I was debating a friend the other day (solid 1/2 player). The casino where we play, the 1/2 game is a $200 cap and filled with short stacked recs. The 2/5 game is a $500 cap but has almost no short stacks.

Granted, short stacking takes a couple tools out of the tool bag but can surely be effective in the right situations.

With these parameters, which would recommend?

Whats your question?

With these parameters, which would recommend?

Too many factors involved.

Where I play, the 1/2 is a 30BB min. 2/5 is a 40BB min. Some call buying in for $300 at 2/5 shortstacking. Some dont.

If you playing 2/5 with $200 are you doubling up once and leaving for the day or are you changing tables? If you leave for the day, thats gonna make for some very short sessions where you could be making more money playing 1/2. You also might bust once and then double up. You are now even but have to leave for the day. You might bust twice and then double up and you are down $200 but have to leave.

Are there enough tables where you play to keep changing? Are you allowed to double up, change tables and buy in for $200 again? Some places wont allow it you to rathole if you change tables, although that's hard to enforce if it a big room.

Will people stop giving you action when you shove while shortstacked? Especially if they know you are leaving if you win?

Lots of things to consider

$50 min at 1/2 and $200 for 2/5

I was suggesting that he play his entire session at 2/5 and not change tables or rathole.

Only 3 tables on weekends. Must sit out 1 hour to return to table without current stack.

As for losing action vs shortstackers, No... Most of the players have no idea what the stack sizes are.

Well if he plays his entire session at 2/5, hes not really just shortstacking. Once he chips up hes playing a more normal game. At that point, you cant really even try to compare win rates. He may be shortstacking 2/5 for an hour and playing full stacked for 4 hours. The 4 hours hes full stacking 2/5 will completely throw off any comparisons to full stacking 1/2 as far as win rates are concerned.

For what its worth, I buy in for $300 at 2/5 but in a normal 4 hour avg session, I probably have $400-$500+ at least half the time. Am I short stacking? I would say No.

Assuming the rake is the same and the players are relatively the same skill level, I'd opt for the $2/5 game.

This is a safe assumption.

I'd go for the 2/5 every time, given what DCFT posted.

Edit: Of course, it's hard to believe short stackers at 1/2 are playing the same level as 100bb stackers at 2/5.

We arent talking about short stacking 1/2. We are comparing short stacking 2/5 or playing 1/2 full stacked. Possible win rate differences.

If its a skilled player who can beat 2/5, then starting a session short stacking 2/5 until building a stack and continuing to play 2/5 with 60-80-100+ BBs should always be better than playing 1/2 starting at 100BBs as far as win rate.

If its a player who cant beat 2/5, then who knows? They could continually get crushed every time they build a decent stack.

Why are you considering to short stack 2/5 vs. buying in full? You're not giving up a few things, you're giving up set mining and playing connectors. Your game consists of playing big cards pf and getting things in by the flop.

TBH, if you're not a winning player at 2/5, short stacking isn't going to turn you into a winner. You should stay at 1/2 until you have the skills to beat 2/5 full stacked. If it is a bankroll issue, then just move down to 1/2 if you lose too much.

Rake alone should make 2/5 better value, I'm not an advocate of shortstacking though

For one, even if you have a better winrate than playing deeper, your winrate playing deeper is going to improve much slower or not improve, which I prioritize as a goal

I lol'd here.

In live poker, I think generally you play where the average opponent stack is the highest. Where I play for example, the 1-3 will often play like 1-3-6 and have a $1000 average stack if that has been going a while. When that is the case, I choose it over a 2-5 500 cap that is just beginning.

Maybe this helps.

I suspect that in a lot of lineups a disciplined short stack strat to either chip up and top off or double through to a full bi might actually work fine.

I base this mostly on how terribly I see people respond to a good short stacker in my room.

My guess however is that most people who buy in short won't play a good short stack strat.

Its true that the vast majority of people who buy in short do stink. Of course the vast majority of all poker players stink so buying in short doesnt really give you that much of a read. My estimation is that only 10%-15% of all players are winners. Maybe its 5% of short stackers. I dont really know.

Having said that, buying in short isnt what makes them bad. Most of them are just bad and want to lose less money. A player who knows how to play short stacked correctly can have a nice win rate. They are just so few and far between that most people assume its not possible.

Basically, I agree with you.

+1 to this. If it's late in the early morning and I see a 1-3 table that is full ring with 250-300BB stacks versus a short-handed 2-5 game, I will sit in the 1-3 game every time and print money.

Love that you mention the game really being 1-3-6. Between button straddles and UTG straddles it is very common for there to be 3-4 $6 straddles an orbit, making the game play as big as 2-5 with way crappier players.

As far as Op's question goes, it really depends on your goals and your skill level.

Like, are you trying to play professionally? if so, then 2-5 is the obvious choice just based off of the rake alone.

Are you just looking to made some side income? If so, you can play 1-2 like a mindless nit and be guaranteed about $12 an hour tax free which is better than any part-time job you will find.

If you're on this site, I'm assuming you are beating 1-2 and would probably be atleast an average player at 2-5. But if your bankroll is small then the swings at 2-5 will have a big impact on you. Not only this, but because the edges are smaller it may take you a long time to determine if you are a big winner, marginal winner, or slight loser in the game.

If you notice, most of the threads in this forum are questions about 1-2 and 1-3. That's because the games are soft and there is a predictable formula to beat them.

Once you get up to 2-5 you are much more on your own and heavily reliant on your reads at the table. It's beatable, but not many are beating it. So, you have to be honest with yourself if you play it and have to ask yourself if you have an edge in the game. If you don't have an edge, you need to find out why. Sometimes its strategy leaks but sometimes it is just mental game leaks. For a lot of guys, I think they have too small of a bankroll when shot-taking which ensures that they have pretty much no edge in the game and they are just hoping to run like God in the beginning.

I dont care if you cheat on your taxes or not, but poker income is not tax free.

There are plenty of part-time jobs you can get that will make you more than $12/hr.

I will start with Uber.

And guess what? You never have a losing night in a part-time job.

Back 7 years or so ago, I know there were several "notorious" short stackers who were fairly free with posting their graphs. They were winning about 1/2 the rate of the best full stack players. They made good money because the strategy was less complex than full stack play and they handled more tables.

In a live setting where table hopping is far harder to do quickly and you don't have the volume you can put in online, my guess is that even the best short stacker isn't doing much better than the 3rd best full stack player at a table over time.

No disagreement there from me, but remember that online shortstackers were buying in for 20BBs, doubling and then leaving. What OP is talking about is completely different. Most live games require a min of 30-40BBs plus OP is talking about continuing to play after building a bit of a stack.

If hes a good live shortstacker (which would not be the same strategy as shortstacking 20BBs in an online 6 max game), he could have a decent win rate while he learns the new higher stakes game than hes used to playing.

There's a very big skill jump from 1/2 to 2/5 in my opinion. I played some 1/2 the past week with a friend and the players were very weak. There's hardly anyone who knows how to apply pressure and put you in tough spots.