more aggressively. Other players may adjust to give less action. OP can counteradjust to make smaller raises or 3-bet light.

I could give example after example of how, why and what spots playing 60BBs can be better than playing 100BBs. As long as you know why youre doing it and which spots are better for a 60BB stack and which spots you should now be folding where you wouldnt need to fold with 100BBs, then its fine.

2+2ers have heard "never limp" and "always top off" so much they think anyone not doing it is a fish. Anyone who thinks a player is a fish just based on those factors is more than likely a fish themselves. I know a guy who limps 50% of his hands and is a constant winner. I cant figure out how its possible other than he plays very very well post flop. Could he win ever more if he stopped limping so many marginal hands? I would think so but I cant prove it and I know for a fact hes not a fish.

Because now you're trying to get used to what is probably a much bigger game while playing a style of poker that you're probably not at all accustomed to.

If you're short-stacking because of concern about the prospect of losing a lot of money due to the bigger game, you probably shouldn't be taking shots. If the player taking a shot ends up with a lot of losing sessions, is it because he's struggling to get acclimated, or because he doesn't really know short-stacking strategy?

Shortstacking is not the most profitable way to play poker so that alone should be enough to deter others from playing it.

In addition, it's just bad for the fuggin game man. Like, if you're coming to play some poker like a big boy, then put some money on the table and be like one of the guys. Going to play 2/5 and buying in for the min and executing a short strack strategy u read off the internet is not really in the best spirit of playing poker.

Poker used to be about having ballz and throwing some money around. If you're scared money and don't like losing big pots then play for smaller stakes or go work at Wal-Mart for some "variance free" money.

Not everybody plays for profit. Everyone has different motivations for playing poker.

lol 'spirit of poker'. What is this, the Olympics?

If the rest of my table is short-stackers, bring it on. For every guy who understands how to play a short stack, 99% of them don't and are total fish. It's boring AF to play vs. short stackers but against those who don't make the correct adjustments, it's a very profitable situation for someone with good fundamentals.

You wear a lot of Affliction and Ed Hardy t-shirts, don't you?

Having balls and throwing money around is not the best way to play poker. You're probably a nit anyway. I bet most of the shortstackers get more total chips into pots than nits do.

2Buying in short changes the math but doesnt make it necessarily bad. In this hand i would fold the flop on a short stack and call if deeper so i would haved saved money in the long run as a short stacker

You just have to play much toghter and expect a lower hourly

Guys who are more concerned about their perceived masculinity than maximising their profit are exactly the kind of opponents I want at the poker table.

Actually this is wrong. You want the "perception" of you to be someone who is not a thinking player. The guys who want to appear "smart" in person or on the internet are actually the guys with ego problems and insecurity issues.


Mike Starr commented that I probably play like a nit, and in some respects he is right. I don't hardly ever call off big bets because I know everyone is too scared to bluff. So this leads me to being exploited by the few aggressive opponents in the player pool.

But, because I can make a semi bluff or 3bet light (I actually have a stack of chips in front of me that allows me to do this) I can get the whole table to think I'm a super duper maniac guy and they start playing face up against me, while I didn't even have to deviate from solid strategy to accomplish this.

And for all the "game theory" nerds out there. Here's a game theory question for you. What would happen to all of the games if everyone bought in for the min and folded 85% of hands preflop? Hint: there wouldn't be a game. Now, take the same players who fold 85% of hands pre and make them buy in for the max? Now we gotta poker game and the scared money now have become the fi$$$$$hh.

So if you want the games to continue to run, then lead by example and buy in for some money.

The entire hand is one giant train wreck. The board is rainbow. V is aggressive post flop. I would start by checking the flop. You don't have to c-bet just because you flopped top pair. You gotta give aggro idiots some rope to hang themselves.

3! jamming this flop with AJ is terribad.
R/F AQ is just awful.

I really have no idea who played this hand worse.

I said absolutely nothing about what I want other players' perceptions to be of me, so how can I possibly be 'wrong'?

It's true that people who are desperate to impress other people as being smart have issues, although of course that's irrelevant to the discussion; however that in no way invalidates my comment about players who need to be seen as hyper masculine.