In general yes but not to the dogmatic degree that many on this site would say. At the right table, combining the inherent edge of a short stack with the built in short stack image and it can definitely be profitable.

At a table full of clueless fish it's not going to work but at a table with a lot of preflop hyperactivity and thinking players it's probably better than buying in deep.

And none of this really touches on what I assume RPs point is that covering the fish isn't the only consideration. Maybe e won't get up and leave if he loses $500 twice as opposed to $1000 once. Or maybe he feels
Picked on if you plop down right next to him and buy in for his exact stack. It's just one of those things that this site tends to be a bit rigid on and that's never a good thing.

Possible.

Sat down at 2/5 the other day where you can buy up to 100% of bigstack. Entire table was pretty soft, everybody around 300-800 range or so, but one guy who I played with last week (fish) had about 3k behind. I had bought in for $800, but decided to reach into my pocket and put two 1k chips on the table. It was only relevant for him, but I knew he was a very bad player and we very well might get into a huge pot and I wanted to be deep.

I noticed he started staring at the two chips I put down though, I think it made him feel a bit uncomfortable. He didn't go anywhere and stayed for a while, but we never got into any big pots.

Actually... there was one instance where it was an AQ4 flop and he leads for $25, I raise flop with AJ to $70 (hes might call 2-3 medium sized streets with a weak ace), and he 3bets me really big to $225. I make a general remark "geez why so much" and fold. He shows me bottom set, 44, and says "I know it's good right now but I don't want to see an A or Q come off"
So it just so happened that being super deep helped me in this particular instance. I don't have any point to saying this, it was just something weird I observed which happened as a result of being deep. Overall I think that amount of money took him out of his comfort level, and I might be better off getting decent streets of value with a 500-1k stack. The real benefit of covering him would probably be to run some massively insane bluff by betting river for 1k or something

Don't think I've ever seen a fish who likes it when someone buys in short.

Richard does bring up a good point about trying to determine how the fish may view it.

A better strategy may have been to buy in for 800-1000 and then after you lose a hand, act a tiny bit annoyed/tilted and and add on for another 500-1000. The hand you lose doesn't have to be a big one.

Makes it look less like you are targeting the whale.

Also this. Most whales enjoy gambling and the vast majority are there for entertainment. They want to battle.

No other reason why guys who drop 20k+ continue to play with a table full of pros every week

Agree.

As a stereotype absent other info about someone, i do use buy in size to help categorize unkowns.

Sent from my LG-D801 using 2+2 Forums

Except...there is no real advantage to being labeled a "fish" vs a "good player." The one okay thinking player at the 1/3 table isn't going to say to himself "Welp, he bought in short - must be a fish, I'm calling all his bets." Even if it did affect the one good player's strategy against you, I don't see how that's enough to justify not being as deep as possible with the 7 other typical live weak players at the table.

It's blanket statements such as this one that get players in trouble.

Sure I would love to double up through whales at 500bb or even just 200bb, but in 2/5 and 5/10, it just happens so rarely in today's games.

I am a thin edge guy and that's where and how I make my money, raking up small and medium pots off thin edges. Do I need to cover the biggest whale to do my magic? No.

Another aspect is that most people think "deep" stack is intimidating, but if you have put in serious volume in LLSNL, you would probably agree that most deep stacks are so afraid of losing the stack that they often become the weakest spot at the table.

If everyone is sitting on 200bb, then it's another story...

Not apple to apple.

Plus poker above all things is all meta game. That is why the "good player" who bad regs respect the most is often the weakest nit, "who only plays good cards, shows up with the nuts, and rarely loses a pot."

Then that's probably why covering is more relevant for me then it is for you. I'm often looking for opportunities to get in stacks.

As I've stated already, the advantage of being as deep as possible isn't only the ability to double up 200bb stacks through whales. You claim you make your money off thin edges. You should appreciate deep stacks more if that is the case because it opens up more opportunities to maneuver and bluff on later streets.

Plus I really think people are overstating the whole image thing when it comes to deep stacks. It just doesn't matter much, especially compared to the benefits of being deep.

Huh, where?

I don't see how this is an advantage, to learn to play tough situations as part of being deep.

This post is just another repeat of saying nothing about these "other" advantages.

Isn't this just that one thing you have been repeating, what about the others?

When you are balancing a wide range, your bets become smaller. I don't open large: 3 - 5bb. I don't cbet large: 5 - 8bb. I don't double barrel large: 10 - 20bb.

So in the end, I don't really need a big stack by turn or river. Plus when I am left with 50bb by turn, the threat of me shoving the rest in the pot is perceivably greater than when I have 150bb behind.

Nope, just me. I am a very good player.

Had to be done

Lastly, if I am missing value, I am only missing value off that first hand in which I lost value for being shorter. After that hand, my stack would be over max BI and all subsequent hands won't have any lost value.

How often do I get to "miss" value before my stack hits max BI? My honest assessment is: not very often.

As for the argument of snowball effect? Well, if table is full of 200bb+, then it becomes an entirely different scenario in which buying in max makes much more sense. But in cases in which most players are simply hovering around 60 - 130bb stacks, typical 2/5 table around here, buying in more doesn't change the fact that effective stack is still how much your opponent has in front of him.

I was the wizard, lvl 6.

I'm not repeating myself. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat. Godspeed. Back to win rate talk.

I've always wanted to see other winning players' books, specifically at the 1/3 level. Very curious to see how my results compare. Anyone ever seen someone else's books? I mean actual session logs, not just overall volume/hourly/etc. Did you learn anything? Has anyone ever actually posted it anywhere?

You just repeated yourself twice in this one sentence...LOL.

People have posted them here. Maybe search or read old pages?

I've only posted my 1/3 NL results here (currently sitting at $24.16/hr over 2,688:20 hours).

Never posted my actual session logs (doubt I will), although some of that can be visually gleaned from graphs. What are you hoping to find / learn?

GcluelesssessionlogsnoobG

Id say its safe to say you are pretty good. Why havent you moved up. Thats a hell of a long time at 1/3. Is there no 2/5 game where you play?

He doesn't want them to respect his raises.

this game is funny. flying high on cloud 9 to pits of despair asking "what does it all mean?"

Can't remember the last time I've seen a 2/5 NL game run (think I saw it 2 or 3 times last year?), it's pretty much 1/3 NL only in my room.

GI'mnotverygood,myopponentsjustsuckG

GG's wife just sets him up in the den with a table and a deck of cards every Sunday and he "wins" almost every time.

I always attempt to limp/reraise myself but then get MUBSy and don't follow thru.

GpokersolataireexpertG

I can send you my session results for 1/3 though it might not be the best representation of an 'average' 1/3 game in the US.