I was referring to at more normal games like 2/4-25/50 etc, you can't exactly move up the ranks by shortstacking, but if you ride the wave of variance to the top, or have money outside of shortstacking, than I suppose you can start at like 100/200 if you want

show the graph timex, you nit

I won't show it since its across a few computers, but that was just a couple thousand hands of my shortstacking in that graph, my lifetime shortstacking graph is pretty gross, and theres a reason I stopped shortstacking

Do short stackers leave right after they double up or?

if littlezen on stars is the same as littlezen on party, hes horrible and i cant imagine him being a winner

yeah, they dont have a clue about playing real poker with decent stacks so they leave when they have a profit..

its the implied ratholing that pisses a lot of the fullstackers off

that and they ruin the games

and ratholing is bad for the games.

why is it no surprise that you are a shortstacker?

part of me wants to just nod and agree with you so nobody else does it, as ridiculous as the above is

I agree that the no $5m br comment was dumb and a double standard. I think PLO is different than NLHE though and shortstacking doesn't force skilled, full-stacked players to tighten up or play a different game, which is my main gripe with NLHE shortstacking. Also, I don't just completely rathole when I do it, I stick around after doubling the majority of the time (but do quit once approaching a full buyin). I do think I'm a dog full-stacked in the big games unless I'm on Gus's left or something, and I don't want the variance anyway. Basically the main thing is that PLO and NLH shortstacking are 2 different animals.

First of all, the true definition of "ratholing" is to take money off the table and keep playing. This isnt allowed at any US compatable sites that I know of. If a SSer doubles up and leaves, he takes 40BBS off the table, wo of which is replaced by the guy who lost and reloads, and the SSers seat is normally filled by a new guy with 80-100BBs, so there is now MORE money on the table, not less...hence this doesnt adversely affect the games. Only if the SSer is allowed to leave and come right back with less money like used tobe allowed (maybe still, I dont know) at Party.

I shortstacked the 5/10 several months ago and did very very well. I havent done it since because its pretty boring and the variance is monsterous.

The reason that there are very few good SSers is because its much tougher than it looks. You need to have intimate knowledge of what hands play well against other hands, and pay very close attention to who raises what, from what position and how often they raise. Most people who put that much work into their game are very good full stacked players who will make more money playing full. People who think they can just buy in short and start shoving all in without regards to alot of factors i just mentioned, will get killed.

So, yes I shortstacked for a while at Full Tilt and did very well against the same guys here at 2+2 complaining about it all the time. As I said I havent done it in 3-4 months because its stressful and boring at the same time and the variance is worse than anyone could imagine.

Timex, you obviously dont know what youre doing based on your last 3 posts.

Says YOU. Who made you the moral majority who gets to decide that shortstacking PLO is prefectly fine because you dont like variance but shortstacking NL is subhuman because you dont like SSers tightening up your games?

lolol

Uhh lol, one has postflop play and the other doesn't. Does that help explain why they're not the same thing? Because that's all he said. But hey, fly off the handle again, I find it amusing.

And yeah zyrrth is right, your logic is lol hilarious.

this seems silly stinger. you're gripe with SSers is they force you to play your game differently than you prefer/are comfortable with? i'm not near the poker player you are, but i always thought that was a goal of anyone playing poker of any kind, to make other players play a different game than they want to play.

personally, i think there is a huuuuuuuge difference between ratholing and shortstacking. ratholing, i believe is a terrible thing to do and shouldn't be allowed. i also define ratholing as buying in min., doubling up, then leaving.

shortstacking on the other hand, to me is perfectly ethical and there is nothing wrong with it. buying in min. then continuing to play on even after you double up....what is wrong with that? kerpowski and durrrr, and stinger are excellent examples of that. even phil ivey (though i believe he buys in w/ 40bbs and not 20) does it in certain games.

lay off Timex. you obviously don't know what you're doing either based on the fact that you think "variance is monsterous and worse than anyone could imagine"

Why is this thread stilll here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Signs you don't know what you are talking about regarding Choo Choo:

1) You've never done it
2) You don't think you can win
3) You think its high variance
4) You're part of the MSNL "elite" or "All Star" team or whatever **** phrase Triumph coined for himself and friends.

but shortstackers hurt the action much more in NL and make the game less enjoyable for all (themselves included). For example in a 50/100 NL game the average pot may be $1500 with 6 full stacks but only $800 at a table with 2 shortstacks because the games play tighter in general. For PLO shortstacks have little if any effect on the action in the game and average pot size remains about the same.

Am I on the list???

If you saw my full graph, you'd realize how monsterous the variance actually is

shortstacking PLO forces other players to quit the game if they're adjusting properly.

Depends on your definition of variance. I once lost (37) 20 BB buy ins and still had a win rate that was very respectable even by regular full stacking win rate standards.

Thats less than 8 full buy ins, but its still a heck of alot of variance since you have to get those 37 back 1 at a time.

Its obviously not as much money as 37 full buy ins, but I would bet not too many good full stackers have 37 buy in losing streaks. Thats alot of variance.