For my 6-year-anniversary post, I'm going to do the following things:
1. Pimp the 4-year-anniversary post that I'm still very proud of and still obstinately believe should be required reading for anyone looking to get into poker.
2. Tell a story about how I became convinced that shortstacking is perhaps unfairly frowned upon
3. Give basic examples and theory to show that shortstacking can be profitable at both small-stakes NLHE *and* small-stakes PLO tables.

Here is the 4-year-anniversary post:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...32/?highlight=

The story: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...34&postcount=2
NLHE shortstack theory: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...37&postcount=3
PLO shortstack theory: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...41&postcount=4

The story

In the opening of my 4-year-anniversary post I mention the friend who initially got me into poker. He is exclusively an NLHE player, and when I first started I was as well. After a little over a year, I switched to LHE because I found it much more fun. After I had been playing that for a while, we had this conversation:

Him: "You've got to stop playing fixed limit - it's a recreational game, it's not real poker, you're never going to make any money!"
Me: "I can't play no limit - I can't afford it - I don't have enough of a bankroll to risk losing $200 on one hand!"
Him: "Then don't buy in for $200 - buy in for $80, wait for aces and kings and double it up!"
Me: "I've heard that you shouldn't buy in short because it reduces your ability to maneuver on the big money streets."

and he just walks away at that point - gives up . He and I probably had that exact conversation at least 5 times between 2013 and 2016 - he's just besides himself that I've become an LHE player.

So early in 2017 I'm on a business trip to San Antonio and I'm reading Malmuth, Miller and Sklansky's SSHE book on the plane. The guy I'm sitting by says, "Oh, do you play poker?" I lit up like a Christmas tree hoping I'd actually have a chance to talk about poker with another live human being! I don't remember the whole conversation, but the guy was from Vegas and plays a lot of $5-$10NLHE. He seemed to be a "feel player" who would bet into a player who he felt would fold to the big bet yada yada, but he did seem to have at least a fundamental understanding of position, stack size, player reads, odds etc. Anyway, he asked me about the book I was reading and said, "Fixed limit?!?!? Why do you play that fixed limit crap? It totally takes the poker out of it - you can't bet someone off a hand!" I said (as you'll probably predict) that I can't afford to lose $200 on one hand. And he said (as you're probably predicting right now!) "then don't buy in for $200 - buy in for $100 - I buy in to $5/$10NLHE games for $500 all the time!". I started explaining to him what I'd read in books and on the internet, and at that moment a very attractive stewardess passed our row (we were in the exit row), and I kid you not, for the entire 55-minute flight I was completely invisible, this guy was flirting like his life depended on it .

Anyway, right about that same time I had signed up for a Card Player Cruise (and, as a short aside, I could talk about cruising all day - I am a certified cruiseaholic - they are the best vacation there is, and when you can book one through a company like CPC where you get your own private poker room, it's about as close to Nirvana as a human can get down here). The first time I took a CPC cruise was in 2014, and my friend took it with me (and won enough money at the NLHE tables to pay for his whole cruise!). He was not able to do so this time, too many family commitments, and I couldn't find anyone else to go with me. If you're familiar with cruises, if you try to go alone you USUALLY end up having to pay double the price for the whole room. CPC has a service where if you're in the unenviable situation of having to go alone, they will pair you up with either a CPC employee or another CPC cruiser who's in the same boat (pun totally intended) so you can share the cost. I got paired with a man from Las Vegas who has been playing poker for 50 years. I had been chatting with him over email and he seemed like a super nice guy. Anyway, inspired by experience on the plane, I decided to ask him what he thought about buying in short. It turned out that he built his entire bankroll $80 at a time - he said he'd spent an entire year in the Shreveport area buying into an NLHE game with $80, doubling it up, cashing out, going to another casino, lather rinse repeat, and he did that for a whole year before starting to work in his deepstack game. He told me, "I have a book (I think it was Ed Miller's Getting Started in Hold'Em) that I can bring on the cruise for you to read that will show you exactly what to do." The book had like a 12-page section on playing with a short stack. I read the book and then practiced the strategy at the microstakes tables online, and he tutored me whenever I had a spot I wasn't sure about.

Here's a part that I found funny: I played some live NLHE on the cruise using the shortstack strategy, and whenever I actually followed it, I won, and whenever I DIDN'T follow it, I lost . One example - I had been card-dead for about 2 hours, I limped along after 3 limpers on the button with QTo, the BB raised to like 4BB, everyone called, I flopped a Q, the BB bet out, I went all in and he called - he had AQo. Also, after being card-dead it's hard not to call with 66 or 76s on the BTN after a raise and 2 callers, but with a short stack it's wrong because you just don't have enough implied odds. Calling those hands because it was fun and then having to call a flop bet because I had odds to chase cost me some money. There was a night where my roommate was at my table, I was playing the shortstack strategy, and I had 66 on the button after a raise and a call. I really really really really wanted to play that hand but I was like, "He's sitting right there and he's told me specifically not to play this hand! If I play it he'll feel like I just disregard his advice and he won't be so keen to give me more in the future" so I folded. A little later he left the table, then a little later I got 66 on the button in the same situation, couldn't resist the temptation to play it, flopped an OESD and called a flop bet, then got bet out of the pot on the turn. 2 hands later I got AKo all in pre and doubled up through an AQo - if I hadn't wasted my money with 66 I'd have won a lot more!

It turns out that what I heard about why you shouldn't buy in short is true, but it's ONLY TRUE IF YOU'RE THE BEST OR SECOND-BEST PLAYER AT THE TABLE (which I NEVER am at an NLHE table!). If you don't know how to make correct decisions on the turn and river (or if you don't know how to manipulate the villains into making BAD ones), it doesn't matter how much money you have on the table, you'll just lose it.

To make a long story short, short-stacked NLHE is just too boring for me. I don't like it. I do believe it's very profitable, especially for an underrolled beginner, but when it all comes down to it, I play poker to have fun, and short-stacked NLHE just isn't fun for me. So I've given it up.

But I applied the lessons I learned to PLO and have managed to put together what so far has been a profitable way to play short-stacked PLO on a soft site.

NLHE shortstack theory

I won't go into a lot of detail here because there are books and posters who can explain it much better than me, but the general idea of short-stack theory is that you want to get as much of your money into the middle as possible while you are most likely have an equity advantage, and you want to reduce NLHE to a two-street game as much as possible - that way if the deep-stacked players are better than you are at making decisions on the big-money streets (specifically the turn and the river), you nullify their advantage.

Preflop:
If you play ultra-tight and stick only to hands like 77+, ATso+ and KQs, playing only the strongest of THOSE hands the earlier your position, and always coming in for a raise when nobody else has raised, you will almost always have an equity advantage before the flop, and the few times you don't it's just very bad luck. When you have an opportunity to raise or to 3-bet, you raise or 3-bet the maximum amount you think will be called by worse hands. When you raise and are 3-bet, you should essentially always 4-bet-shove QQ+/AK. Whether or not to 4-bet-shove hands like 77-JJ, ATso-AQso and KQs depends on a lot of factors like the villain's perceived range and the size of your remaining stack. If you are FACING a raise with one of the ultra-tight hands, the question of whether or not to 3-bet or 3-bet-shove depends on the same factors.

The #1 question asked at this point is always, "How in the world am I going to get any action if I only play 5% of my hands?" Trust me, at MOST tables you will. I sat at a 1/2 NLHE table once where I bought in for $80, folded for 90 minutes, raised KK to $10 from UTG, had 3 villains say "whoah that's a big raise! This dude means BUSINESS!" and a 4th say "He must have something serious!". I got 4 callers. Unfortunately the flop had an ace so I was done with the hand, but the point is made that at most low-stakes NLHE tables, don't worry, you'll get plenty of action no matter how much you fold.

The flop:
You're usually going to just shove the flop unless it's just disgusting, like if you have KK or QQ and an A falls, or certain really wet boards where the villains are telling you you're beat, or at best only a little ahead. If you flop an overpair and somebody flopped something better, it's just very bad luck - USUALLY you will be ahead and OCCASIONALLY someone will call with worse. Even if your AK whiffs, you're usually going to be looking to get it in with overcards, especially on a paired board (it's really hard for the villain to have you beat when the board is paired). If the board is wet, you might get called by a flush or straight draw you're actually ahead of. (With that said, it is true that your toughest decisions in your shortstack strategies will be what to do on a non-paired flop when your overcards whiff. You raise pre and get flatted, or you 3-bet pre and get flatted - do they ALWAYS have a pocket pair when they do that? My experience is a resounding no - I've seen raises and 3-bets get flatted by K7o, but of course each table is different, so pay attention! One last point, I often find myself afraid that they'll call my AK overbet shove with 88 on a T93tt board because "they don't believe me". But a) I have 6 outs and a backdoor broadway draw, and b) if they'll call with 88 when I have AK they'll call with 88 when I have QQ too!)

The ideal condition you want is to be able to raise enough before the flop that you can just shove the flop without it being a massive overbet. Note before I continue: It is important to not just blindly believe "overbet shoving is bad". The REASON that overbet shoving is bad is because USUALLY when you overbet the pot, you're only going to get called by a hand that has you beat. BUT THERE ARE TABLES WHERE THAT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. If you have AA and the flop is 982, sometimes you'll be called by T9, J9, A9, TT or JJ no matter how much you bet. There are even villains who will call with 76, JT or a fourflush no matter how much you bet! So pay attention to your table!

Let's say you buy in for 50bb, you have QQ, you raise to 7bb after 2 limpers, and the BB and both limpers call. There are 28bb in the pot and you have 43bb behind. The flop comes something like J74r. You really have to overbet shove and hope to get called by worse - what else are you going to do, make a c-bet of 18bb and then consider folding? (Folding after putting half your stack in the pot - which is exactly what you will have done there - is typically less than ideal). You also really don't want to give the whole table a free card. In the long run the damage done by all the free cards you give because you're afraid they have your overpair beat will outweigh the damage of getting called the few times they flopped a lucky set or two pair.

In the same situation if you'd been able to buy in for 40bb, you make the same raise and now you have only 33bb behind on the flop - still not ideal, but a slightly better situation and a slightly higher chance of your shove getting called by a worse hand.

It should be obvious that the less you're able to buy in for, the better the short-stack strategy works. As a matter of fact, when players can buy in for 20bb, the short-stack strategy is unbeatable. For that reason many casinos enforce a 50bb minimum buyin.

At some tables, when you raise to 7bb you'll only get one caller, now there are 14bb in the pot and you have 33bb or 43bb behind. That's just too big an overbet there - you're going to have to play at least two more streets of poker. If your bigger raises, i.e. to 7bb or 10bb, are only getting one caller, you can try raising a bit smaller (but no less than 5bb or else you negate your equity advantage by not building a big pot while you have it) and seeing if you start getting more callers, but quite frankly, if you're at a 1/2 or 1/3 or even some 2/5 tables where that's happening, usually the best thing to do is to change tables. I've played at tables where there are 6 limpers around to me, I have QQ in the SB and I raise to $25 and ALL SIX OF THE LIMPERS CALL.

In conclusion, the easiest street to know whether or not you have an equity advantage is pre-flop, and the second-easiest is the flop, so buy buying in short, you can maximize the percentage of your buyin you can get in the middle while you're ahead. You also minimize (and in fact almost eliminate) the advantage that experienced deep-stackers have at making better decisions on the big-money streets.

Hope that all made sense.

SHORTSTACKING SMALLSTAKES PLO

I don't talk about it much, but by far my favorite poker game is PLO. It's no contest - it's the most fun. I NEVER play it live though - I can't afford it. The variance is so brutal you can go through 4 buyins waiting for the blinds to come around. So I only play it online for cheeseburger stakes.

Again, the point of shortstacking, whether you're playing NLHE *or* PLO, is to get as much of your stack in the middle as possible while you have a highly probable significant equity advantage.

In NLHE you have the advantage that you can raise as high as what the other players will call, but in PLO you are limited to clicking the pot button. You also have the advantage of being able to shove the flop - in PLO if you have more than a PSB behind you're out of luck.

With that said, there are two advantages to PLO: One, your raise is much more likely to get called in multiple spots (increasing the likelihood that you DO end up with less than a PSB behind), and two, even if you whiff the flop you will often have enough equity that it isn't a mistake to go ahead and put the rest of your chips in the middle (let's face it, if you're behind on the flop in NLHE with one of the shortstack hands you're usually totally crushed! But in PLO you can have straight draws, backdoor flush draws, draws to a better 2 pair than what's on the board etc).

For example, I buy in for 25bb, there are 4 limpers and I'm on the button with AKT9ds, and I click the pot button (a raise to 7.5bb if my math is correct - I have to call 1 bb which would make the pot 6.5bb, so a pot-sized raise would be 6.5bb+1bb). I am almost always going to get called by all 4 limpers, and will even get some calls from the blinds every now and then. So suppose all 4 limpers call and the blinds fold. That's, what, 39bb in the pot on the flop, and I have about 17.5bb behind? So I only need combined fold and pot equity of about 30% just to break even, and if there's any chance of each of the villains calling with worse, my implied odds go through the roof. So it's an easy click of the pot button on the flop - if I lose, so what? I'm going to win far more often than the 20% that I need to break even, and when I do win I'll usually qunituple my investment (at least the pre-flop investment).

What's even better is when I'm on the button with AA** or KK**, there are 3 limpers and a raise in front of me. I 3-bet that all day, and I'm not the least bit perturbed when the villains all call (and I don't get to go all-in before the flop). Why? Because my SPR is going to be so low on the flop that it's going to be a small mistake at worst to go ahead and shove the rest of it in, and I usually got the majority of my stack in the pot with an equity advantage, and that's exactly what you look for in poker.

Deep-stack PLO players: Doesn't it chap your hide when you 3-bet AA** before the flop and you don't know what to do with your other 80bb you have behind on the flop? Playing short eliminates that annoyance!

Like NLHE, there are conditions that must be met for the short-stack strategy to be effective at a PLO table. First, you want a many-handed table, at least 6 but preferrably 9, so you don't just get blinded out while waiting for your preemies. Second, you want a table full of villains who will not fold once they've but a big blind in the pot. Third, you'd like villains who are willing to put at least your stack size in the pot with hands that are significant equity underdogs to the shortstack hands I list below. And like I said with NLHE above, if you're at a small-stakes PLO table where you're just not getting that kind of action, usually the best thing to do is just change tables - there will be a better one either elsewhere in the room or elsewhere on the site.

On the site I play on, if I get a chance to stack off pre with AA** or KK** I'll do it 100% of the time. I very rarely get shown AA** when I have KK**. It's usually AJ96ss or QQJJ or total trash you wouldn't believe.

Honestly, at these tables it is probably profitable to stack off with QQ** and AK**, but I haven't done the equity calculations to convince myself of it yet. I will stack off with QQ** if one of the other two cards is an A or K (decreasing the probability that I'm up against AA or KK) and I have help (at least one suited pair and one other connected card - for example I will probably stack off with QQATss, but I won't stack off with QQA3r.) I will stack off with AK** if they are double-suited and the other 2 cards are at least a 9. But like I said, I could probably profitably stack off with more.

Any double-suited hand where all 4 cards are at least a 9 is probably profitable to stack off with at tables like these.

Double-suited rundowns where the bottom card is no lower than 6 usually have a very slight equity advantage in multiway preflop stackoffs, but the problem (at least for me) with hands like those is they often get totally crushed on the flop. When you flop an overpair you usually have at least 15% to 20% equity no matter what the flop is, but with, for example, 6789, if there are 2 broadway cards on the flop you could be drawing almost dead.

When I brought up this idea on the SSPLO forum, the response I got was something like, "If they're that bad preflop, they're probably that bad postflop too - why wouldn't you want to buy in deep and cover them unless you're bad postflop too?" Point taken. And I do agree that the point applies more to PLO than to NLHE because bad villains make worse and more frequent mistakes postflop in small-stakes PLO than they do in small-stakes NLHE. My response would be two things: 1. You can use the short-stack strategy to build your bankroll. You will have smaller swings when you buy in for 25bb and play 2 streets than when you buy in for 100bb and play 4. 2. You can use the short-stack strategy to "test the waters" at higher stakes before diving in to buy in deep. You can play it for a thousand or two hands, get some stats and notes on the villains, figure out who you can beat postflop and who you can't, and then buy in full.

Hope this post/thread is at least entertaining if not informative.

Good luck at the tables (except when you're drawing against me),
DTXCF

Bonus link

Here is a thread where several NLHE shortstack spots were discussed as I started playing:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...+daltxcoltsfan

Nice read, thanks for posting!

Just a disclaimer so nobody gets confused: you are talking about buy-ins of $80 in a 1/2 game which is 40BB. That's usually not considered to be shortstacking and most of the "traditional" shortstacking theory doesn't apply to stacks that large. The "standard" shortstacking strategy uses stacks of 20BB (or less) at tables where at least 6 players have significantly larger stacks. If properly executed, that strategy is not beatable by somebody with a larger stack who uses a strategy to maximize his profit from other players with large stacks. Therefore, most online platforms stopped the ability to shortstack many years ago.

40BB is traditionally seen as "mid-stacking" but the fact that players in a lot of the smallest live games make huge opening raises of 6-10BB+ makes lots of the strategy applicable that usually only works with a 20BB stack.

In regards to shortstacking in live play, do you have a link/idea on where to find up-to-date strategy/theory on this?

Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification. Global Poker started out allowing 10bb buyins. It was like printing money. They've since upped that to 25bb. But the table conditions in both NLHE and PLO are usually conducive to the shortstack strategy even once a 25bb stack grows to between 40bb and 50bb.

I know you weren't asking *me*, but in my opinion, shortstack "theory" really isn't the kind of theory that can GO out of date. If the combination of how low you're allowed to buy in and how big you're able to build preflop pots consistently leaves you with about a PSB or less behind on the flop, the shortstack strategy is profitable - it's as simple as that.

There are really only 3 non-trivial situations you can find yourself in:
1. Your PFR gets 3-bet
2. Whether or not to 3-bet when there's a raise behind you
3. Whether or not to shove the flop when your overcards whiff

And all 3 of those are a matter of your holding vs. the villain's or villains' range or ranges, your equity against that range, and whether or not your remaining stack gives you the odds to put more money in the pot, just like if your stacks WEREN'T short. And THAT is math that does not go out of date either.

Was there something more specific you were looking for?

Hell, my friends and I used to do this back in the day of tha boooooooom. It wasn't as well thought out a strategy but basically yea, hold on to yer butts, and blast off from Cape Canaveral with a premium hand.

However, the fifty bucks we brought to a 1-2 would be the only buy in so if we lost, we lost, but if it got like 2.35x'd up or more, now there's room to maneuver.

Lately if buying in shortstacked, it seems like 125 is a good solid number. You got like say twenty to see blinds n ****, and then 105 to get in there and make some bets with in the right pots or see a couple of flops on the cheep.

To anyone who thinks you'll never get any action if all you do is fold:

I just played a session where I bought into a $1/$2 game in Canada for $50, and for the first 3 and a half hours I played 2 hands where I called for $1 in the SB and one where I got to see a free flop from the BB. That's it - those were the only 4 hands I actually played in 3 and a half hours.

Then there is a limp in UTG, I raise to $12 from UTG+1, I get 4 callers, I go all in for my last $32 on a K94r flop and get 2 callers.

I was really disappointed that it took me 4 hours to finally be dealt a playable hand, because the table conditions were PERFECT for shortstacking - almost every hand was straddled (anywhere from $5 to $16), straddles were getting called in 2 or 3 places, and almost nobody folded once they'd put any money in the pot (i.e. 4 limpers, someone raises to $16 and all 4 limpers call). I even saw a cold-call of a 3-bet to $35 with 55.

Quick update:

I believe I've solved the #1 problem posed to shortstackers: Boredom tolerance. I will continue to post updates as I continue to get chances to practice, but I'm optimistic - cross your fingers for me please!

I eventually want to try deep-stack NLHE. There are definitely tables where a deep-stacked player can make more money - often a LOT more money - than a short-stacked player. The single #1 roadblock for me is fear - even I were properly rolled, it's really difficult for me to separate myself from the money when it's betting $300 on one hand. $300 is a LOT of money!!!! Heck, you wouldn't believe how long it took me to get to the point where I could cap the river in $4/$8LHE!

When I buy in to a $1/$2 game with, say, $50, and manage to double or triple it up, I'm able to trick myself into believing that I'm really "only" risking the $50 I bought in with, not the whole $150 that's in front of me - the extra $100 is essentially "house money" - so every such opportunity like that that I give myself brings me one hand closer to being able to just shove it into the middle without hesitation.

The other thing that's helped is that I've been reading several NLHE books - Ed Miller's The Course, Sklansky's No-lImit Hold'em theory and practice and Harrington on Cash Games. They all have different points of view, and what that helps me do is watch the table and decide whose advice, if anyone's, is "correct" for each given villain, and for villains that don't fit any of their patterns, how would I adjust to them.

It usually takes a couple hours to double or triple up, so by the time I HAVE a deep stack I have PLENTY of reads on the villains and can play more deeply stacked correctly. Again, every opportunity to do so brings me one hand closer to being able to buy in full.

I played the shortstack strategy 3 times for a total of about 13 hours up in Canada and I was NEVER bored - not for one minute. It's a lot easier to fight the temptation to raise KJs UTG or call a raise for 15% of stack with 66 or 76s on the button when you're not fighting boredom tilt.

Hope this was a valuable post.

It was.

Just trying out short stack strategy myself after a downswing playing live. So far so good. First session i ended up 2 and a half buy-ins. Boredom tolerance is certainly the main issue to contend with though. Are you still short stacking?

I've had a very busy personal life this year so I haven't had a lot of chances to play, but when I've had them I've taken them! Seem to be catching coolers and bad beats when I do get to play, but that's poker. Good luck at the tables!

Why is this even a debate.
If player A has $1000
and player B has $25
B has tons more upside than A
Simple variance.
Short stacking is clearly an obv strategy

In a heads-up game? I’d like to see your math on that and hear an explanation what that has to do with variance..