Thoughts on shortstacking 2-5 NL - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash

Thoughts on shortstacking 2-5 NL

Closed Subscribe

...

09-03-2014 , 10:58 PM

comebackkid5

newbie

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 25

I've had medium-term success (2 years) buying into 2-5 NL for 300$. (200-1k buyin) My question is buying in short-stacked a good strategy? Any thoughts are appreciated.

I've been playing live Holdem for 7 years now and have employed the short-stacked buy-in strategy in the last couple years. Am I losing value playing this way? I feel like the game plays easier to get 60bb all-in easier by the river and get some free double ups against hands that wouldn't call off for a 500$ effective stack.

09-03-2014 , 11:08 PM

dom80e

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 344

You can win both with medium and full stacks. You can win more buying in deeper, but it takes a different style of play and more thinking.

09-03-2014 , 11:17 PM

Study Ace

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 231

It depends...

09-03-2014 , 11:20 PM

Fish Taco

banned

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 1,580

If you can't play post flop and your goal is to get chips in pre then short stack away.

If you want to actually play poker and run it up to $5k buy in full or at least for 100bbs.

09-03-2014 , 11:33 PM

Flushie

centurion

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 159

If you have trouble playing turns and rivers, you should buy in short. If you find yourself unable to think well in really big pots, buy in short.

09-04-2014 , 02:08 PM

ValueBluff

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 371

It sounds like you're comfortable playing short stacked and if it's working for you, stick with it.

But yes, if you think you are a better player than your competition, you are losing some ev by not buying in full.

09-04-2014 , 02:28 PM

BJballs

adept

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 903

What are your poker goals?
I think this is a bad strategy if you want to get better and eventually play higher. I also think it's a bad strategy if you want a better hourly. However, if the thought of losing a full buy in sickens you or you are bankroll restricted then it is probably the best strategy for you.

I once heard a good player say just because doing "X" makes the hand easier to play it doesn't make it the best decision.
It sounds like you buy in short because it's easier for you to play that way.

09-04-2014 , 02:47 PM

beauvanlaanen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 12,487

It depends on the other players stacks.

09-04-2014 , 06:04 PM

ChicagoLex

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 245

IME the biggest difference between 1/2 and 2/5 was much more aggressive/correct bet sizing pre and post flop. Everyone at the table will have some experience playing pre and post flop, but there seems to be a larger edge to exploit on the turn and river. If your goal is to exploit other players where they are weakest, buy in full and get used to playing deep.

On the other hand, if you've been successful shortstacking for years, why make a change now?

09-04-2014 , 08:59 PM

#10

ThaNEWPr0fess0r

old hand

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,830

Grunch.

Good? Yes.

Best? Not likely.

09-04-2014 , 09:18 PM

#11

venice10

Referee

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 25,857

The question is unanswerable as posed, so I'm locking this. We need a lot more answers, like for what are your baseline ranges per position and what do you do when you double up?

It could be, but we aren't going to be able to tell from what you gave us.

Closed Thread Subscribe

...