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 01-13-2015, 11:16 AM   #8601
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I mean, if you're shortstacking you're never getting invited to home games and just killing any potential good hourly. Your winnings come from winning big pots. Sure, you can be profitable shortstacking 2/5 or 5/10. But can you have a $30 hourly at 2/5 when you're buying in for $200?
Can you get a $30/hourly playing 1/2 with a $200 buyin? If you can then a good short stacker can make a lot more than $30/hr buying in for $200 at 2/5.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 11:21 AM   #8602
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorXP View Post
Not to burst anyone's bubble here but No one is grinding up a roll from 1/2.
I agreed with the rest of your point but not with this. Most of the good young grinders I play with started with nothing at 1/2 and built it up. The one kid I know that bypassed 1/2 (against my recommendation) because he had a lot of money already and quickly moved up to 2/5 then 5/10 then 10/20 quit poker within a year or so because he realized he couldn't beat 5/10+ and didn't have the mental fortitude to go back down to 2/5.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 11:27 AM   #8603
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream View Post
And at 5/10, I can't even imagine the headache of ratholing or trying to transfer to another table after hitting, especially as there are very few 5/t tables usually running.
Yes, regfish aren't going to take kindly to you just hitting and running all the time and essentially you would have to jump between 2/5 and 5/10. That being said you could employ short stacking as a portion of your game. It's probably not that viable as your whole game though.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 12:50 PM   #8604
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,502
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You would absolutely have to crush 1/2 100bb max to be making 15 bb/hr. Generally to win at this rate you need the buyin cap to be bigger. I am -almost- there, but I play in a 200bb max game and only play it if it's really good/no bigger game as I mainly play 2/5 and 2/5 PLO.

If you're crushing 1/2, it's not because you're playing a 9/7 shortstacking game. You're winning a decent amount of hands generally, and getting maximum value. This is impossible if you're shortstacking.

If I only had like a week to teach someone to try to beat 2/5 coming from zero poker knowledge it's how I'd teach them to play. An actual competent player that could be a winner in that game? There is just no way they're not taking a massive cut to their potential winrate by doing anything less than buying in to cover the players that are weaker than they are.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 01:25 PM   #8605
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You can play LAG quite profitably as a short stack in live cash games similar to how someone can play LAG profitably as a short stack in a SNG. Obviously, it's not the exact same thing as playing a SNG but it's similar.

One big difference is that while you are short most of your opponents are relatively deep (this is good). Obv in a cash game there is less fold equity than in a SNG but at the same time villains are super exploitable in live as they have no clue how to play vs short stacks.

They call way too wide in spots where they should shove/fold (and subsequently fold the best hand when they miss a flop). They call shoves preflop in spots where they are huge underdogs. They call down with mediocre draws with no implied odds. They play hands they shouldn't by either raising or calling raises even though there is a short stacker that may shove over top of them. (ie nobody is going to call a raise with 76 sooted late in a SNG but in live poker players players just play their cards and subsequently leave a ton of dead money out there for the short stacker to steal...albeit it's not really stealing when villain has 76 sooted...whether the player calls or folds is +EV for the short stacker).
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 01:50 PM   #8606
Snowball2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Snowball2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,640
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by feel wrath View Post
Filthy short stacking scum
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short stacks are dead money in a live game.
Snowball2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:06 PM   #8607
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorXP View Post
I probably have more hands of 50bb NL than most anyone live and online.
Wanna bet to see who's the taller midget?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:07 PM   #8608
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball2 View Post
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short stacks are dead money in a live game.
Sure, if not done right and most don't.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:12 PM   #8609
Donat3llo
Faster Than Ski Patrol
 
Donat3llo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Riding your coattails, bruh!
Posts: 22,032
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball2 View Post
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Short stacks are dead money in a live game.
2 + 2 =5

3 × 4 = 15

Trees can become human beings.

I like this game where we just say things that are wrong.
Donat3llo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:13 PM   #8610
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 Donat3llo View Post
This is just not true. A short stack played well on your left will destroy you.
Destroy is a little strong
11t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:15 PM   #8611
Donat3llo
Faster Than Ski Patrol
 
Donat3llo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Riding your coattails, bruh!
Posts: 22,032
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Damn tried to ninja edit, damn 11t.

Perhaps, but will make your life very difficult.
Donat3llo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:23 PM   #8612
GatorXP
old hand
 
GatorXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Out of the Theater
Posts: 1,792
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Wanna bet to see who's the taller midget?

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

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums
GatorXP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:25 PM   #8613
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorXP View Post
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?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:26 PM   #8614
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,502
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:49 PM   #8615
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I'm not scared of the shortstack who might put me to one tough decision for one, MAYBE two streets for at most 50bb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
These are rarely ever good players and you're rarely making huge errors here anyway.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 02:53 PM   #8616
bip!
Slow Pony
 
bip!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: not on urban dictionary...
Posts: 13,669
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

- 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.
bip! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:08 PM   #8617
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
"Buying in short initially" should be distinguished from "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.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:12 PM   #8618
bip!
Slow Pony
 
bip!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: not on urban dictionary...
Posts: 13,669
*** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

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.
bip! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:12 PM   #8619
Snowball2
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Snowball2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,640
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
- and what to do when you double...hmm..
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.
Snowball2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:20 PM   #8620
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball2 View Post
Plus you get like so few hands an hour that i cant imagine how ****ty your hourly would be, not to mention the variance.
But you don't know - you just assume that it's bad based on what you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball2 View Post
Short stacks are annoying, but never threatening no matter how good they are.
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.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:21 PM   #8621
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,502
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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?
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?

Last edited by aoFrantic; 01-13-2015 at 03:33 PM.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:31 PM   #8622
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
No competent deep stack pro I know is ever buying in short to our games First, the best players have the ego.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:36 PM   #8623
aoFrantic
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
aoFrantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,502
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.
aoFrantic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:42 PM   #8624
NeverLosesAtPoker
banned
 
NeverLosesAtPoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: On TwoPlusTwo
Posts: 4,448
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
I haven't seen an argument of playing short rather then deep if you're competent.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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.
NeverLosesAtPoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 03:48 PM   #8625
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bip! View Post
"Buying in short initially" should be distinguished from "short stacking"
---------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic View Post
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.
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.
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 02:51 PM.


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