I also play 60/70bb, and dont think my winrate would be much higher given the extra risk involved in playing 100bb.

Limon also plays 70bb from his thread.

Don't have the time to read thru this entire thread just wondering what's the longterm winrate for the 2-5nl games in Vegas..is it between 15-20bbs an hr? And Im guessing if you want to go pro for 2-5nl and have no other source of income you need a 25K bankroll and a yr of living expenses? tks.

This is not the norm? My casino forces this rule too, but I figured all casinos forced you to transfer only the max buy-in. I would absolutely love to play at a casino that allowed me to transfer as much as I have. Would allow me to beat up a weak table, then transfer and beat up another table as I please.

This is not the case in the casinos that I've played in.
The reason being, if I build up a 700$ stack (on a 1/2 300 max table) and I don't like having my whole chip stack at risk, I would just ask for a table change, chip down, (essentially going south) and then try and build my stack back up again. Rinse repeat. This would be awesome if you are not a fan of playing deep stack poker. Also would be pretty unfair IMO.

Yeah but the argument at Foxwoods is that I should not be able to build up a 400BB stack, then move to another table and become the biggest chip stack at the table, giving me a huge advantage.

I can see both sides of the coin, but I would much rather play at a casino that did not allow players to "go south". I think playing deep is where players make major mistakes, and I would love to take advantage of that more often.

While I don't disagree with anything you said and in fact think there is a lot of truth to it, there is a much simpler way to reconcile the statements that does not involve any theoretical leaks: if most players at the table have 100+BB, they are most likely playing in a way optimized for 100+BB effective stacks; the ranges they will be playing, especially preflop when there are tons of other 100+BB stacks still in the hand, will be decidedly suboptimal with 40BB effective stacks or whatever. So by shortstacking and knowing that every hand your stack size will be the effective stack size in every hand you play, you are able to play more optimally while forcing your opponents into suboptimal plays against you (because these plays are probably optimal against the rest of the table). This is why so many people shortstack on the internet, to my knowledge.

That said, I still think that if you're good enough playing deepstacked, it is to your advantage to cover everyone at the table. But it's something to think about.

Almost nobody at live low stakes playing 100bb+ stacks is optimized for playing 100bb+ stacks. But because they have them, the correct adjustment for a winner is usually to buy in deep.

The biggest leak most players have at live low stakes is that they buy in too deep. Your average live low stakes player would be tougher to play if he'd leave his ego at the door and buy in for 40bb.

I've spent the better part of 2 years playing live in Vegas, and in all that time I have seen exactly zero players whose play suggests they understand deep stack poker.

Most hands are still played at around 40 - 80bb range even if players are sitting on 300bb.

Yep. It's why I usually think buying in deep to cover fish is an overstated concern. The type of coolers where you'll get 150bb stacks in are quite rare, and if you buy in for 100bb, you'll often have 150bb when they come up, anyway.

I don't buy in deep to cooler anyone, although it does help that I can get away from AA4 flop with AJ where a crappy player cannot.

I buy in deep/deeper to allow myself more options when playing against bad players. I cannot call down light against a villian who I think is likely bluffing when I buy in short. I think the most profitable play against the bad players is bluff catching. I cannot bluff catch as well or as often with 40-60BBs as I can with 100BBs.

Well, I don't consider 100bb deep. To me, 100bb is "normal" midstack poker, and as you get to about 150bb you're getting to "deep," and 40bb is about the top of the range I'd refer to as a short stack.

Just a personal opinion on how I use those terms.

mpethy: your last 3 poasts on short v deep are soooo fukn true...well put sir!

edit - u just snuck 1 in there so i guess its teh last 4 but u get my point

Yeah I meant deepER than the 40BB-60bb you were talking about earlier. I dont consider it deep either. Just making a point that bluff catching cannot be done effectively when SSing.

Obviously this depends on pot sizes, and is true for pots bigger than for whatever you have in front of you.

But one of the reasons that playing 40 to 60 bb stacks can be profitable if you're in a game with 100 bb stacks is because people will be more careless with a fraction of their stack than they are with the whole thing. So they're more likely to **** it shove with whiffed AK , for example, when HU against a 30 or 40 bb stack than they would if in against another 100bb stack.

Part of the reason this is true is because so many players bring the tournament strategy of bullying with a big stack to a cash game table, never realizing that it doesn't work at a cash table, and that at a cash table, the math favors the short stacker.

At my room, when you table change within the same stakes you must transfer all of your chips (you can't rathole any in the move). I always thought this was the standard, but apparently not.

Regarding shortstacking vs 100bb stacking, count me on the side of maintaining a 100bb stack (I top up after every hand).

Letting your stack drop to 40bb and then flopping your first of two sets on the night vs a 100bb fish is a massive error, imo.

Gneverplayswith<98bbsG

Totally agree...

You lost me here. In a HU pot how does the "math" favor anyone? Effective stack sizes are the same for both players. In multiway pots I can see a shortstacker having an advantage due to what I described in my previous post, but that's more the other opponents making a choice about who to play optimally against than the math favoring anyone. I'm confused.

Did someone just say that the best way to beat fish is to bluff catch?



Where I play, it's not even close as far as deep/short. At least for me personally, I have a large edge in the game and have no problem getting up to 200BB in against dominated opponents. THose opponents however, would be well served to play short. If my edge was nto there or if they were unwilling to put chips in the middle, then the argument would be irrelevant.

I like to buy in for $100 in a 1-3 game and not put more chips on the table until I know why. This gives me time to see how everyone is playing for a round or two. I feel I am a favorite playing very tight with 33bbs against almost all.

Said it was AN option. NOT the best option.

Edit: Just re-read my statement and I did say best later on.... Anyway, my point remains that it is an option, a good option for those strong at hand reading. It becomes less profitable though if we dont have the stack to do it.

Do you play in the worst 1/3 games in the world? 1/3 is the lowest NL game in my casino so it's the "entry" level game in my room (maybe it isn't in yours). Admittedly, the next stake of 2/5 hardly ever goes, so you get a wide range of players.

But if you have even half a clue of how to play, sitting down with 33bbs in a typical 1/3 NL seems, you know, flat out horrible.

ETA: And the best way to beat a great 1/3 game is by playing loose (see a flop for cheap, flop a monster, stack a moron), a strategy we can't employ with 33bbs.

I think some of what we're missing in the deep vs. short stack discussion is we're acting like it's about buying in at 60 bb or 150 bb at the same blinds/stakes. But, it's not for many of us. 150 bb at 1/2 is the same as 60 bb at 2/5. It can also be a question of how to invest your $300 starting buy-in.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this post but...
It seems to me like you're overestimating the fish, thinking you have to cooler someone to get in more than 150bbs.
Definitely not from my experience.

I've gotten 200bb in with 2nd nut flush against a big fish against top and bottom pair.

I've gotten 180bb in with middle set against OESD against a big fish.

I've gotten in 150bb with TPTK against TPGK against fish.

The list goes on. (this is just off the top of my head from my experience for the last 2 months or so)

The fish play bad enough at 100bb stacks and even worse as their stack increases (which is why often times you'll see a fish be playing for hours only losing maybe $50-$100 then they win a huge pot and have $600 in front of them, then they lose ALL of it within the next hour).
I think not having the worst players covered at the table is a huge leak for anyone that has a big edge over the rest of the table.

Leaving the fish with an extra $100 when that $100 could be yours is a big mistake.

+1

Especially when making nutting hands and estimating ourselves as a 98%+ favourite, leaving $100 on the table in our two nuttish hands of the night simply ain't going to be able to be made up.

For me having excellent control over my own play is likely the single most important factor determining my results. I want to be conscious of the gambles I am involved in by having an idea of my opponent's ranges.

Sometimes my games are terrible (1-3 is the only consistent game, btw,) sometimes quite good. Much of the time, it is old regs who hate to play for stacks. I like to know where the easy and hard money is before I bring my stack up to full.

I suspect I am not giving up much EV waiting for my second button to go full.