Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2013, 04:21 AM   #4026
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I think one point that should be made is that more emphasis should be made on strengthening one's game than deciding what game to play. Having better bankroll decisions will get you into better EV spots at times when there are decisions to be made, but getting better at the game will universally increase your hourly no matter what you're playing.

Not trying to reduce the entire thread into irrelevance or anything, but I do think people think too much about it.

Just take aggressive shots when the game's good. Remember, the bigger your edge, the more aggressively you can shot take at higher games.

I'm big into shot taking aggressively but I really think a lot of less experienced players are too interested in moving up because it's psychologically satisfying.

You, as a poker player are NOT defined by

a) your bankroll
b) the stakes you play

imo, anyway.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:00 AM   #4027
corlath
veteran
 
corlath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Chocobo Farm
Posts: 2,196
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

THANK you, TDS. Finally someone who doesn't insta-berate me for buying in half-stacked (which is short but not super short). People here just seem to assume that buying in for a full stack is *inherently* better than buying in for half. But if all the opponents who are better than you are full-stacked, and all the opponents who are worse than you are short-stacked, isn't covering only the people you can beat *optimal*? If old man coffee and crazy drunk guy are sitting at 1/2 with 100, and Phil Ivey is at the table with 300, are you seriously telling me you'd buy in for 300 *in the hopes of raising your EV*?

This isn't my hairbrained opinion, Ed Miller backs it up. He also says that beginners OUGHT to buy in shorter stacked, because they don't have the depth of knowledge to make smart plays deep-stacked. The deeper stacked you are, the more difficult no-limit gets. If you can consistently make better decisions deep-stacked than your opponents, then deep stacking is optimal, assuming you have the bankroll. But if you can't, then playing with a shorter stack is better.

I am most comfortable starting out with a half stack because of my bankroll size. If I double up and I'm playing full, great, I can set-mine more and overlimp speculative hands a bit more in position, and have a deeper stack to get in against donks when I flop the world.

But for my style, I get more action with my best hands when I'm shorter stacked. The deep players play loose calling $15 raises from each other with "implied odds" with hands like KTs, KQ, 44, 55, 66. One raise, five callers, I pop it to 100 with my top 5 hand. Profit. And if one of them woke up with AA or KK, I'm risking less than if I make the exact same move with 100 more behind (at which point I'm pot committed), in which case they'd be folding their worse hands...when they might call if it's only 85 more. What's more, having 100 makes flop decisions much easier. If I have 100 total, I can pop to 50 with AK against a few opponents and if I get called, I can shove with impunity on the flop. But if I pop it to 50 with 150 more behind, I have a really crappy decision to make when I miss the flop.

Last edited by corlath; 02-15-2013 at 10:09 AM.
corlath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:13 AM   #4028
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 31,421
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Reader View Post
I think one point that should be made is that more emphasis should be made on strengthening one's game than deciding what game to play. Having better bankroll decisions will get you into better EV spots at times when there are decisions to be made, but getting better at the game will universally increase your hourly no matter what you're playing.

Not trying to reduce the entire thread into irrelevance or anything, but I do think people think too much about it.

Just take aggressive shots when the game's good. Remember, the bigger your edge, the more aggressively you can shot take at higher games.

I'm big into shot taking aggressively but I really think a lot of less experienced players are too interested in moving up because it's psychologically satisfying.

You, as a poker player are NOT defined by

a) your bankroll
b) the stakes you play


imo, anyway.
I think this is very important for people's ego. The truth is people are going to run bad, will exercise poor bankroll management, and will likely need to move down. It is better to check your ego at the door and move down than bust your roll.
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:00 PM   #4029
Johnny 99
grinder
 
Johnny 99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 610
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Be sure if you are sitting short not to play hands that need high implied odds. Perhaps the easiest way to know it is a fish is to see them straddle with 15 bbs in front, or call raises with sc's.
Johnny 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:03 PM   #4030
pokerbrah
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 591
Yea I play with no ego whatsoever, I actually take pride in it

I just want to take a shot now instead of continuing to grind 1-2 because if I can breakthrough at 2-5 now I'll be able to make more money faster

The reason I don't have a roll for 2-5 is because I'm a jobless full time student and I buy stuff
pokerbrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:10 PM   #4031
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 31,421
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Taking shots when games are good is a great idea, the big thing is that you need to realize what you are doing and don't play if the games are bad.

However, spend less money and put in more volume.

Go out 1x a week instead of 2 to 3.
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:17 PM   #4032
kdready
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 91
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by corlath View Post
THANK you, TDS. Finally someone who doesn't insta-berate me for buying in half-stacked (which is short but not super short). People here just seem to assume that buying in for a full stack is *inherently* better than buying in for half. But if all the opponents who are better than you are full-stacked, and all the opponents who are worse than you are short-stacked, isn't covering only the people you can beat *optimal*? If old man coffee and crazy drunk guy are sitting at 1/2 with 100, and Phil Ivey is at the table with 300, are you seriously telling me you'd buy in for 300 *in the hopes of raising your EV*?
....
I believe this a flawed thinking in a few ways but specially because sitting with 150bb is not deap stacked and imho is what I consider short stacked in a llsnl game.

With that said I know a lot of people who buy in short and play that game very well. It's not for me, its not for everyone but it can work very well. You also have to think, when you buy in short what do people think of you when you get it all in? And you USE that to your advantage, and that's one reasone I think people can make it work so well. But it has to be for you, it wouldn't work with my style.
kdready is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:29 PM   #4033
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
Ya ok, 150bb is short stack when most of the llsnl players are buying in less than 100bb.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:51 PM   #4034
ATsai
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Orange County/LA, CA
Posts: 2,409
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short stacking has its place, but the majority of juicy games will have full stacked or deep stacked fish that you will want to cover.

If your game doesn't have full stacked or deep stacked fish, you should probably be table changing anyway.

Short stacking also forces you to play fewer hands. This usually reduces your win-rate a lot unless you are short-stacking a higher stake game where you would be -EV playing full-stacked against full-stacked regs at the higher stake
ATsai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:56 PM   #4035
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 31,421
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Also short stacking actually increases variance
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:56 PM   #4036
ATsai
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Orange County/LA, CA
Posts: 2,409
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

FWIW, short-stacking will not reduce your variance much.

If you have a short bankroll, short-stacking won't reduce your risk of going busto much.

The only thing that will seriously reduce your risk of ruin is a solid win rate. Everything else is unimportant compared to improving your win rate.

Most posters would be better off focusing on their poker fundamentals instead of wasting time debating correct buy-in sizes.
ATsai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 01:03 PM   #4037
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATsai View Post
Short stacking has its place, but the majority of juicy games will have full stacked or deep stacked fish that you will want to cover.

If your game doesn't have full stacked or deep stacked fish, you should probably be table changing anyway.
This works both ways. If there is a mega fish or 2 deep stacked at a certain table then all of the good players will gravitate to that table. If the other games are relatively short stacked (ie 100bbs or less) good players will gravitate away from those tables leaving very soft tables ripe for the pickings.

As a short-stack player (60bbs) I only have one concern in regards to stack sizes...that the majority of players cover me (opposite of conventional logic). At 1/2 I could see this being an issue but at 2/5 and 5/10 it is extremely rare for me to find a table that does not meet these conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATsai View Post
Short stacking also forces you to play fewer hands.
It allows you to play less hands PASSIVELY, but if you play TAG and I play LAG I will still be playing far far more hands than you will.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 01:06 PM   #4038
Tom Dwans Son
banned
 
Tom Dwans Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,004
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATsai View Post
FWIW, short-stacking will not reduce your variance much.

If you have a short bankroll, short-stacking won't reduce your risk of going busto much.

The only thing that will seriously reduce your risk of ruin is a solid win rate. Everything else is unimportant compared to improving your win rate.
Agree completely. I would guesstimate that it reduces my variance by maybe 10 to 15% tops...not very much at all. I essentially go by the same bankroll requirements whether I play short stack or full stack.
Tom Dwans Son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 02:54 PM   #4039
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 31,421
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short stacking does not reduce variance >

Myth and lies

Decreased WR, increased STD DEV = more variance

it just makes it easier to have a positive winrate
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 02:57 PM   #4040
gus1112
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 984
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by corlath View Post
THANK you, TDS. Finally someone who doesn't insta-berate me for buying in half-stacked (which is short but not super short). People here just seem to assume that buying in for a full stack is *inherently* better than buying in for half. But if all the opponents who are better than you are full-stacked, and all the opponents who are worse than you are short-stacked, isn't covering only the people you can beat *optimal*? If old man coffee and crazy drunk guy are sitting at 1/2 with 100, and Phil Ivey is at the table with 300, are you seriously telling me you'd buy in for 300 *in the hopes of raising your EV*?

This isn't my hairbrained opinion, Ed Miller backs it up. He also says that beginners OUGHT to buy in shorter stacked, because they don't have the depth of knowledge to make smart plays deep-stacked. The deeper stacked you are, the more difficult no-limit gets. If you can consistently make better decisions deep-stacked than your opponents, then deep stacking is optimal, assuming you have the bankroll. But if you can't, then playing with a shorter stack is better.

I am most comfortable starting out with a half stack because of my bankroll size. If I double up and I'm playing full, great, I can set-mine more and overlimp speculative hands a bit more in position, and have a deeper stack to get in against donks when I flop the world.

But for my style, I get more action with my best hands when I'm shorter stacked. The deep players play loose calling $15 raises from each other with "implied odds" with hands like KTs, KQ, 44, 55, 66. One raise, five callers, I pop it to 100 with my top 5 hand. Profit. And if one of them woke up with AA or KK, I'm risking less than if I make the exact same move with 100 more behind (at which point I'm pot committed), in which case they'd be folding their worse hands...when they might call if it's only 85 more. What's more, having 100 makes flop decisions much easier. If I have 100 total, I can pop to 50 with AK against a few opponents and if I get called, I can shove with impunity on the flop. But if I pop it to 50 with 150 more behind, I have a really crappy decision to make when I miss the flop.

This +1000

Great post here. 2+2 nerds fail to understand the true merits of shortstacking but buying in deep is stupid until you see a deep fish making big mistakes in big pots- otherwise everything in above post is spot on, and it lures 2+2ers to assuming you suck and are short of $ and they play horribly against you
gus1112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 03:06 PM   #4041
bubonicplay
Pooh-Bah
 
bubonicplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: LV, $$
Posts: 3,934
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You have to risk it to win it, buying in short will only reduce your hourly. Unless you suck at deep stacked.
bubonicplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 03:10 PM   #4042
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
In the grand scheme of things, it probably does affect your win rate negatively. However, the reason why most people short stack is to be able to have more bullets to sit in higher stake, presumably to gain higher return.

If the choice is to sit shorter at 2/5 or sit at full stack in 1/2, I would choose 2/5 any day. The potential loss of EV is negated.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 03:14 PM   #4043
iLikeCaliDonks
banned
 
iLikeCaliDonks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California
Posts: 15,163
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

+1
iLikeCaliDonks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 04:32 PM   #4044
corlath
veteran
 
corlath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Chocobo Farm
Posts: 2,196
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Okay, to 11t and bubonic, in case you didn't read my post completely (I'm guessing you didn't):

I am not a good deep stack player. Short-stacking, therefore, DOES increase my winrate.

11t, when you claim that short stacking increases variance, do you mean variance dollar per dollar? Or variance in buyins? It would have to more than *double* buyin variance to increase absolute dollar variance. I highly doubt that it does.
corlath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 04:52 PM   #4045
11t
Bo Pelini's #1 Fan
 
11t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spewville
Posts: 31,421
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Your swings will be greater in terms of BB's

simple math dude, you aren't playing rivers which is the most profitable street. Most good players have a pretty high won money when at showdown % or won money at the river.

basically your winrate will be smaller and your SDV higher so the absolute height of your swings in terms of BB's will be greater.

I am pretty confident that this is mathematically correct, search the uNL arches, lots of short stacking posts which will confirm what I've said.

I read your post, whether or not it is more profitable for you is a personal problem but I'd suggest just getting better. I also said that the real reason why short stacking is "good" is that it is easier to be profitable.
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 05:03 PM   #4046
Duke0424
self-banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Desert
Posts: 13,365
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

why dont you just get better at deep stack
Duke0424 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 05:07 PM   #4047
Brad Childress
adept
 
Brad Childress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Shaker Heights, OH
Posts: 1,129
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short-stacking increases dollar-for-dollar variance but you are playing a smaller game so you can get by with a smaller bankroll than somebody playing deep. The variance of a correctly played shortstack is nuts though and makes me think the guys doing it to reduce variance are playing pretty poorly.
Brad Childress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 06:32 PM   #4048
corlath
veteran
 
corlath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Chocobo Farm
Posts: 2,196
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I do plan to get better at deep (or just plain regular) stack play. I just posted a thread in goals and challenges.

Since I don't have a bankroll, my plan for improving my deep stack play is to do so online. I have enough to play 50NL with proper bankroll on Bovada, but I know I'm not good enough for 50NL. I'm going to start all the way at the bottom on 5NL, play until I'm reasonably sure I'm crushing it, and move up to 10NL, rinse and repeat. All the while I will be studying the game.

What kind of winrate/100, over how many hands, do you think I need before you'd say I'm solidly beating a game? I plan on only playing one table at a time, to pay as much attention as I can to other peoples' hands.

Also I asked this in the Bovada thread, but I need a stat tracker that works for that site...I only need to be able to track my own stats to keep track of my vpip, winrate/100, all that jazz.
corlath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 06:49 PM   #4049
ATsai
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Orange County/LA, CA
Posts: 2,409
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Upon reviewing the wisdom and experience of the posters here, I now recommend everyone in this thread to embrace the short-stack style.

Since all the good players are playing deep-stacked games, we might as well bum-hunt the short-stack games because they are softer.
ATsai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 07:09 PM   #4050
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
In most 2/5 games that I have seen, everyone suck beyond 200-300bb, and most are pretty crappy < 80bb.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive