I wasn't alluding to the fact that she wasn't good enuf to buy in for fullstack are watever, just now that it around approx a year later, I just want to see what the OP thinks of what they wrote, and if it still is profitable for a "newer" player to use the strat still.

I'm not an expert on the subject of stack sizes in No Limit, but I'd say congratulations to the Original Poster for avoiding a dogmatic approach to poker, and refusing to submit to platitudes. You've thought it through, you've found something that works for you, and the simpletons who say that what you're playing isn't real poker are obviously not the sort to think deeply about anything that falls outside of their limited view.

In general, be suspicious of any statement about poker that includes one of the words "never," or "always." One or two might actually be correct, but those would be the kinds of statement that are so obvious as to provide no real educational value, such as "never fold a royal flush"... and even that will prove false in lowball!

Well there were just several posts early on that said "In two years you'll look back..." etc. so I wonder what Luna's current thoughts are now that it is 9-10months later

I think playing with a given stack size helps you gain more experience playing against that stack size. If you're playing against Shorty McShortstack who has 20BB, it doesn't matter if you have 20BB, 50BB, 100BB, or 10000BB, you're going to want to play against him the same way. However, if you are playing with 100BB all the time, you're going to have less knowledge about playing specifically against a 20BB stack, as you're also playing against 50BB, 80BB, whatever.

Yes, you'll eventually learn how to play against a given stack size with whatever stack size you have if you keep at it, but the larger your stack is, the more complicated the learning process will be.

I think I like the idea of introducing someone to NL with a short stack and working it up to 100bb over the course of a month or two of instruction. That would set right down in the foundation some things beginners usually struggle with: playing tight (looseness with 30bbs corresponds more directly with losses), some of the basic math involved in the game (teach them odds at a time when they'll often have odds, to prepare for when they don't), and successful ways of extracting value (pitfalls like minraising are less likely to set in because they won't produce the mixed results they do at 100bb).

It's only useful to someone who wants to rehash and review, or someone who's still a beginner / learning to play dependent on stacks and not yet comfortable playing 100bbs. If you're buying in for less than your normal effective stacks because you've just moved up a limit and aren't used to "more money" (look at it in BBs), that's weak, and you're sending a strong tell about it. A few revelations come along with becoming comfortable with 100+bbs, and these revelations make it undesirable to buy in short.

There is a weak strain of advice on 2+2, and a strong strain.

The weak strain says "I learned a long time ago to do X, so you should do X too. Stop doing Y, it's pathetic and spewy. Don't listen to those other morons, they're wrong, and I win lots of money."

The strong strain says things like "Let's consider stack sizes in relation to strategy..." and picks apart the impacts of having a certain stack size and what that means for hand selection, raise sizes, approach to flop and turn betting, and so forth. Throw in some discussion of relative position of different stack sizes and playing styles, invent some math terms, do lots of thought experiments.

Even if nobody ever plays exactly according to the strategies discussed, people who study them gain an understanding of what they're doing with a poker hand -- far more than the people who learn to play follow the leader.

It's funny because being an SnG player (and one time short stacker) actually made me pretty good at adjusting to different stack sizes and how to adjust stack off ranges appropriately. I do think that stack sizes and so on are important things that when players get too caught up with the "everyone has 100bb" norm, they might not adjust properly when they get slightly deeper or some guy has 60 bb and you raised a suited connector and have second pair...

obv instant folding is not correct, but playing second pair is pretty hard when any bet can pot commit you. It's an interesting game when you start having to get it in A high on the flop more often as you near the 40-30bb range.

Or you can learn to play poker and not play like a robot going "well I have TPTK so I should stack off 100% of the time"

Wow. Usually I look forward to your posts.

I like the idea of getting comfortable with different stacks like this. It kind of reminds me of playing HU to help improve postflop/HU play at 6max/full ring. You could consider it a kind of training exercise.

All this noise just to state that is a good idea as beginner to minimize losses during the learning process and maximize profits when one becomes a winner...

In the beginning I had the same suspects as OP, so I played without top up and tried different stack sizes... one year later I found out by myself that if you know how tu put your money in good there's no reason to be afraid of playing deeper..

Interesting - I have spent about 5 years playing cash games, for about the first 2 of them I always bought in at 50BB's and only bought up to full if there was a full stacked fish around; I now switch between full stacked play (on my desktop) and 20BB short-stack play (on my laptop) - probably 80% of my play is full and 20% short overall...

50BB buy-ins are OK when starting out and OP is right that they help you avoid most of the most common mistakes cash beginners make when starting to play full.
Stacking off with TPTK is fine, you can fold speculative holdings like 87s IP and small pairs to a standard raise OOP with no regrets and 3/4 bet decisions are much easier pre-flop. You are also less likely to get bluffed off hands.

It makes little or no difference to your win rate from my experience.

However it does mean that you will play worse when you do find yourself with 100BB stacks (so I guess that means you will tend to rathole once you double up - or play very nitty) and it ******s your deeper stacked poker development.

In the end knowing when to let TPTK or an overpair go 100BB + deep, knowing when to 4 bet with AQs and when to call/fold, knowing how to play suited 1 gappers IP in raised pots with 120BB stacks etc are essential to moving up and understanding poker properly.

I'm not saying that sometimes (against a particular set of opponents) it wouldn't be easier or more profitable to buy-in with 50BB's. Quite often poker players overestimate their relative ability - if the table has 1 good deep stacker (better than you) and 4 20-50BB fish then buying in for 50BB may be best and 50BB's allows for a lot more 'real poker' than 20BB's so if you are a shortie looking to move up to deeper stacked play then 50BB buy-ins might be a good stepping stone..

for me better is playing @ micro stakes with 50% max BI, i cant loose so much vs lucky hands

FYP

Sup man. Very, very nice post. I like the way this is expressed and you are very coherent. These are the things I was exactly thinking while reading PNL1 myself. However, there are a number of things I disagree with. The thing I disagree most with is that you conceded that you must 'leave if get over 75BB' - this kind of proves why you should try to learn deepstack. Sometimes a fish gets lucky, often when a fish wins, they get lucky infact - they get lucky more than they win through skill - Sometimes the joy of poker is knowing that a fish will not leave a table until his 3outered 220bb stack is dispersed amoungst the rest of the table... and sometimes its even nicer to know that YOU are the only one that can play deep enough and know how to play that deep to outclass him. THIS is why learning to play deep is so important.

Definetly one of the more intresting and seemingly controversial threads ive had the pleasure of reading in quite some time.I will admit however at times more often than not i do have the tendency to short stack the way of 20-40 BB.Why?Simple.At most tables where i find the majoriety of players are depp stacked and i sit down with ohh say 25 BBs ive found that at least 2-4 players at the average table have no issue with spewing off chips with everything marginal hands ie middle to pairs gut shot draws ect ect.And i think alot of it has to do with simple machismo.All teach him to short stack at my table or if i call his all in with this laughable marginal hand if i lose all still have 40 BBS and am deep enough to reload 20 times over mentality.Shortstackers in essence depend on this type of misguided machismo in order to pad thier bankrolls.We are among the hated however this is good.Simply because if everyone started short stacking making all buy ins realtive it wouldnt be short stacking anymore.

These


OP is correct.
100bb is an arbitrary number that sites have settled on as a max buyin for most cash games, and it happens to be a pretty awkward stack size a lot of the time. Playing a 50bb stack still leaves room for postflop play (3bb raise + 4bb cbet still leaves 43bb behind) and can be quite profitable if you make the proper adjustments and even more so if your opponents don't make the proper adjustments. Other times, having as much as possible on the table may be correct (assuming, again, that you adjust your play accordingly).


Congrats to OP for analyzing why you sometimes want a certain stack size and learning how it affects play (without dogmatically insisting that 50bb is always right for all players).

aaahahahaha I forgot about Lil C

This thread sure got resurrected...

You can spin this any how you want

.
It is learning poker, thats how I learned. Maybe not how you learned but I am still glad I learnt this way.

If you ask me its more robotic for a poker newbie to say
" I don't know why i shouldn't stack off with TPTK but 2+2 said so, so I guess I fold here"
Or the infamous
"I check the turn for pot-control"... phrase often use when in fact the turn is an obvious bet.

This same robotic-ness makes for easy pickings when playing deep against who are still stuck in 100BB mode even though they are 300+BB's deep.

I prefer to spend a few 10K hands learning practically how stacksizes change the game while also limiting losses as I learnt the game. My intent was always to learn 100BB poker and that what i play 99.9% of the time now.
I've never had to redeposit after my initial deposit since I practised BM right from the start and slowly built up to full stack play which I am profitable at thankfully.

Always buy in for 100bb and always reload to full.
I was trying to explain this to my younger brother the other day but he couldn't get his head round it.

Let's say a 90/50/7 maniac sits with 100bb. He doubles through a reg and has 200bb. 10 mins before the maniac sat you had 100bb but doubled your stack with AA>KK You have the maniac covered. Great situation.

Even if it's rare if a spewtard sits, you obviously want as much in front of you as possible so you can stack him (or anyone else for that matter).

nh op
i am also thinking this approach, buying short doesn't mean you will play short stake for the whole season, you can always double up from fish and play deep stake from there, or if you are unlucky and got crush, you can always rebuy another 50BB, losing an 50BB allin will not tilted you as much as 100BB full buyin

Group think tends to be a disease at times...

I think the point that is missed from the initial post is that your buy-in size should dictate your strategy at the table.

If you buy in for 20BB, you are short-stacking yourself and you should basically play an all-in or fold strategy.

If you buy in for 50BB, you are mid-stacked and should be very, very selective when you 3 bet.

If you buy in for the max, you are deep-stacked and leave yourself more room for creative play. That being said, you also expose yourself to more risk of loss in your session.

It all comes down to the basics of stack size management.

Another point I would like to make - I absolutely LOVE buying in for 50BB in an online game. The others at the table tend to think I am a fish and treat me as such. I have found this strategy VERY successful online. However, I do not do it live. For whatever reason, I have found in playing a live cash game, the ultra-deep stacks at the table get a lot of respect (probably more than they even should). It allows you to bluff a lot more.

You should probably only buy in full if you think you have an edge over most of the players at the table. If you are a beginner, there is a lot of merit to buying in half or less.

The main advantage, IMO, is that it reduces your postflop decisions and eliminates any post flop edge your opponents might have, since you are getting it in on the flop or turn.

It also makes it a mistake for bigger stacks to set mine you, which, IMO, makes it more profitible to shove TPTK hands on the flop.

ok since i replied with the 'in 2 yrs time ull think how dumb u were" quote at the very start ill give my real thoughts now.

basically stack size is a function of how good u r. no way of twisting it around and sugar coating it with other 'considerations' on why 50bb is better in some situations. if u can adapt well and are the best player at the table there is very little reason to not top up to as much as the table allows.

when i made that post i always played 100bb poker, but i also did so at 200bb tables because i felt i did not have an edge versus the tough regs 200bb deep. i admitted to myself that i wasnt up to the task. i didnt sugar coat and say i can now do X that i couldnt do if i had 200bb or something equivalent to what ppl in this thread r saying with 50 and 100bb respectively. nowadays I do play 200bb because I think im good enough. the only time in memory I havent in last 6 mths was literally when a super lag reg was on my table to my direct left with 200bb and EVERYONE else at the table had 100. meaning there was no advantage for me in having 200bb and all the disadvantage in the world. now if i felt i had an edge on him (which out of position involves more than merely being a better player) i wouldve topped up to 200.

saying u can now stack off TPGK easily with 40bb or whatever is not a reason for saying 40bb is a good stack size. it shows u dont know how to play TPGK deepstacked, cant read hands, cant get away from hands, or some mixture thereof.

I think OP is saying that playing at 60~ bbs is a good training wheel for new player, and indeed while there are a lot more intricacies playing deeper, these are things that players starting off would not learn from anyway. They'll go, hey I can't stack off with tptk here, or can I? he might have a draw though!!!! and get all confused, which is standard. Poker isn't easy, and it's how we deal in marginal situations that make is better than another reg, but again, new players will just get confused and disappointed with these marginal situations going sour, without really learning how to adjust, at least at the onset.

As such I am not averse to the idea of starting slightly shallower at first. Training wheels, sir, training wheels. Playing 100-130bb stacks brings in a good amount of external factors vs other tightish players that new players shouldn't be dealing with yet. They should mostly be dealing with preflop play cbetting, value betting, and occasional double barrels and bluff raises.

This.