Today I tried to play a session of 10nl... and it was impossible. Table selection was not possible. Usually I avoid tables with 4+ shortstacks at all costs and refuse to play on them. Today, however, that wasn't possible. 20 tables+ were open all of which had 4-6 20 blind stacks with a HILARIOUS 2 tables that had no stack over 20 blinds (these tables were newly formed and just starting up).

I understand that playing shortstacked makes it easy to get your money in and puts your opponent in a difficult situation where they're often likely to fold, especially if they were raising a little light... but really, shortstacking is the greatest threat to poker ring games as I see it today. I know that it can allow you to play higher limit games with lower bankrolls and there IS a strategy to it very similar to MTT strategy... but I really don't think you're learning any poker skills at all, or getting your expected value when you sit down at a table full of other shortstacks all trying to do the same thing.

It sparked a question, would you play at forced 100bb stack tables? I know that stars has some 50bb forced and I know FTP has deepstack tables... but I dunno about minimums.

I think a reason why certain sites don't bring this in is because it might get rid of the casual player that doesn't want to risk 100bbs or doesn't have quite 100bbs... and those would be the only tables open.

Comments? Should we submit a petition?

EDIT: Yeah, and the 100bb maximum is just for buyin purposes... just to clear things up, you don't have to sit out when you get above 100 blinds :-P.

itd be such a reg fest. most donks sit in with really weird stacks from 60bb-100bb. rarely do they sit 100 bb

i voted i would sit 100bb min tables ... but assuming the max was uncapped so the game would play super deep like.. like live games i play in.

OP i know short stackers can be annoying but all it takes i a little adjusting ...the fact of the matter is most short stackers are terrible and have no idea.. especially at the micros ...just learn to adjust to them and you will see they are no reason to avoid a table... I actually like to sit when i can get a big stack to my right and a short stacks to my left.

the online cardrooms will never allow a game to run super deep willingly... bigger stack sizes means less rake, less rake means less income, less income means bad idea. I mean, why play 1/2NL when you can play .05/.1nl with a $200 stack. You can like 5-bet light preflop and stuff... it really opens up the window for a lot more play options.

Certain sites don't seem to mind allowing deep stacks... but ULTRA deep for an unlimited buyin... that just sounds crazy anyways. I know there are cardrooms that do that and I still think they're crazy. You're pretty much encouraging people to potentially win or lose fortunes within a few hands. If there's a 2000bb pot, it better be because 10 players shoved :-P. I think when you're THAT DEEP, it's a bit more of a guessing game at times than poker.

Either way, I'm not arguing for unlimited stacks just yet, heh.

I just really hate these shortstacks... how am I supposed to adjust to them? Like, if it's one or two... that's fine... when it's 4+ it makes playing very difficult. Stealing blinds is nearly impossible usually, value-bets never get paid unless your hand is no good in which case they stackoff and doubleup (usually leaving soon after).

It's a disgrace to the game, seriously.

Personally, I'm in favor of truly "no-limit" in the sense of no maximum buy-in. Certainly, playing in a few underground cardrooms years back, I never liked to buy into a $1/$2 game for less than $300.

In a 100 buy-in max game, let's say you start with $200, double up, double up again, then in a couple of unfortunate hands, get wiped out. There have been a lot of players busting, then rebuying, and now the stacks around the table are large. You've blown your $800 stack, and you CAN NOT buy in for more than $200 even though everyone else is on large stacks and gambling it up. No fun.

The have these on ipoker but they hardly ever run, the 50-100bb buyin tables are a lot more popular.

Like others have already pointed out, I think most of the money that we win in the micros comes from players with like 50 or 60bb stacks. A lot of the players with 100bb stacks will be worse than you, but they are rarely worse than the 60bb stacks. The 100bb guys still make mistakes and you still have on edge on them, but they make smaller mistakes. For example 100bb stacks tend to do things like chase draws without proper odds, or call 3bets to setmine. Whereas the 50bb stacks will stack off with 3rd pair, a much bigger mistake.

So no I wouldn't sit at 100bb min tables. My ideal table at 6max is to have at least 2 medium stacks, they are almost always the bad players.

i only play on FT deep tables. hate, hate, HATE short stacks. i wasnt even aware that stars had higher minimum tables similar to the FT deep tables

I think there were some pretty good points made in this thread against having forced 100 blind min tables.

shortstacking is for donks who are to stupid to learn ICM and play sng`s

I think you are misguided and ******ed

shortstackers suck but they r ez money sometimes at the lower limits.

... you mean donks who know ICM and play SnGs and can't learn actual poker?

I think the Deep stack tables(like those at FT) should have a 75bb minimum buy in. I don't think that is unreasonable at all.

Go to ultimate bet. There are no shortstackers and the regs suck. That is, if you can stand their history of scandals.

I don't know, if they win by using short stacks then I say they are beating you fair and square.

Learn to adapt. Seems like you are complaining because they are beating you.

Grunch .....


Who else is sitting at these tables?

They currently have 50BB min tables but I don't confine myself to sitting there when other good tables are available.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I usually find NL$25 tables with 5 players where stacks are $20 or more. But as players leave, they are frequently replaced by guys with $5.

I will often just sit out waiting for the shorty to double up or leave in the vain hope that the other full stackers will also sit out.

If all the full stackers sit out when a guy min buys at an otherwise full stack table, then the shorty would probably leave.

Sure, a good short stacker can make a profit, but they are generally doing it by exploiting a loophole in the rules when they sit down with a 20 bb min buy-in at a table full of 100+ bb full stacks.

NLHETAP has the best explanation of what they are doing on pages 199-205, summarized in the Final Thoughts on p. 205.

Yet, despite this endorsement of short stacking under certain conditions, I find that if I am a full stack player at a table with other full stacks, and a "smart player" buys in short to take advantage of the intrinsic advantages that short stacks will give him in that situation, I find him to be as rude as a guy slow rolling at a live table. Sure, it's not illegal. But it is rude and annoying as hell, and I'd really rather sit out and wait for him to double up, leave, or buy-in full because I enjoy the game much less with him at the table than when he's not there.

Personally, if I sit down at a table with players who fold too many hands preflop, I sit out. It annoys me when other players don't also sit out, and force the rock to give up his seat to an exploitable loose/passive monkey. I consider it rude for players to play their hands selectively, as it cuts into my profits.

Oh yeah, and shortstackers, etc. etc.

Don't blame the SS players as they are playing a game that is fair according to the rules. Blame the sites for not changing the rules.