I apologize in advance if this question seems ignorant. For the sake of my question, assume all effective stacks are 100BB.

What if someone was to adopt an ultra-aggressive strategy that they were going to bet/raise and attempt to get all in on flop whenever they flopped: Overpair, set, straight draw, flush draw, 2 pair, and top pair-top kicker (against all but tightest opponents).

I know opponents would most likely wait and try to pick you off with the nuts but would all the pots you picked up from everyone folding PLUS the pots you won from always having outs or the best hand, make this type of strategy profitable? If 100BB stack would not make this strategy profitable, would there be a better stack size that would make this strategy profitable?

Sorry if the question seems stupid. I think moving in with that range would put a lot of pressure on my opponent(s) while at the same time, I'd almost always have outs if I'm not already ahead. Thanks for listening.

eyurus

While this strategy could work at the lowest levels, you'll never make it to higher stakes without hand reading.

Edit: NLHE is far too complex to have a 'system'.

Actually, there's already a name for this.

"Shortstacking".

There is a guy described in Phil Gordan's Little Green book who does something similar. He tries to see to as many flops as possible cheap with any suited semi connecting hands and open shoves any flush draw or straight draw (even gut shots). he does this at high stakes online and has shown a consistent long term profit (there is crazy variance) This works because of a ton of fold equity plus he gets some killer implied tilt odds. He also gets crazy action on his monsters.

For the record you shouldn't do this

I don't think risking your chips like this is a great strategy for someone to imply. As with anything someone will have success at it, but when someone busts your straight draw or flush draw, its gonna hurt a lot worse when your wondering why you played that way.

Being aggressive is not a bad thing, but switching gears is gonna make you a lot harder to read rather then shoving post flop continuously

The way I look at it, there is a *perfect system*. And your goal should be to refine your system as close to it as possible.

'System' here takes into account all the possible variables, like player types / moods / past history / etc.

It is a very complex system, but like you said, NLHE is a complex game.

I took about 5 buy ins vs someone who did this the other week

What was your calling range? And how many BB were the stacks?

eyurus

I think doing this with a shortstack will make opponents more likely to call, which would weaken the intention of playing this way. It would have to be enough to put pressure. If this strategy is profitable, and I don't know that it is, the bigger stack seems to increase my fold equity more than buying in short would save money on my misses.

I guess the next question is, what is your calling range going to be vs. this style of play? What hands are you going to call (not bet) all in against, even if you know my shoving range? Top-pair, top-kicker? Set? Overpair?

We all know being deceptive is a big part of the game and by playing this way, in theory, you're playing your whole range of hands the same so your opponents will never know your holdings. Yes, you will lose the maximum when you miss your draws, IF you get called. But you will also make the maximum when you hit your draws and when you have the best hand. Plus the fold equity against all the hands that your opponents will not call for their whole buy-in.

As for the comment about not working against higher limits, maybe true but my hand is still disguised and you're still going to have to decide which hand in my range I'm moving in with this time. And, there are very few situations where I'd be moving in and didn't have outs if I happen to get called. It seems like a tough style to play against at any limit, in theory.

FWIW, I do not play this way. I was thinking about the game and it started with how could I play all my playable hands in a similar fashion so my opponents would not be able to put me on a narrow range of hands. I agree the variance would be huge, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're losing, just having big swings.

Thanks for entertaining the thoughts in my head. I appreciate all the comments.

he was playing like 40/20ish. 100bb stacks. i mostly just snapped him off with tp.

The guy in the Little Green Book did it at 5000NL and he did it with a full stack. The only reason it worked was he had a super deep bank roll. The way Phil Gordan said you can combat this is call with bigger draws but basically what the method does is force people out of the their comfort zone. I think it wouldn't work as well at the micros because ppl are too stupid for you to get the necessary fold equity.

To some up. It can work but don't do it

this would never work at any level over a decent samplesize

'call with bigger draws' what?

I may have phrased it facetiously but I wasn't kidding. What you're talking about is the essence of short stack strategy (post flop, anyhow). And it works precisely because short stacks have fold equity while not being exposed to the risks of playing for 100bb stacks. In addition the equity realities of shoving 15bb into a 10bb pot with 40% equity is so much brighter than shoving 95bb into a 10bb pot that it's pretty obvious you haven't really considered the ramifications of this - You will win a bunch of small pots but that will be more than wiped out when you get stacked.

Big combo draws are favorite over most hands on the flop.

Except for the hands that actually want to play for stacks...

Thanks again for the opinions.

Only people who suck will wait for the nuts. Anyone who is paying attention will start calling a ton lighter.

^^^^^ what he said.