I'd consider you "great" if you made 100k a year buying into 2/5 for $300

Ok, please don't consider me great because I play 2/5 and 5/10. That being said, a player doesn't have to be great to make that kind of coin at 2/5. It's impressive certainly, and I wouldn't say otherwise, but if a player truly plays full time (40hrs a week) making 10 bbs an hour then he will make $100k (with a 2 week vacation). Some hardcore grinders put in much longer hours than that.

I'm not saying the advantages of playing short necessarily outweigh the advantages of playing deep but some of the advantages of playing short include: 1) good players not having implied odds to play pots with you 2) aggro players not having the ability to make plays/bluffs against you 3) Willingness of bad players to play for stacks against you 4) The ability to make squeeze plays and put players in difficult spots while risking less yourself.

All that being said, in general I believe playing with a short stack makes it much easier to play a super aggressive style. At this point in my poker career I am NOT good enough to play that style deep. The number of 2/5 players that are that good are few and far between IMO and have far more experience than I do.

A lot of it depends on the game and how the game plays, but it is absolutely conceivable that buying in for 60bb could be more profitable than a larger amount. I don't think it will be standard, and I agree with you guys who are saying someone who kills 60bb would likely do better buying in more, but it's also possible that the 60bb player has perfected 60bb strategy in a game where nobody else has, and most people continue to play as if everyone has larger stacks. In this situation, it *may* be possible that buying in for 60bb is correct.

I found myself in such a game a few weeks ago though I am not as good as many pros so I expect that it will be rare to find this situation and think it likely that Tom Dwans Son would also do better with more bb.

So what happens when you double up? There seem to be two related issues here. One is whether to buy in short, which has its benefits, as TDS has pointed out. The other is whether to continue playing or to leave once you get deeper.

Haha It's pretty great, isn't it? And I'd tell you but then I'd have to kill you. Sorry.

Shut up!

This is why I always buy into 2/5 with $320.00. ($20 in white chips.)

I usually can get my buy in up to $500.00 or double easily and it's like I bought in full...(but just got a discounted rate)...

Then I transition into normal play.

Obviously, if I see three complete droolers at a table on a Friday night, I buy in full.

If I see a lot of players I really respect, I'll buy in for $240.00.

It's easy to find spots to shove and pick up $100.00 in dead money.

I refuse to admit there could be any long term advantages to buying into live 2/5 games with $220 or $240 instead of the max. Even if you're looking to log a quick session and book a small win.. you're really telling me that it'd be easier for you to turn $240 into $440 than $500 into $700?

I get that your argument is for using a more aggressive style, but you can just as easily accomplish this with a deeper stack if you're smart in picking your spots.

We can't be played back at......

I target tables where there's poker goobers with headphones on that I know are going to be doing a lot of raising/3 betting in position.

I'll buy in for $320...(or sometimes less)...

I will be pegged a nit/scared money by the 3rd/4th orbit when I haven't played many hands.

All I have to do is limp with a pocket pair 88+, an Ax suited, or high cards, and wait for the raise/a few callers/ and then shove over top...

Most the time I can scoop dead money or I get a call from a fish with an inferior hand just trying to felt me.

Also, like the one poster said, lots of players will never have correct odds to setmine against you/etc....

I don't hit and run though, I just like to start off my session with an easy double up or easy $200-$300 win and then shift into deepstack poker.

Poker confirmed easy. Everyone doubles up all day long.

It's a lot easier to get someone with an inferior hand to make an "ahh, **** it, I call with 10/J suited" when he's got to call off $200 more than him having to call $450 more.

or

If you bought in for $260.00 and you get 4 people to fold their $30.00 action when you ship all in. You're now setting with $380.00.

Buying in short cuts your losses.

Example.

MGM Grand Detroit

Everyone at the table is drinking besides one guy.

I buy in for $260.00.

I see every pot is getting raised.

Within a few orbits I get K/K UTG2, I limp in.

Gets raised to $35, 4 callers, gets back to me I ship all in for $260.00.

I get 2 callers.

10/J suited and pocket 8's.

EZ game.

The 2nd guy who called with 10/J suited said.. "I can't fold this, it's the best multiway hand in the game.

Now I have $750.00, but only $260.00 invested in, and I can transition into deepstack poker and there's less stress on my poker bankroll.

It cuts losses but not winnings apparently.

The sentiment you expressed in your statement about starting off with an easy double-up leads me to believe I was right in thinking it's crazy that your buying in short could potentially be more beneficial then just max-buying.

If your getting it in so light your going to be very swingy at the onset of your sessions.

If you have people calling off all-ins with JTss for 200$ in a 2/5 game, their postflop mistakes are going to be that bad as well and your limiting yourself by not playing postflop.

Also it doesn't seem like it's that bad of a mistake for a fish to call with J10sooted if your shoving 88+, Ax suited, and "high cards" as soon as the pot gets bloated.

Your preventing fish from making mistakes post-flop where their equity is a lot more diminished and oftentimes 0 (the river).

This is the same reason so many terrible, terrible players can go deep in tournaments. A pre-flop shove fest is best case scenario for fish, there is little edge for good players to have because both ranges are wide. Not to mention incredibly swingy.

I am still going to be at the table after I double up, those same fish are still going to make the same mistakes, they're not going anywhere....

I just am less invested in the game.

If you play poker with a 5k bankroll, buying into 2/5 is an option open to you if you employ starting off with a shortstack strategy.

If you only want to play deepstacked, then you must stick to 1/2.

I can only take two feltings on any night I go to the casino.

I either lose $400-$500 at 1/2 or $500-$700 at 2/5.

Also, I DO NOT play for a living. I play for enjoyment, but am competitive and want to put myself in the most comfortable situation at all times where I feel I have an edge and can win the most $$$...

2 buyins and 4 hours later....

It also limits your winnings. If you can't afford to play 2/5, then don't play 2/5. It's simple.

You can not win the most money by shortstacking. If your playing for fun that's fine. Coming in here and suggesting that buying in short is a better, higher hourly yielding strategy than buying in full is a mistake.

Bankroll and all other things being equal, buying in deeper is always going to be better.

I just reached the $6K mark with mine. My plan is to play $1000 at $50/$100 tables. That way I can win the most money.

Buyin in short is a much underestimated tactic, I have used this many times to allow me to play in a higher game that i would not be rolled for if i bought in full, to realized bigger RB online, and obv bigger winnings when i run good. If you are not rolled for $500nl but a fav in the game, buying in for less than full stack allows you to mitigate your RoR and playing in a higher game for a higher $/hr than you could if you are short rolled and unable to play in it with regular BMR. Will your win rate be smaller than if u buy in full, probably a lil, but def bigger than if you were playin 1/2.


Sorry weak 1000th post.

If a game is real good and I'm playing well, then I'm obviously not leaving but I will not utilize the same strategy. A normal nitty TAG game is normally just what the doctor ordered on such a table anyways, and so I will adjust as I am playing deeper.

If a game is nothing special and/or I'd rather play short (which is normally my preference) then I simply pull a Mark Vos (who I used to watch employ a hit and run strategy against the best players in the world on Full Tilt) and do one of 4 things: 1) Change Tables 2) Change levels 3) Take the required 1 hr break or 4) Go Home.

The casino I play at is unique in that they actually require you to chip down to a starting stack if you change tables. Certainly a weird rule but it works in a short stackers favor.

Of course, anytime you leave a table after double/tripling up you risk another player being mad but the vast majority of players I play with are regulars (or semi-regulars) and even the bad players tend to recognize that it's not in their best interest for me to stay at the table. On a side note, nobody has ever accused me of losing and running after dropping 5 buy-ins in a short time frame. Those are the times players should be upset that I'm leaving the table.

For 3-5 grinders, in 2012, what was your hourly? how many hours played? and winnings amount?

how many hours do you need to put in before you consider your hourly to be reasonable?

The argument that a player can make more by buying in short is pretty interesting.

I don't think there's any question that it can be true, just as I think there's no question that buying in as deep as possible yields the highest theoretical win rate for a theoretical winning player.

Here is how I reconcile those two statements:

The reason it's theoretically more profitable to buy in as deep as possible is because it allows you to win more when opponents make really big deep stack mistakes. But every deep stack mistake that the hero makes cuts into the theoretical profit of playing as deep as possible. So if the hero makes enough deep stack mistakes, he can eliminate his theoretical advantage gained from playing deep.

An analogy: playing loose aggressive is theoretically more profitable than playing tight aggressive. But no LAg I have ever analyzed a database for has had a higher win rate than the best TAg players I have analyzed databases for. The explanation for this is that the theoretical advantages of playing LAg are being offset by mistakes the LAg players are making in real life.

This is not to say that the individual player cannot increase his WR by switching from TAg to LAg. It is only to say that I have never met a LAg whose win rate exceeds the theoretical max win rate for a TAg.

Now, I have coached some of the best players in the world. People you've seen on TV, sponsored pros, and guys you've never heard of that were crushing 5/10 and beating 10/20 online. If THOSE people were not able to exceed the theoretical max WR of playing TAg by playing LAg, then the theoretical advantage of playing LAg may as well not even exist.

Back to playing shortstacked: I can easily envision the same thing happening with stack size. The theoretical advantage of playing 200bb compared to 60bb disappears into the occasional 200bb mistake. It wouldn't even be very hard for it to happen. Say the max theoretical win rate for playing 60bb is 15bb/hr, and the max WR for playing 200bb is 20bb/hr. If you make 200bb worth of deep stack mistakes in a week, you've completely eliminated the theoretical advantage of playing a bigger stack.

So the bottom line is: I KNOW that the theoretical advantage of playing LAg doesn't overcome a player's own leaks until you reach skill levels no one in this forum is anywhere near. I could see the same thing happening with stack size.

So: is it theoretically more profitable to buy in 200bb deep than at 60bb? Yes.

Does this mean it is more profitable for any given winning 60bb player to start buying in deep? No.

Is it possible that many winners buying in at 200bb could increase their WR by buying in at 60bb? Yes.

What you have to understand is this: the reason it is more profitable for most players to play lag is not because Lag is more profitable. It is because they have leaks in their Tag game that they are compensating for by playing more hands, and that they could get the same increase in WR by plugging those leaks. The same thing could easily be true, and almost certainly is true, for most players who buy in deep. Their WR playing deep is almost certainly less than the theoretical max WR attainable with a 60bb buy in, but occasionally coolering somebody in a 400bb pot earns them a higher WR. but it's still just compensating for the leaks in their 60bb game.

Sorry if this doesn't go here but searching 2+2 and google has turned up nothing for me.

Just bought poker journal as I wanted to start tracking my results from the start of the year, and I'm really pleased with the app except one thing.

In the cash game tab, the graph at the bottom randomly starts from like ~560 instead of 0 so it drops down a lot at the start of the graph. This is only when The graph is on the session option, the date option graph is fine and so is the tournament one which starts at 0. Any ideas please guys?

Have you entered a session?

Does it matter if it starts at $560?

Yes I've played 5 sessions and logged them all. Over the 5 sessions I'm up £832, and that's where the line finishes at on my graph, but instead of it growing up from 0 it starts from 560~ and drops down to 200-300 then rises back up to the peak of 832. So instead of rising up from 0 in a diagonal, it's drops and curves back up perceiving different results from what I actually have.

It's not the end of the world, I can still check all the sessions manually, but after spending £8 on an app I'd like it to work. Maybe I'm just being nitty but small things like this annoy me somewhat lol

So your first session was entered in at +$560?

Try adding a session for 0 and 1 second on 1/1/13.

Ok cheers, I've entered a "fake" break even session on 1/1/13 and it sorted the graph out, except the flat line for the first entry but obviously after I have tracked a lot more sessions it will become unnoticeable on the graph. It's going to affect my stats on the over view though.

Dropped from 80% winning sessions to 67% obv because I only had 5 sessions tracked, but meh... Will have to do I guess, cheers

It's not nitty, the damn thing should work correctly, ldo.