Go to a live game, buy in for the minimum, wait for a good hand (AKs, QQ+) -For the curious, this selection would mean waiting 5 rounds of blinds on average- and go all-in. If you go busto, buy in for the minimum again and repeat. If you double up, get up, take a break and ask to be sit down again. Repeat. If you steal some bets, keep at it.

Aside from whether you think opponents would call your bets and turn this strategy profitable (I totally do), is this normally forbidden by casino rules, is it just douchey or is it neither?

I'm not necessarily saying I want to do it. This idea just popped into my mind.

By my calculation, it means 6 rounds on average. Which means it costs you 9 BB. How confident are you that you're going to win 9BB+ back when you go all-in with them?

It isn't profitable on a practical basis. If someone will call you with the top 5% of hands, it means at a 9 person table, you'll be called about 1/3 of the time. When called, you're about a 60/40 favorite. Assume min buyin is 30BB. So for 18 orbits,

Lose 27BB in blinds
Win 1.5 BB the two times when nobody calls
Win = (31.5 BB - 5 BB rake) * 0.6 - (30 BB * 0.4) or 11.1 BB once.

Net = 11.1 + 3 - 27 = -12.9 BB

As for your actual question, it is allowed. You may pick up some comments, but nobody is going to try to force you to leave.

lol that's what I actually do, those are the times I've actually made money. Sometimes it takes longer than 8 orbits to profit, a lot of house players do it too, that's why I started doing it. I noticed that they'll buy in for the minimum, double up and switch tables, so I'm sure it's totally legal.

I would usually get stares from the other players when I would table change, buy in, walk to the cashier to cash out my winnings, but they never told me anything. I don't play that much anymore, but it was never a problem for me, and I rather stick to one table mostly, but I do hit and run as well, everyone does it.

I literally heard one house player advice another house player to cash out after winning a big pot, to protect his winnings, so based on that I'll use that strategy.

Depends on the place and how long you stand up for. Some places may allow you to table change where you can then just chip down upon sitting at the new table. Other places will require you to sit out a minimum time e.g. 1 hour before you can chip down. If you can table change this may well work, if you have to wait an hour before even sitting back down again I'd honestly rather watch paint dry than do that for the bare minimum hourly possible.

Don't think it will be profitABLE AT all once people figure out what ur doing

fish gonna give fish advice to other fish

Sounds like a great way to earn McD's wages while risking not getting paid. Get a job or learn how to play poker IMO.

If you're short stacking live you could play a short stacking strategy and there's not much anyone can do about it. The issue is the possible winrate which would be ridiculously small. Short stacking also doesn't reduce the variance, if anything it increases it as you will be getting it in with very small edges as opposed to deep stacked where if you are against whales you can get stacks in as a significant favourite. It does sound counter intuitive but that's the way it works.

@OP You have to have a far wider range to play shortstack, or else you will lose in the long run for sure. There are books that explain a proper shortstack strategy to avoid blinds pressure, maybe you'll want to look into them. I like the fact that you want to be innovative and all, but maybe, just mayyybee you want to learn the basics first? Follow some good advice here and learn theory and strategy and if you are the person to introduce sth new to poker, it'll happen someday. But right now, with your current skill level, what you are doing, questioning standard play, is kinda like me going with my 28% body fat to Usain Bolt and tell him "mehh I think your running technique should be kinda like this, not the way it is now, maybe that'll bring better results", how does this will sound to him or any other sprinter and how credible do I look?

You should be going to Usain Bolt with your 28% body fat and asking him "do you even lift bro?". Fat and strong is where it's at.

If you are contemplating this it means you are doubting your ability to beat the game, afraid of getting into situations where you have to think and have no ambitions to improve and become a good player

It probably won't work. The people who are calling you wil have strong hands themselves, and it's probable those people will hit their needed card 1/4 times.

A better strategy would be betting big pre-flop, and then betting big again post flop, providing it's not to scary.

what is a good short-stack book, dustyrugs?

How long are the waiting lists at your casino?

People will figure out what you doing very fast and then just call you with AA.

oh and btw, why doesn't your OP say "buy in for the maximum, wait for a good hand (AKs, QQ+)". because I actually highly recommend that.

think about it - when you have an awesome hand, why would u want to win the minimum?

then, when you find out that everyone's playing really really bad hands, you can lax your definition of what a good hand is, so then basically you just rock up to the casino, buy in for the maximum, go out and kill everyone. ez game!

Certainly not forbidden ... otherwise you could only buy in for one amount, same as all the rest!!

Frowned upon ... BIG TIME. In the rooms I play at the short stacks are like blood in the water. IMO your only option is to pick your spots for all-in PF since once you open (or even enter) a pot you will have very little FE and will be going to showdown ... and probably going to showdown against at least 2 or 3 other players since 'you' are limited their risk by only having a limited stack.

If you have the 'stones' to play this way AND wait out the hour (or more) before you can get another seat then have at it. It may work at a high volume casino, but in a room full of regs you will have a lot of trouble in the long run IMO.

Read about a guy who always bought in for the max and would only play pocket pairs and bet pot or shoved Flops when he had a set. Said it was working great in Tampa. But any time you give away information about your play that doesn't change it will only hurt you in the long run. GL

What is meant by "house player"? They're being staked by the house and their profits go to the house? I heard of this thing existing in the past. Or did you just mean "regular"? Plenty of regulars are awful players btw. Especially the ones who yap about having played poker for 50 years.

While I can think of many obnoxious answers like "alternatively, you could actually learn to play post flop" but those don't really help.

Adjust your idea this way. Look for a table full of people who hate to fold preflop, preferably one with a LAG or two. Seat yourself to the left of the limper/callers and to the right of the LAGs.

In these cases, when you get your top 5% hands, there will usually be more money in the pot than just the blinds. maybe the LAG to your left will telegraph that he wants to punish the limper, so you just limp along and let him raise, then you over shove.

Like before, eventually, people will figure out what you're doing so you won't get called light.

Meh. Go back and read the obnoxious answer. That's still better.

YFW u realise you're condoning shortstacking

There is one factor you've left out, which is the possibility of limps or raises ahead of you. Those will increase the amount in the pot when no one calls your all in, or it might widen their calling range since they will be getting slightly pot odds.

It's still not enough to make it profitable, but I have been on tables where there was so much pre-flop raising that I think a short stack strategy might have been EV+

Exactly, that's why I believe it works. I find tables like this most of the time. I think it's profitable as long as one doesn't play every night. Even if they know what you are doing, there will be some maniac ready to call you.

Of course I know it's a sign of not being a good player and all that, but at the end of the day the question is, is it profitable?

I also know is kind of scummy but is not like many of other players have any discernible strategy apart from being hyper aggresive. Not like you are pissing on their careful thought process or love of the game.

---

Regarding the comment about the player who flop sets and shoves, I wonder if that could work with super LAG weak players

Some back of the envelope calculations:

13*(1/200) ~ 6.5% of having a pair.
0.125*0.065 ~ 0.8% of the time you'll get a pair and flop a set

Let's say that 60% of the time that you shove, it will be called and something like 85% of the time your shove is called it will be good at showdown.

So that means 0.4% of the time or 1 in every 250 hands you will be winning one or two stacks.

250 hands is 28 orbits full ring for a total of 42bb in blinds that one will have to pay.

At first sight with very loose players it doesn't seem like a bad proposition. Variance should be low(er) too.

It's his money. He can play however he wants. I don't shortstack, but if i did and somebody gave me flack about it, my answer would be simple.

"You want me to buy in full? Stake me or STFU."

The stakes where it can be profitable usually don't have enough tables to jump around much.

Low stakes you lose to the rake and waste your time. Standing on a corner and asking people for spare change is a smarter plan than op.