Nothing could ever possibly differentiate from the bolded. This is guaranteed to happen everytime.

Short stacking because of bankroll consideration is a completely different argument.

Lets say my bankroll is 500k, the biggest game at my casino, casino X is 2/5nl.

The buyin is 200-500. It's a typical 2/5nl game where a good 2+2er should have an edge on nearly everyone.

Should we ever buy in for 320?

I see the value and I agree with the logic. However, we weren't talking about being under rolled. When I said a true pro always buys in max at $5 blind games and below I was implying that they were properly rolled (and they should be if they are a pro).

So were you talking about lag/tag earlier or short stacking?

I just don't see how having less money on the table when we have an edge could ever possibly produce a higher win rate.
Is it because you think by having a 60bb stack we win 60bbs more often than if we had a 100bb stack?
Do you think this is only the case for llsnl? If not then why didn't all online pros cap at 60bb instead of 100? (I know there were pro ss'ers- but their winrate wasn't as good as the top players at those stakes?)

The way I'm seeing it(not sure if analogy applies or not) if we were to have a 10%roi on 100 or a 8% roi on 200 wouldn't we rather have 8% on 200?(the 2% less is just to account for the "mistakes" you think playing deeper brings)
Or do you just think that playing deeper gives us less of a wr because it diminishes our edge by enough to make our wr less than playing short?

The only thing about this is, it doesn't matter if we play twice as bad with a deep stack... If the fish plays 10 times as bad with a deep stack then who cares if we aren't playing as good as we were if we had a short stack.

If our skill level was 1000 with short stack and a fish was at 500.
When deep we are 1/2 as good we would be playing 500 and he would be playing 50. (Again not sure if analogy applies how I'm wanting it to)

I always buy in max at $1/2 or $1/3, and can't stand the $100 short-stackers. If there are more than two at a table I will table change. Short-stackers are always, always terrible players. Can't think of one short-stacking reg that ever wins anything, it's usually just them buying in for $100 over and over and over again, waiting for a big hand and then whining when it doesn't hold up.

I think playing on a big stack is generally a good plan, but I often buy in for 60BBs as I think it sets up a good image and dynamic at the table.
I play my first 120$ very aggressively, and the first hand that I get into, I normally end up planning on getting my stack in. (Over 70% of the time, I take the pot without a showdown, netting 75$ or more in the process and bam, I'm no longer a short stack.)
If I do end up losing it, I always buy in for full 300$ and get paid off in every pot I'm in for the next 3-4 hours.

When you play full stack you generally want to play with deep fish. I see it time and time again where there is one or two deep fish at a table and then 4 good regs all go to that table. Ok, so you have the fish, but you are also now playing with several good players which hurts your EV and you are all just trying to get lucky to be the one to felt the fish.

On the other hand, I am rarely concerned with stack sizes. As long as everyone (or virtually everyone) has me covered then I can play my game and this is pretty much always the case at 2/5. So, often times, while 4 good players are at another table trying to felt a fish, I will be the only good player at a table the other regs are avoiding because it's too shallow for them. Shallow stacks often indicates less action, but I'm just as comfortable (if not more) destroying a table with 8 bad nits as one with a bunch of action players.

BTW, this reminds me of an instance a few months ago where a loose semi-competent reg that builds huge stacks had $9k at 2/5. Of course, this drew many of the top players to the table (both 2/5 and 5/10 players) which certainly isn't EV+ for the guy with the stack, but also may not necessarily be highly profitable for the good players either. Long story short, I got there the next day and the guy's stack was down to $3k. I asked which sicko got him, and was told none of them. A bunch of random donks hit and run on him. LoL

Anyways, short stacking is a skill. Playing stack-a-donk is just playing for luck. Heh

I don't get it. So if short stackers are terrible players, why are you avoiding them?

Because I raise a lot of hands PF and I can't do that when the short stackers just shove over my raise any time they pick up a hand. There is also no set mining odds when too many players are short stacked and you can't win $500+ pots against them either. It's just annoying to play against.

So if they're correctly shoving over your loose open and not giving you proper odds to set mine, how are they terrible?

What are you talking about? So now they're annoying instead of terrible?

You're right, short stackers are awesome. They always rack up with 1k because of their super skills.

they can be both at the same time, esp if you want to be playing laggy.

That's only cause most players, even "good" ones don't know how to play against short stacks who are at least semi competent. U won't make as much money but if they're jamming light just raise with a hand ahead of their range and snap call their shove. U just have to be patient and be able to deal with bigger variance

Or just change tables...

I know how to adjust, I just don't want to make that adjustment. My postflop edge at a small stakes live game is ginormous. I want to be seeing flops with trash.

I actually have a solution so I can accomplish this if I am playing 1/2. The last thing I want is 2 ppl limp, i overlimp j7s, someone makes it $17 with 88+, kj+.

So when those 2 ppl limp, I make it $6. with my entire range that I would play. always 3bb, no matter how many limpers, as long as I'm not in the blinds. No one squeezes this without a very big hand(they should, it would be profitable with any two cards provided there aren't any mega donks at the table willing to call anything. actually its the fear of a donk calling that protect my "juicer raises".)

and lol at short stackers being semi competent at any game below 5/10, and even then. also lol at opening tighter than they are jamming.

Booked $24 an hour at 2/5 for the year (450 hours)

Booked -$198 an hour at 5/10 for the year (22 hours)

Wanted to play lots more, ended up doing some travelling and got pretty burnt out at one point and stopped

Not sure of the volume for this year, I'll look to start playing in a couple of weeks and go from there

Yeah, because players that rack up with the large chip stack are always the best players that make the most money. LoL. This sounds just like what every donk and dealer thinks.

Good work at 2/5. Hopefully the number of hours at 5/10 will be 0.

...wat

or he'll just improve his w/r.

there's one regular shortstacker who does well where i play. he posts on here. i'll try to get him to respond to this thread next time i see him.

he plays anything from $1/$2 to $5/$10, mostly $1/$2 and $2/$5.

Well his sample size at 5/10 is really small but an improvement in his winrate would seem to just slow the bleeding.

Just totalled some of my wins in my current 13-1 session streak.

400+bbs: 2
300+bbs: 3
200+bbs: 3
100+bbs: 2

GholycrapI'mrunninggoodG

Surely this is impossible...

Not for credible posters.

Keep it up, GG.

Post count has a linear correlation with skills, got it.

No just makes it less likely he's going to lie.