Wanna bet to see who's the taller midget?

Sure, if not done right and most don't.

2 + 2 =5

3 × 4 = 15

Trees can become human beings.

I like this game where we just say things that are wrong.

Destroy is a little strong

Damn tried to ninja edit, damn 11t.

Perhaps, but will make your life very difficult.

Just trying to help a brother out.
Thanks for the troll

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

So you're helping the guy out by saying that 50bb BI is profitable because you are claiming that you have done it more than anyone else?

I play in really tough games and anyone who can play a competent shortstack is bringing 4+ bullets to 2/5 or 5/10 so they don't have to play with 20-50bb.

I haven't seen an argument of playing short rather then deep if you're competent. Perhaps you can make one that they're under rolled for 2/5+ and are thus buying in for ~200 and playing in super soft games, but that's about it.

I'm not scared of the shortstack who might put me to one tough decision for one, MAYBE two streets for at most 50bb. These are rarely ever good players and you're rarely making huge errors here anyway. The tricky player who can put you to tough decisions for 200+bb over three streets? That's the player that is going to "destroy you." The shortstack who squeezes you twice a night is not doing this. On a list of the players who can exploit you, the shortstack is really the least of your worries.

Maybe you're not scared of them because you haven't met any good short stackers.

Discussion is about the rare case where you might actually find one, would you be scared of them?

What if a competent deep stacker that has proved to be a good winning player at 200+bb buys in short to build up his stack?

When he's short, do you just write him off until he builds his way up?

- high rake
- capping your advantage
- and what to do when you double...hmm..

"Buying in short initially" should be distinguished from "short stacking"

I can't see any benefit to centering your live poker strategy around short stacking.

That's the key right there.

However, I know there are weird rules in Commerce (or at least there were) that not only allow you to move table and buy in minimum, but they actually won't allow you to move a stack above max buy-in.

I hear MDLive is that way too.

So, if your local allows that, then knock yourselves out short stacking... but if you are that good at it - you could win more covering donkeys.

Yeah that's one of the biggest thing. Even if you are planning on HnR right when you double up, the chances of you always doubling up without rebuying/adding on is so small that what are you going to do if you lose your first few buyins? At some point you will be forced to play deeper.

Plus you get like so few hands an hour that i cant imagine how ****ty your hourly would be, not to mention the variance.

Short stacks are annoying, but never threatening no matter how good they are.

But you don't know - you just assume that it's bad based on what you know.

What's threatening?

Is a guy with 500bb really threatening? We know he can't get out of line OOP because WE are threatening.

So is 50bb threatening? Not in a sense that the max we could lose is 50bb, but we certainly lose the leverage of hero being threatening.

RP, I have ~3+ million hands played online and a reg infested 2/5 and 5/10 local game which is almost exclusively professional players. There are ocassionally players who do play short, but they're just never going to punish you like a good player will who has 3k in front of him.

You're not writing them off or ignoring them, but their actions will just not have as much consequence on you a majority of the time. They're playing generally a little over 10% of hands and have under 50bb. This doesn't become some huge , difficult problem. They're the easiest to range and play against. They might get you in a bad spot or two over the night, but it's rarely a terrible one.

No competent deep stack pro I know is ever buying in short to our games First, the best players have the ego. Second, why are you "trying to built it up" buying in for 50 bb when the fish that is the reason the game is running has 200 and will go to the felt for 200 with weak holdings? It's just dumb.

And ldo a tricky pro w/500 bb is more threatening than one with 20-50. How is this even a question?

No one is arguing against what you said, but at the same time, you still haven't really convinced me why shortstacking is bad.

I am already in agreement that a short stacker is not "threatening," but maybe that's part of the strategy of a shortstacker?

Agree to disagree. Best players are driven, but that's not the same as ego. Egoistic players have mental leaks, best players probably don't share most of those same leaks.

There are many reasons:

1. You are non-threatening.
2. You are risking less.
3. You are definitely not labeled as a good player, because apparently good players never buy in short.

RP, for the ego point I was talking exclusively about the games I play in.

I've never said shortstacking is outright bad, I said if you're a competent player who can beat the game normally, it's a handicap that will cut your hourly substantially. A good player playing in a deep 2/5 or 5/10 game will just never make as much buying in for 50 bb as they will buying in for 200. That is the point I am making, nothing more. If you have leaks playing deep, are not comfortable making decisions for $1000+ on any given street there is an argument for buying in short, but a better argument for just not sitting at 2/5 or higher imo.

I just still don't understand your point of buying in for 50bb if you can buy in for 200 if you know you are a competent winner in a game. Why would you not choose to cover the fish? It's dumb.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should play a short stack. Different strokes for different folks. It's pretty much widely accepted on these forums that playing deep is optimal. That being said, I don't know many players that can play optimally.

You used the word "competent" which is a word that is thrown around a lot on these forums but is completely subjective. What is competent? I consider the vast majority of players that I play with at 2/5 and 5/10 to be competent...yet the vast majority of them are terrible. At the casino I play at there are literally just a handful of players out hundreds of 2/5 players that can play deep stacked really well. Most decent players essentially nut peddle when they are deep and that's ok, but it's certainly not optimal. Just because you can play deep doesn't mean that you can play it optimally and just because you have a really good short game doesn't mean you can play a good deep stacked game.

When I first started playing for a living back in 2011 one thing I noticed is that many grinders game select looking for big stacks. I was playing LAG full stack $500 and what I discovered is that if I grew my stack to $1000-$1500+ grinders would actually game select me (table changing and seat changing). Is it necessarily in the best interest of a young grinder to play deep stacked against players with more deep stack experience?

One positive about short stacking is that stack depths aren't as important. For instance, I would buy in for 60bbs (not truly short stack, but as short as was offered) and if I'm choosing between three different 2/5 tables, more than likely all three will have at least 6 or 7 players that cover me. It was not unusual for me to observe 4 grinders at one table because the table was deep with a whale or two on it, leaving me to choose between 2 tables full of fish. You can't tell me that the expected hourly for a bunch of grinders trying to nut peddle on an overall tough table is going to be higher than me playing tons of pots in position with initiative vs a bunch of rec-fish. Whether these fish were tight or loose didn't really matter to me because if the table was nitty I would just run it over. I could play lag very well at 60bbs. Any mistakes that I might have made were minimized due to stack depth. At 200bbs I was a huge spew monkey.


One of my closest poker friends is a 2/5 crusher that puts in marathon sessions. By crusher, I mean on a normal weekend he will have $3k+ in front of him ($500 max buy-in game). Anyone that plays at this casino that sees a 2/5 stack of $9k in front of an empty chair will automatically assume it's his seat. He's been playing crushing deep stack poker for over a decade, you honestly think he cares if you or I sit at his table deep if he has an edge? Absolutely not.

The thing you need to understand (you probably already do) is that deep stacked poker is all about postflop play. Short stacked poker is more about preflop play. Ideally a deep stacked player wants to play in as many pots as possible with the deep stacked fish. A good short stacker can severely handcuff a good deep stack player from playing his game. For instance, if I'm on the deep stackers right and I'm raising pre the deep stacker isn't getting good implied odds to call and if he raises all he is doing is isolating the good short stacker and pushing all the deep fish out of the pot. If I'm on his left then he has to tighten up his preflop range too because if he doesn't then scenarios like this happens: He raises, gets 2 callers, I raise/ship because I'm ahead of his raising range and there is lots of dead money out there.

See below.

---------------

In a perfect world, yes. Can't argue against that. If you're never losing, having a larger effective stack wins more.

Didn't think we were arguing a topic that obvious, but ok.

It wasn't even my position nor do I have a point. I am also curious as to why short stacking is bad, but I haven't read anything in this convo that has anything convincing yet.

I think you're overestimating the amount of times a good shortstacker will enter pots, either with legitimate holdings or loosen their range slightly for slightly positive squeeze spots. Just being there with there stack isn't really a handicap if they're playing a 12/9 style.

By competent I mean a player who is at least break-even in the game they are playing in. That's the definition I'd use anyway. So at the casino, I'm saying ~2 people on average at my tables are competent. In the home games, this jumps to ~6, as the whales make the game run.

RP, shortstacking is bad in the essence that working a job that pays $10 an hour when you have a doctors degree is bad economics. You're losing opportunity cost the majority of the time. Are there situations where players can win more by buying in for 20-50 bb than 100-200? Sure, but I think these situations are pretty rare in general and not worth discussing for the majority of players. I think it's worth it to learn how to play a bunch of different games and stack sizes. It's fun and usually comes in handy eventually. But most players don't have the time to devote dozens or hundreds of hours to learning something that will come up once every few months if at all.

If a player can make $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short or $100/hr at 5/10 playing short he should instead play 1/2 or 1/3 full stacked when he isn't good at playing deep stacked poker and the attainable winrate at those levels is under $50/hr? Doesn't compute.

Ya, I definitely don't agree with that opinion either.

I'll happily short stack 5/10 because I wouldn't care about what people think of me.

Neverlose, you've posted some hypothetical winrates itt over the past day that are basically impossible.
I would love to see someone attain $50/hr at 2/5 buying in short.

You are still just evaluating short stackers from your POV, not theirs.

You're absolutely correct, except that it's not the correct analogy.

Let's hear it. You already seem convinced that short stacking is always bad, so maybe you haven't really thought about it?

In your argument, you like to dance around your positions.

At times you speak from a POV of "best" players, then at other times, you're speaking from a POV of "most" players.

If I strive to be the best, I'll take the time to figure out why shortstacking is good or bad.

BTW, I don't know the attainable winrate of playing a pure short stack game because it's simply not possible in the games I play in. ie you have to buyin for 50bbs minimum, and if you win you will play some full stack poker. However, I do know that you should make a lot more buying in for $300 at 2/5 than at 1/3 and you should make more at 5/10 buying in at $500 than 2/5 (all else being equal...ie equal opponent skill levels).