Hi guys,

I thought I'd pop in and drop a line. A few months back I had asked some questions regarding live games, received some fine feedback, and happily wandered off to my local poker rooms to play $1/$2 NL. Within about 80 hours I made $2000, and then proceeded to lose it just as quickly.

So I tried something a little different. Rather than pretend I was the best player at the table, I decided to accept that fact that I sucked. And thus, needed a strategy to compensate for that. I decided to shortstack the game. Now, the live games in my neck of the woods require a minimum buy in of 50 bb ($100), however as a typical raise is between $15-$25, called 3-4 ways, 50 bb works out just fine. I read this article by Ed Miller:

http://www.cardplayer.com/cardplayer...for-wild-games

Which described, almost perfectly, the sort of games I play in. In fact, I'd say that the game Ed described is a bit tame compared to mine. No matter. Here are the results:



I've averaged about $22.75/hr over the last 500 hours. Pretty good, I think, given that, well ... I'm a bad player. Essentially, I buy in for $100, then when I double up (or even make $50, if the table is tightening up) I go to the next poker room. I've found that about 3 poker rooms, on rotation, throughout the night is ample.

I get a fair amount of heat from my friends. One even called the strategy "horse shit". Maybe it is, but he's gone broke. So has another. In fact, when I talk to the long term regs, few average more than $20-$25 hour. And my variance is nothing close to theirs.

Some say I've just gotten lucky so far.

Maybe.

I do know I'm up about $12K playing an almost mechanical strategy. I have dabbled a little in deepstack play, and I'm reading Caro, Harrington, Sklansky, and rather enjoying Angel Largay's book. That said, of the few times I've played deep, $1K wins seem to be balanced out by equivalent losses. Enough so that grinding out a few hundred a night seems preferable.

I'd actually like to improve the strategy a bit, which is essentially the same as that laid out in GSIH, however other than limping a little with small pairs (and premiums in early), and doing the odd squeeze play with SCs, the stack sizes just don't seem to allow much creativity other than shoving in with quality hands, but perhaps I'm wrong. I do wonder how well this would hold up at higher stakes, Sklansky seems to think it would ... and Harrington apparently employed something similar earlier in his career.

Go figure.

All thoughts and comments appreciated.

Best,
Flux

Does your hourly include travel and wait times?

It doesn't surprise me that somebody playing short stacked well could crush. The open sizes in live games are obv super exploitable.

i mean sure its profitable but its incredibly boring and its much more profitable to just learn to play poker and play a proper game

This as well, but fair play to OP. How many people have the ability to admit they are too crap to play deep profitably. Takes an admirable amount of self awareness.

I wouldn't rather kill myself, fwiw, but it is definitely close. I think the chances of a failed suicide attempt make that option slightly more -EV.

definitely +ev for the rest of the world though

i can give kudos to op for admitting that and finding a workable solution, though

what i was thinking about and didnt post was, is $22.75/hr with variance really any better than other jobs around? i used to have an extremely flexible 30/hr job that was probably about as boring as op's strategy but hey it pays more and is guaranteed so i dont see how this strat can be viable at all.

Hey, thanks for the kind words, gentlemen, and fear not ... I have hid all the sharp objects in my apartment.

Now, where were we ...

Ah, I think this is a question that has likely been brought up on the poker forums regarding low stakes grinders. I'll let them answer. It seems to be a very individual sort of thing. Some would rather cut off their left testicle than take orders from another. Others couldn't fathom not having a steady paycheck. To each his own.

:shrug:

Now, insofar as potential profit is concerned, I would argue that short stacking gives a player the very best opportunity to move up in stakes, and that deep stacking is more for recreational players. I could carry on with this discussion if anyone is interested. However, to make it brief, the argument would center around the intrinsic advantages within short stacking, combined with the smaller skill set necessary, allowing a player to move up faster, with less at risk, and more certainty in the outcome. I'm sure these arguments have been made before as well. And I seem to recall they were echoed by Sklansky, Miller, and used in practice by Barry Greenstein, Dan Harrington, and, err ... "Limon".

However, I understand if this is a topic that offends some. I've found many involved in poker to have heavy emotional needs met by gambling, while others are simply there to have fun. Obviously, the short approach does not cater to either.

(although it is fun to hear the squealings when your SCs hit after a multiway preflop push. Upon victory, immediately leave the table for additional spite bonus.)

Best,
Flux

(ps quesuerte, the hours were not including travel and wait time, however ... they are approximate at best. I suspect the real hours are about 5-10% less. I wouldn't be surprised if my true hourly figure at this point isn't closer to $25+/hr, and more if I didn't tip. I generally tip about 1% a pot.)

I would say that shortstacking is for recreational players for a few reasons:
- U dont lose much money
- Less risk
- Less skill involved (push-or fold basicly)

On the other hand..lets say a player like yourself who applied short stack strategy. Now he has a decent roll to move up in stakes.
Is he going to buy in full at the higher stakes or does he keep playing short stacked.

IMO playing with a full 100bb buyin encounters a player with allmost every aspect from poker wich is open voor development..and learning certain skills at the lower live limits sets you up for bigger profits at the higher limits.

So i think if you are serious about playing poker i would most def practice on playing full stacked.

i see what your saying op and its unarguable that short stacking gives you an edge, but in live pokers u have a bigger edge with a stack anyway

Well done OP. My problem with the shortstack strategy was what to do after doubling up (cuz we're no longer a shortstack) but looks like you've solved that problem just fine by picking up and going to another game.

Wouldn't work for me cuz I'm a recreational player who only gets one session a week, so I don't want to waste those single session hours by driving to other casino / wait lists / etc.

My guess is your's is a killer winrate and over a fairly decent sample size. Kudos.

Any thoughts about perhaps starting a session as a shortstack, using your shortstack strategy to double up, then learning / playing a deeper stack strategy (where my guess is that you'd also have an advantage, although perhaps not as great as your shortstack strategy)?

GcluelessNLnoobG

500 hours at 30 hands an hour is only 15000 hands which is a very small sample. You're playing a super high variance strategy so you're going to run extremely hot and cold at times. I don't want to blame your success only on variance, but it's a major part of it.

Still it's a good strategy that puts people in very awkward spots they aren't used to.

It might be harder to move up stakes though as you won't be getting a lot of important post flop experience which will severely handicap you later on as you move up and people don't have such a large % of their stack in preflop.

Well, I'm a bit torn about this thread. In one sense, this is a brag. However, there is the potential to have a good discussion of playing with less than 100 BB. Let's see it play out.

I do think thought that the OP is not really short stacking, which would be more at $60. By having 50BB, there are some plays available that aren't available to a 30BB player. KurtSF, for one, starts with less than 100BB on the table. The other thing is that the OP is completely wrong on one subject. He isn't bad any longer if he has done this. My belief is that at this point he is self-limiting his WR by only starting out with 50BB.

it really is shortstacking though. Compared to an online game where the average raise is 3x or 4x, and the short stacks are playing 20bb deep, his game is typically 8x-12x and he is 50bb deep. So all of the same strategies an online shortstacker uses will apply here as well.

This is why I think he'll have trouble moving up. Most 2/5 games standard opens are only 4x-6x, and 5/10 and up plays a lot smaller pre.

OP has found a way to beat a raked 1-2 game for 11BB/hour over a reasonablly long time frame and the collective wisdom from the forum is to have the OP switch strategies? Really???

I am sure it is possible to have a higher win rate using a deep stack approach, but very few players can pull that off. OP should consider the friction costs when changing venues and joining a new wait list. Even so, I doubt more than a tiny fraction of players posting on 2+2 have a higher win rate at 1-2 than that posted by Fluxboy even if adjusted for the down time spent switching tables.

OP seems to have a clear understanding of his skills, designed an approach to cater to his strengths and protect his weak areas and has found it to be profitable. I could certainly respect advice that encouraged OP to stretch his comfort zone from time to time. Personally, I would suggest that OP try his method at a few 2-5 tables.

I apprecate the skill and discipline that a short stacker has to have to be successful. As many have noted, it is boring and tends to frusterate the other players. While short stacking isn't my prefered style, I can certainly respect the effectiveness of OP's approach.

DrStrange

Please calculate wait time and driving time between casinos as your numbers are useless without them.

Hey gentlemen, thank you again for the positive feedback. In truth, I tentatively clicked the thread expecting a "die shortstacker die!" response. However, I shouldn't have feared. I've noticed in the live games the etiquette is vastly improved over the online games. For those who have only ever played online, playing face-to-face is (generally) a far more pleasant experience. And if any friction does develop, simply buying the guy a beer puts you in his good graces, like, forever.

LC125 and Papagavin: I hear you. In fact, there are moments when I'm looking across the table and thinking to myself:

"I know my outs, I know my card odds, pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, expectation, and pot equity. Shucks, I even know and apply Solomon's rule. I've read Caro, and watched his vids on youtube. I play with poker stove in my odd moments alone when not contemplating suicide. And here I am ... racing some cat for a bit of dead money who's knowledge of the game I can paint on a postage stamp? Fuck me."

So, yeah, I hear you. The short approach can work just as easily against you. In fact, Angel makes mention of such a thing. The trick is, he argues, that when you have a skill disparity, you want to put the weaker player to as many decisions as possible, as one mistake multiplies the next. And the reverse is also true, the weaker player should play as fast and simple as possible to protect himself. Not a bad philosophy for other areas of life as well, I think.

Gobbledygeek: Actually, this happens from time to time. After doubling up, I do practice some table etiquette. I have been known to stick around for a few rounds simply not to offend by leaving abuptly. And in this time I generally practice a strict set-mining approach. However, I have been burned from this as well, other times I've hit a lucky streak and literally left seven to tenfold my original stack size. It's rare, but it does happen. The problem is largely the preflop raises and relative stack sizes. The buy in for my games is $100-$300. With preflop raises $20+, even set mining is close to break even.

Bluegrassplayer: I agree. I could be simply running hot right now. 15K hands is a drop in the bucket, and I've heard rumblings that a live player may never really know his actual win rate. That said, I constantly dominate in match ups (Ak vs A-rag , Top-pair vs second-pair thing), and scoop a fair amount of dead money preflop. The edge exists, but how much of one is speculation at this point. I remember for my flat spot of about 100 hours I started wondering if the rake (5%, capped at $5) was effectively eliminating any advantage I had. Then, suddenly, the win rate took off again.

Venice10: You may be right, this may be a bit of a brag post. Not my intention, but I must acknowledge I've received a lot of heat from my poker circle. They are well-meaning, but it does wear on me after a while to hear all their bad beat stories. I have virtually none. I expect even as a 70/30 favorite to win all three times only about 34% of the time (.7^3). Come to think of it, I lost a $400 pot the other night when (after doubling) I looked down to discover KK, so I pushed preflop. AK calls, and the A flops, natch. Big deal, it will happen 30% of the time. It's part of the reason I don't like playing deep stack. That pot was a months rent, lol!

Still, I play with numbers a bit and concede that I had a 70% chance to win $200 there. Opposed to a 49% chance of winning two 70-30 match-ups. Thoughts like this keep me awake at night.

I'm a fragile soul.

You are wrong, however, on one point. I am a bad player. My Achilles is folding top pair. I simply do not know when I am beaten. So I adopted a strategy where that is not a factor. Speaking of which, this is the exact one I use (with a few tweaks):

http://resources.pokerstrategy.com/S...dout_V4_en.pdf

(I think it's a straight plagiarism of Ed Miller's GSIH strategy, but whatever)

This takes no skill, just a bit of patience. On this note ...

Dr. Strange: You are a kind one, thank you. It can be a trying experience. I spent a month in a Thai Buddhist Temple staring at the wall for about 20 hours a day. This has helped. My longest card dead session is about three hours. Yes, I didn't play a single hand for three hours. At that point, the whole table will call you just to give you a bad beat, lol. Which they did (bastards). That said, even on an average day, I probably only play about 1-2 hands per hour.

Livesinabarn: Love the handle, I can relate. My place is freezing. Landlord won't turn on the heat, it's -13 C out right now. I've compensated by turning on all the heating elements on my stove, lol. Anyway, I'd say that on average I drive about one hour over an 8-9 hour session. So if you factor in driving time, it could lower my win rate by about 12%, I suppose, putting me squarely at $20/hr. Rarely do I have any wait time, I call ahead, ensure there are games open, put my name on the list, and go directly to a table. I live in a relatively large city. I've found the best times to be from 6pm to about 2 am. Currently, I'm extending that a bit. I'm encountering bizarre play between the hours of 3 and 6am...

One last point, I take advantage of the free meals, staggered, throughout the night at the various poker rooms. I don't think I've bought any food for about two months, lol.

So there are perks.

Best,
Flux

^ If you don't mind being a poker outcast then who cares. If you can realistically pull $20/hr doing this then hey, not a bad job. I'm making less than 20/hr at 1/2 NL so for me to berate you seems hypocritical.

When I played online I used to short stack the 6max $0.50/$1.00 20-50bb games and I used a similar strategy. Assign your opponent a range, estimate your hands equity versus that range (you'd be surprised how fast you can immediately know what your equity is preflop versus even a wide range if you review a lot of your hands with pokerstove) then calculate your fold equity. If there's enough dead money in the pot already and your range is a %45 underdog then ship it. Ez game. But there's one thing you need to keep in mind while playing live and calculating your equity etc. and that's the rake. Make sure you factor that in. Because say if it's heads up versus a super drooler who you know for sure isn't folding preflop and your range is 50/50 with his range and there's no dead money in the pot, shoving is not profitable due to the rake.

One more thing. Playing this style is not really poker imo, it's more game theory and combinatorial mathematics but that does not mean it's any less respectable. There are subtleties and nuances that most players would not understand that separate a slightly winning short stacker from a game crushing short stacker.

Keep at it OP, and good luck.

PS: Doing this with a 50bb stack at 2/5 will not be profitable as the PF raises are no longer 6-10bbs.

Unfortunately 500 hours in live poker is nothing more than a grain of sand on the beach of poker. Sorry OP, its just a fact. You may be playing well, and may not, nobody knows at this point.

It certainly may be true that at 1/2 the players dont adjust, dont care, dont whatever and allow your strategy to work reasonably well, but moving up will not be in store for the future because it wont work the same. Maybe i give it up to 2/5, but no more.

Its very hard at live poker to determine EV of overall play until about 6000+ hours and even then its not really accurate since the game climate changes. You just have to play and as long as it works out for ya, do it.


You may be excited now, but switching rooms is no picnic after a few years of it and can get downright horrible over time. I quit making extremely good money on a blackjack team for this very reason.

Awesome man. These players are playing exploitable, you are exploiting them. Anyone who raises $40 in a 3/5 game is probably a donk who is unaware of stack sizes and stack-to-pot-ratios.

Awesome post.

As much as s/s'ers are the bane of the poker world, it is a reality that should be understood.

I especially like your methodical approach answering everyone's questions in civil matter.

Keep up the posts, I'm enjoying reading them and must admit, you've peaked my interest in trying my hand at some live shortstacking

Just warning you, it's worse than watching paint dry (I would legitimately rather watch paint dry than short stack 1/2).

This sounds like the perfect thing for me to be doing. I suck at poker esp accumulating$ 1k session profit only ylto melt down and donate it. Short stack would keep me in check.would also force me to just sit and watch. I pay too much attention to my cards, not enough reading skills. If thus did nothing other than to for e me tiwarmtch others play (rather than running 60% vpip) that'd be beneficial. Or di this until im chipped up for regular play ( rather than investing 100bb right off the bat). Thx for the post

This!

OP, instead of thinking of this a long term strat for moving up stakes and eventually making a decent hourly rate, you should look at this as a learning exp and a opportunity to learn more, get a little leather on your ass.

I would recommend that you take some of the roll each week and dedicate some time to normal buy-in play. Use what you have already learned and make sure you are paying attention all the time you are playing. Take some stabs at the bigger games, SS and normal and see how it goes.

Remember its not about being the best player in the world, in the casino, or at the table. Its about being able to exploit your edges when you can to the maximum possible in each situation you find yourself in. Its about making the best choices you can, and not just when you have two cards in front of you

It just sucks that we can only buy in for 66bb in our smallest game (2/3nl) in my city in Australia. ghey...

Anyway, gl OP, provided that the games stay exploitable then you are in a great position to do so...

Don't sweat your friends OP. People are naturally jealous of the guy who makes more money than men. Used to have friends just like that when I started playing online and they've all gone broke multiple times.

I tried a similar short stacking strategy for $1/3 in LA (capped at 33bb, $5 drop per hand postflop no matter how small pot is, $1 preflop no matter what) almost everyday for like a month and built up a $2.5k roll to $2/5 where I busted most of it in like 2 bad days buying in for full stack. Stupid degen busto friends convinced me to play higher and at the time I thought I was invincible.

Lesson learned: don't listen to advice from losing players.

Solid strategy for bad players. All bad players that I know lose money.

Question? Why are you here? You think anybody here can help you make more $$$ using this strategy?

Brag IMO.