If you are playing a tight range of hands and your opponents are playing a loose range of hands then you are definitely winning this battle.

Let's just look at this simplistically and say anytime an A or a K flops we lose with QQ and anytime it doesn't we win. If that is the case then anytime an Ace or a King flops we lose $20. Anytime it doesn't we win $60 (if we cbet and take it down)

If an Ace or a King doesn't flop then you lose $25. If an Ace or a King flops you win $100 (if we cbet and take it down).

It's still poker. There are still a bunch of idiots limping a bunch of hands with no regards to position, hand strength, game dynamics or anything else. Given our low implied odds we should be nitting it up in regards to calling raises, but that doesn't mean we should be playing like a nit when we limp, raise, or 3-bet ship it preflop. This is still poker and we still want to play pots in position if we have the opportunity.

Your exact overlimping, raising, and 3bet shipping ranges will depend heavily on your own comfort level and game dynamics..ie if the game is filled with a bunch of very casual weekend players then you should only be raising for value but that doesn't mean you can't raise hands like KJ suited for value against morons that are playing any 2 cards. It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't ship pocket 9s preflop. Imagine if a player is raising every hand and multiple players have called. You wake up with 99. This is a super easy ship.

Not sure where this came from. Online micro stakes rake is massively more problematic.

True, but the play is astronomically worse in live poker than online. Players call too much when they should fold and they fold too often when they should call (ie fold when given huge pot odds because they think they are behind). The former is probably more true in the weekend games and the latter more true in a nittier weekday game. Either way though one isn't going to get in a ton of flip situations short stacking live..certainly not like online.

Like players will limp call for half their stack to setmine and will fold the flop if they miss their set. This is the type of play you will see live. Online I would expect them to GII preflop but if they don't they certainly aren't going to fold the flop getting 3 to 1.

If you play GTO it's probably a winning strategy in most games, assuming you're ok making $5/hr and pick up whenever you get close to 100-150bb, so you're never playing long sessions unless you're stuck, which seems like a huge leak. Just seems very hard to make even $10/hr if you never win 200bb pots.

If you're going to shortstack, the goal should be to play conservatively while improving as a player, being a smaller winner so you can buy in deeper and improve your game while improving your wr.

You have misunderstood what your winning friend said. He isn't saying he should be playing short stacked. He is saying you should. His reason is that you don't have the skill set to play deeper.

Playing short stacked reduces the number and magnitude of your mistakes. It doesn't magically turn you into a winning player. The biggest skill is patience. It is hard to sit at a live table for a couple of hours waiting for the right situation to make a move. I think Rolf Slootboom's books on his early days of PLO gives a favor of it. He would go in, play maybe 1-2 hands a night, and go home. Most of us don't have that level of patience.

I'm going to leave this thread open for a while longer, but I think much of what can be said has already been said.

There is a lot of good advice on here, but I would suggest one important thing. Study up on Ranges for shortstack, and deepstack play. Study NL a lot, maybe even practice 100BB stacks online cheap. And, learn how to play deep stack NL. Short stackers are always small winners, or bigger losers depending on skill level. Also, save up for a roll.

Most short stackers I see never adjust their stacking off Ranges after they double up, and that's their biggest leak. They're uncomfortable playing deep, so they buy in short. But, when they double up, they're playing a Normal stack and don't know how to play correctly. Don't be that guy.

I started out buying in for 60bb, problem I had is that if you get one double up your suddenly sitting with 120bb+ and are no longer short, and need to play a deeper strategy...
Online it's easy to hit and run with so many tables readily available to jump on when ever you need....
If your playing a long live session your going to be pretty deep by the end of the night.... I buy in for ~150bb table dependant and will regularly be playing a 400bb stack after 6hours or so....
If your going to play long live sessions you need to learn to play deep, unless you never intend on winning..

Where OP plays there are a plethora of tables available to choose from at both the 1/2 and 1/3 levels.

<sarcasm> How do YOU know where I play??? All you know is I'm from Dal(las) T(e)x(as).... oh, wait.... </sarcasm>

Not a loss, but a...

Not a moon, but a...

He wants you to give up "that fixed limit crap" but wants you to play NL and play short? Who cares what his opinion is about limit? I've done both and playing short in NL is far more boring. You'll see fish making mistake after mistake and you'll just sit there folding hand after hand with barely any chips in front of you, and feel like the biggest nit on the planet. It takes a lot of patience to do that and it's like watching paint dry.

Only reason they probably suggest playing short is so you can get some experience without risking much when you're learning how to beat the game.


There are no shortstackers at 1-2 NL who are playing as nitty as they should with a short stack. If they were good players they would play higher, or at least buy in for the max in a 1-2 game. That's one reason you will feel like a huge nit playing with a short stack at 1-2, and the other players will view you that way. They are used to short stackers being fish that play too many hands.

If the OP is a decent limit player he should be able to make way more playing limit. If the OP plays 4/8 or lower or is a losing limit player then yeah, he could make more playing short stacked. Not much though.

Did someone mention shortstacking?

Hi guys,

I suppose here is as good as any to do a 4000 hour update.



All hands played at 1-2 NL
Buy in : $100
Cash out: $200

(I have dabbled with a little deepstacking. Perhaps 10% of the hours. It has only lowered my win rate. What can I say ... I suck at poker)

Although a 100 buyin at 1-2 is not true SS....

In live poker, outside of perhaps select markets like Cali, 50bbs is considered short stacking.

Since live raises can be bigger, I would agree with this, although 50 bbs can be a bit more awkward.

to me short-stacking is a way to decrease variance at crazy tables

Your goal is to make $100/session or you table change when you double up?

It will actually increase variance, however, it will decrease both your losses and your wins, thus smoothing your graph a bit.

And as good as your graph is, you would have made even more money playing deep stacked. I'm not saying your not a good poker player, but you would be even better playing deep correctly.

I hate discussing variance because often times people are using different definitions of the word, but what I will say is that the volatility of playing a short stack is far less in live poker than it is in online poker. That's a function of how poorly opponents adjust to this style of play in live poker. The volatility one will experience in any given hand (like a "cooler") is far less when one is short obviously.

This is not necessarily the case.

Correctly being the key word here. If he played like Phil Ivey he would have made even more money. Just play like Phil Ivey, sheesh! Fact is the vast majority of players lose at poker and this guy actually found a winning strategy utilizing a short stack. I can't even count the number of wannabe poker pros I've seen go broke despite buying in full. Players buy in full every single day and lose their asses so lol @ playing deep being a solution to anything.

It is a solution for a delusional ego.

Buying in full is an ego stroke. Look at me, I am buying in for the max.

Truth is you should buy in enough to cover the fish and less than what the better players at the table have.

Also, nothing wrong with buying in short, then adding on after you get a feel for the table.

Wow, you guys are much more accepting than a few years back.

I'm not sure I approve.

Anyway...

Pretty much so.

I raise 10% of my stack size. And that remains constant. So, generally, when I get to around $200, the table no longer tolerates $20 raises. Then I leave.

However, sometimes the game gets goofy, I was playing with $300 the other day and getting called 5 ways for $30.

I stayed.

Well, the consensus is I'm not a good player. And I tend to agree. However, its important to identify why you play. If you are looking for respect from your peers, shortstacking the live low stakes games is probably the wrong strategy.

I have always said that if Phil Ivey ever sits down at my 1-2 table on a Friday night, I will eat his soul, double up, cash out, then go play at another casino.

Then return in an hour.

Your raise sizing strategy is pretty awful.