Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Beginners Questions Poker beginner? Ask your (possibly) naive question here and our community will attempt to help you.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2009, 05:48 AM   #126
Grunch
Bounty Hunter
 
Grunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,703
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by feel_sexy View Post
and just because it's unethical doesn't mean I will stop ratholing.

Imo ratholing is unethical, and so is playing poker. A lot of religious people will tell you playing poker is a sin. I am agree with this. Playing poker is a sin. But I don't care if it's a sin or if it's unethical because I will not stop playing poker.
So you're saying that you believe that ratholing and playing poker are both unethical but you do them anyway?

Seriously?

Someone made a valid point earlier that this is all really just opinion. (Absolutists might disagree, but I'm not an absolutist.) You have to decide for yourself whether ratholing, playing poker, speeding, adultery and murder are unethical. Maybe you will accept the teaching of some god or prophet to help you make these decisions, maybe you will look to philosophers like Kant. Maybe you will decide on your own.

But once you have made a choice and decided on your own moral code, if you know something to be wrong and do it anyway, what does that make you?

Quote:
What I think is more unethical is pressuring a newbie to poker who is uncomfortable playing with a full stack and losing money to continue playing a style he is uncomfortable with when there is an alternative that is frowned upon just because random players on this forum think it is unethical and they get flamed for thinking of buying in short or if they make threads for it.
Buying in short is discouraged on these forums not because it isn't cool, and not because it's weak or un-manly, and not even because it isn't poker. It's discouraged because your expectation is higher when you have an edge and are playing deep than it is when you have an edge and are playing shallower. These forums are about getting the maximum earn playing poker. Not just any earn, but the maximum earn. So when people say they play short, they get flamed for the same reason why people get flamed for making stupid moves like folding the nuts: you are not maximizing your earn. Don't quote this paragraph without also quoting the next.

People who are new to poker and -EV in the games they play should not buy in shorter to get to 0EV or +EV. Instead, they should move down in stakes, buy in full and work on their game to get an edge and become +EV. Everyone starts out -EV, this is the cost of learning to play. You're going to have to learn to play deep eventually, unless you are content winning the minimum. But if you are content winning the minimum, this isn't the forum for you. We are about winning the maximum, and we believe that any strategy that doesn't win the maximum is the wrong strategy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna View Post
I abide by the rules, and I have my own 'ethics' or things I think are wrong or right, I don't impose them on others nor do i expect others to follow them or agree with them.
I'm not imposing anything. I'm disagreeing with you. This isn't your personal blog. You post something I think is wrong, I'm going to reply.
Grunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 05:51 AM   #127
Grunch
Bounty Hunter
 
Grunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,703
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoSeeker View Post
Who decides whether ratholing/short stacking is unethical.
You do. So do I. Each person has to decide on their own moral code.
Grunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 06:56 AM   #128
danielk3066
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 286
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

umm short stacks, well i dont mind short stacks they play a simple game,i think its wrong for anyone to say its not right to play short stacked its their choice and its not against the rules , if u feel so strongly about it play a table where min buy in in 100bb , simply!
i my self some times play short stacked when taking a shot at a higher level playing 50bb gives me the correct bankroll to take the shot, how ever if i get to 100bb i keep playing just like if i was to buy in for 100bb i do hate the short stackers that hit and run , they are not playing the game of poker but hey thats their choice im sure this hit and run strategy doesnt make much profit if any.
danielk3066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 01:26 PM   #129
feel_sexy
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 52
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunch View Post
But once you have made a choice and decided on your own moral code, if you know something to be wrong and do it anyway, what does that make you?
It makes me an immoral person. And I'm not playing short stacked and am not ratholing. But if ratholing would have won me more money I would have done it.

In fact I don't think playing poker and ratholing are unethical. But the majority of my friends and people I know think playing poker is a bad thing (I'm from Europe not from USA and the conceptions are different). And probably the majority of poker players think ratholing and short stacking are unethical. My opinion is the only thing poker-related that is unethical is cheating. Non-poker related I think there are many things legally but unethical. But in poker I think if you respect the rules you aren't doing anything unethical.

Why am I immoral? I don't pay income taxes for my poker winnings. This is both unethical and illegal. Americans are not allowed to play poker online but they still play at some sites. Don't know the American law too well but I think this is illegal. And unethical. There are many things non-poker related that I consider them unethical and I still did them. I think many people do unethical things even if they know are unethical. So yes, I consider myself an immoral person but I think many people are immoral too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunch View Post
Buying in short is discouraged on these forums not because it isn't cool, and not because it's weak or un-manly, and not even because it isn't poker. It's discouraged because your expectation is higher when you have an edge and are playing deep than it is when you have an edge and are playing shallower. These forums are about getting the maximum earn playing poker. Not just any earn, but the maximum earn. So when people say they play short, they get flamed for the same reason why people get flamed for making stupid moves like folding the nuts: you are not maximizing your earn.
Why fixed limit isn't discouraged? NL players can win more than FL players. FL players should be flamed too because they don't win as much as a NL player. They are not maximizing their earn. Cash game players win more than SNG or MTT players. However the SNG and MTT players aren't flamed.

SSs are discouraged for reasons kal_Nora gave. And because deep stack players are forced to play short stack against the SS even if their stack is bigger. And because SSing is easier and can turn loser full stack players in winning ones. You don't need to be a very good poker player to be a winner short stacking. In fact I think you can be a winner SS player just using a chart (I'm talking only about 20-30BB stacks. More than 40BB you have to think more. But usually if you're playing 20BB and someone raises the play is fold or push AI. A stealing/3bet chart based on HUD stats can be all you need). And that's the reason they are flamed.

Last edited by feel_sexy; 07-18-2009 at 01:40 PM.
feel_sexy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 07:08 PM   #130
LunaEqualsLuna
veteran
 
LunaEqualsLuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: armed with chip and a chart
Posts: 2,774
Angry Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
It's discouraged because your expectation is higher when you have an edge and are playing deep than it is when you have an edge and are playing shallower
And in the same way you stand to lose more if you don't have an edge when deep. Which is the case for beginners.
LunaEqualsLuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 07:24 PM   #131
SaM StarK
veteran
 
SaM StarK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,384
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Basically, by playing deep stack you learn how to play a wide variety of hands, you also have the muscle to outplay someone in a pot, so it is definitely an advantage for aggro players.

Playing shortstacked with 40BBs and leaving the table once you double is a safer way to play the game (that often turns less profit than deepstack play) while denying or ignoring the fact that you are just afraid of someone outplaying you and stacking you for a 100BBs when they could have done the same for 40BBs instead.

That's just the way I see it, learning how to play deepstack is just a matter of discipline and knowledge of the game.
SaM StarK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 08:06 PM   #132
Mark89er
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Mark89er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: chile
Posts: 10,223
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Just thought i give my input,
for thee last three-four months i have at all times been buying in for 50bb at nl2,4 & 10, i was betting the all these stakes with this method and it works well.
however, yesterday/today, after discussing with some1 at the tables, i decided i would 'try out' 100bb, and holy ****
when u get aa, u raise, are three betted, u reraise allin, they call kk, u stand to win 200bb compared to 100bb (-rake), at that moment when i won 200bb compared to the standard 100bb, i had a aaahhhhh moment, the value i have been leaving behind with my flushs/striaghts etc etc is shocking, i made more money today than any other day, and at that, when i went through poker tracker it wasnt that it was a heater-all four times i had kk i lost to small sets, it was simply coz the times i had 'big' hands, which was rarely i won much more money- in other words if u are a winning player at 50bb, u should be literally doubling ur profits by playing 100bb? DUCY- lol!
So i think both styles work however 100bb simply gives u more value with big hands
altho, i must admit at the start, i would recommand 50bb to begineers- if u were a losing player like me, especially moving from sit and goes/tourneys to nl02, 2 completely different games!!!
Mark89er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 08:16 PM   #133
RoSeeker
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,008
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Actually, whilst good players are better than "decent" players at big pots and deep stacks, certainly most of the usual winning player's profits are from medium sized pots. Basically you're saying that by deeper stacks you win more money from coolers... but you also lose more. It's just a game of who coolers who more.

Oh sure, occasionally some players adjust badly to stack sizes or stacks off too light in 100bb pots with tpnk, in which case, yes, a deep stack is profitable, but in 6max games, a lot of profits come from finding good 3bet spots, double barrel spots, and just plain stealing blinds, which a short stack can do very effectively.

Until you're playing at a level where you profit hugely from meta, that by stealing a lot you can cause blinds to defend or 3bet too wide/light and spew money postflop in that manner, there is not really that much benefit in playing super deep vs non spewtastic players, and the "huge pots" you now stand to win through draws that connect or AA vs KK, could work BOTH ways.

Also, you are doing it wrong if you can't play suited connectors or draws shorter stacked, as short stacks are PERFECT for pushing draws and fold out A high K high, or weak pairs and so on; playing flush draws for simply implied odds is terrible vs decent players, even taller stacked; you need lots of fold equity for it to work, and that's why people raise with draws, and not always just call (though obv calling has its place).

So when people say playing taller stacks = more value... oh certainly there are many situations especially vs calling stations where this is true, but they really are over-estimating it, and after all, the majority of posters on 2+2 don't really seem to understand short stack strategy that well anyway. There are so many misconception, or some sort of idea that short stackers just play super tight, which is obviously NOT true if you've never seen high level tournament play at 20-40bbs.

It plays exactly like a tourney with no ICM consideration, basically, and it is a volatile game, while it's different from a cash game, to say that it's unprofitable or not poker is silly. You can argue on many things, but I am merely saying that many people talking about it don't really understand the strategy and thinking that is involved.
RoSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 08:35 PM   #134
Grunch
Bounty Hunter
 
Grunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,703
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna View Post
And in the same way you stand to lose more if you don't have an edge when deep. Which is the case for beginners.
Don't quote me out of context. Include the rest of what I said.
Grunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 08:48 PM   #135
ThaHero
Pooh-Bah
 
ThaHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,783
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
And in the same way you stand to lose more if you don't have an edge when deep. Which is the case for beginners.
If you don't have an edge, and you are playing the game for profit, then why are you playing in that game? You should find a different game. Playing shortstacked isn't the only way to minimize losses. Moving down in stakes minimizes losses too.

Quote:
Also, you are doing it wrong if you can't play suited connectors or draws shorter stacked, as short stacks are PERFECT for pushing draws and fold out A high K high, or weak pairs and so on; playing flush draws for simply implied odds is terrible vs decent players, even taller stacked; you need lots of fold equity for it to work, and that's why people raise with draws, and not always just call (though obv calling has its place).
The fact that you are a shortstack cuts down on your fold equity already. I'm much more likely to fold to a raise if I expect more bets than when I don't(ignoring other factors obv). Also, calling 25% of your stack preflop(in a raised pot) to hit a set or flop a good draw and hoping to fold someone out doesn't seem like a very profitable strategy to me.

As for the ethical-unethical issue, some people don't think killing another person is unethical. It's on a personal level and something we have to come to grips with as individuals.

Last edited by ThaHero; 07-18-2009 at 08:53 PM. Reason: clarity
ThaHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 09:26 PM   #136
Birkin
old hand
 
Birkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,362
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna View Post
6) Many experienced players seem to think anyone who buys in for 50BB is a clueless idiot and tend to stack of 50BB far lighter than if i had bought in for 100BB where they would be less likely to pay off 50BB in the same scenario.
It's correct for them to be stacking off lighter because as you said, you're casually stacking off with tp type hands. Also, its really easy for you to be bluffed off a pot, as you're gonna have to play pretty fit or fold. Just learn to play the turn and river, then buy in full. If you can't handle a 100BB stack play tourneys imo.
Birkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 09:27 PM   #137
RoSeeker
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,008
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Also, calling 25% of your stack preflop(in a raised pot) to hit a set or flop a good draw and hoping to fold someone out doesn't seem like a very profitable strategy to me.
You don't call with pairs to flop sets. You can shove flops when you decide your hand has good enough equity vs their range on particular board, or you can 3bet ship it. You can play suited connectors for pairs also, you can donk, float, peel, shove, fold. Hell, you can 3bet/ship suited connectors profitable for as much as 40bbs in a HU SnG vs some opponents in situations, for instance.

How do you play pairs or suited connectors in a tourney?

If you think suited connectors or pairs or unprofitable 20-30bbs deep, you're doing it wrong, quite simply. Like I said, I don't expect players who have not much experience with it to understand, but don't pretend you know what is or isn't profitable if you don't?

Yeah you lose fold equity, which means you get paid more often also, and just as getting paid more often is counteracted by getting paid less (in amounts), lesser fold equity is counteracted by cheaper costs when semibluffing. If you semibluff full-stacked you can get 3bet shoved on, and forced to fold or whatever, whereas short stacked you cannot.

Quote:
Also, its really easy for you to be bluffed off a pot, as you're gonna have to play pretty fit or fold.
Uh, no you don't. L2P. What makes you think players who play for less than 100bbs can't play for 100 or 200 also?

Quote:
some people don't think killing another person is unethical
Apparently not, since there is a death penalty in many countries.
RoSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2009, 11:46 PM   #138
SquirrelsUnite
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,845
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

RoSeeker the biggest mistake people make playing deep (as in 2BI+ deep) is not stacking off light but folding in the wrong spots. Or just generally playing weak and passive. Calling 3bets out of position to set mine without the image to ever get payed off when they do hit. Etc., etc.

edit: On the moral issue, I don't really understand the uproar. Of course I'd like to see every shortstacker burned on a stake but that's not a moral judgement just a wish I have.
SquirrelsUnite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 02:17 AM   #139
ThaHero
Pooh-Bah
 
ThaHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,783
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Apparently not, since there is a death penalty in many countries.
And some people think the death penalty is unethical!

Ethics are used to justify legislation, but they are still individual. Me thinking ratholing is unethical has nothing to do with whether it was mandated by law or not. Aldultery isn't exactly against the law, but many people still see it as unethical, while some don't.

As far as all the shortstacking strategy goes, playing in a tournament is different from cash games because in cash games you can rebuy whereas in a tournament you're out, so the two are not the same.

When you semi-bluff, you want people to fold. Losing fold equity doesn't help that.

Edit: FWIW I'm not saying that playing shortstack is unprofitable. It can be vs. the right opponents, but so many shortstackers play terrible. And playing deep is more profitable.

Last edited by ThaHero; 07-19-2009 at 02:39 AM.
ThaHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 06:23 AM   #140
Grunch
Bounty Hunter
 
Grunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,703
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Me thinking ratholing is unethical has nothing to do with whether it was mandated by law or not.
I have tried making the point that you cannot legislate morality about 16 times.

For some reason, these people just aren't getting it.
Grunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 06:30 AM   #141
RoSeeker
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,008
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
And some people think the death penalty is unethical!
No, see, that's exactly my point. I am not sure of my own view on the issue, but I am usually on the, "when in doubt, DON'T KILL PEOPLE" camp, sort of in line with the innocent until proven guilty mentality, so I guess I'm usually wary of death sentences. I mean, it's a lot better now, but when corruption is an issue *cough china cough* and money makes the world go round, a lot of these harsh penalties can actually get relatively innocent people killed. I mean, there are laws that are essentially made up so officials can force people/tourists/businessmen to try bribe them, and this is not just in China, I mean afaik it happens a lot in African countries to foreigners also.

Sorry went off topic there, but thought it's interesting discussion.

Quote:
Me thinking ratholing is unethical has nothing to do with whether it was mandated by law or not.
Right, no, I definitely get this point. The problem is rat-holing is actually different from hit and running in online poker because whereas hit and running is meant to take money and leave before the opponent catches on, get reads, and otherwise gains an edge, short stackers play vs the same regs everyday, and what they actually want to do by ratholing is to control their effective stacks, to fit their strategy, much like a full stack player generally would top up to 100/max buyin automatically, except you can't remove chips so short stackers have to do this by leaving tables.

Personally, I think trying to play a certain bb stacksize on a table that allows that buyin is not unethical because every single player on the table sees the stacksize before they post blinds and/or play their hand, so there is no deceiving going on.

Quote:
When you semi-bluff, you want people to fold. Losing fold equity doesn't help that.
Yes, but when you semibluff you're usually trying to bluff off hands with very marginal showdown value like A high and K high underpair, etc, which basically just means that your ranges shift to a much wider stack-off and therefore wider range for both you and your opponent. The game is different as it's no longer about repping a monster hand, or trying to bluff off tpnk or rep a straight on the turn, but something more simple, and, okay, arguably less sophisticated, I will not doubt that, but there is still finesse to it, is what I mean. When you lose fold equity, you gain from them calling wider when you have a value hand, which means you just need to balance your range more.

Quote:
It can be vs. the right opponents, but so many shortstackers play terrible. And playing deep is more profitable.
Oh, there is no doubt that most short stackers play horribly, but then most poker players play horribly, period, so imo your point here doesn't say much. Short stacking makes multi tabling a lot more easier as you will need less reads on specific postflop lines that involve turn or river check raises, leads, and how they react to scare cards... those are just things you can't really write down at 24 tables, so you sacrifice some winrate for possibly a better hourly. Some people will do that, some people won't.

I'm all for perfection of one's game, but sometimes money is a factor too.

Quote:
As far as all the shortstacking strategy goes, playing in a tournament is different from cash games because in cash games you can rebuy whereas in a tournament you're out, so the two are not the same.
Not too relevant aside from hud stats, imo, because you will see massive MTT grinders playing each MTT basically with linear CEV, so basically playing it as a cash game. I'm talking about professional/regular grinders, not some guy playing in a tournament and tries to get into the money. Most MTT players are going to have 20-40 tables, and just go straight for whatever is +CEV in a lot of spots, so in general, it's very similar, imo.
RoSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 07:26 AM   #142
Gelford
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Gelford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,348
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Grunch .. you failed to respond to Roseekers most prominent argument, are winning players that withdraw money from sites not ratholers, I mean once they spend their winnings on that BMW, it's all over baby .. money can't be won back.


Also if I sit at a table with a 300bb stack and double up so we both sit on 200bb, it will be unethical for me to leave, bofore one of us is busto ???? (I rarely have time to play more than one hour at a time ... oh the moral agony .. quit poker ?)


I mean, these days with 50bb min tables, 100bb min tables, deep tables and even shortstack tables (the so called 20 bb min anti cash tables on ipoker), there is enough choice for every one. No one is no longer forcing you to play with ratholers unlike in the old days, where you could leave and return short at once no matter what table you sat at.

It's not for you or me to decide what is morally allowed in the games, that is the casino's job. They offer a game, we can choose to play it or not ... be it live poker, online poker with or without ratholing devices or black jack.


OP is doing a fantastic job of using whatever tools he has to maximize his profits at poker, and since he has shown that he is slowly expanding his toolbox, I wish him the best of luck.
Gelford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 07:34 AM   #143
taztress
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: level .5 thinking
Posts: 279
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaEqualsLuna View Post
I created this thread because I thought there were people who could benefit from it...

Mission accomplished... Nice Job
taztress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 09:41 PM   #144
LunaEqualsLuna
veteran
 
LunaEqualsLuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: armed with chip and a chart
Posts: 2,774
Angry Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
If you don't have an edge, and you are playing the game for profit, then why are you playing in that game?
Because not everyone starts of as a poker pro. Maybe in the first game of poker you ever played you had an edge, but I and I'm sure many other players took at least a few days or weeks before they developed an edge. (or at least thought i did )

Quote:
The fact that you are a shortstack cuts down on your fold equity already. I'm much more likely to fold to a raise if I expect more bets than when I don't(ignoring other factors obv).
It works both ways, you have little fold equity on the flop but it means your opponents have to call you lighter. You also still have fold equity preflop, especially if you choose your targets well. Most players are very bad at adjusting or just assume a shorter stack players follow the same push fold chart always.

Quote:
Also, calling 25% of your stack preflop(in a raised pot) to hit a set or flop a good draw and hoping to fold someone out doesn't seem like a very profitable strategy to me.
Set mining with a shortstack it isn't profitable,. Therefore don't do it.
I don't recall anyone suggesting to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoSeeker
If you think suited connectors or pairs or unprofitable 20-30bbs deep, you're doing it wrong, quite simply. Like I said, I don't expect players who have not much experience with it to understand, but don't pretend you know what is or isn't profitable if you don't?
This. People just spewing 'playing deeper is more profitable' or saying you and knocking shorter stack play or equating it to 20BB play when they never even tried it for any serious sample size are quite annoying. When you play SC's and pp's with a shorter stack you are playing them for a different reason and a different way than if you were playing them deep.

For pure profit blankly saying that full stacked is more profitable is nonsense. Sure 20BB shortstacking will most certainly have a lower winrate since you are pushing small edges and at the micros and SSNL rake will eat into your win rate much more.

But for ~half stacking it isn't so clear cut. It is player dependent, table dependent and stack-size dependent.In a game with spewing fish that will stack off with air then of course buying in for full is more profitable.

Half-stacking (~50BB can be very profitable and more profitable than 100BB stack sizes for many players, even experienced ones.

Quote:
I created this thread because I thought there were people who could benefit from it...

Mission accomplished... Nice Job
ty kind sir
LunaEqualsLuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 11:30 PM   #145
holyground
centurion
 
holyground's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 176
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

I think a seperate issue has cropped up in this thread and could really be it's own thread. I am a beginning player--as it happens, I have just purchased PNL today. Everything I had read up until now has always been buy in for 100bb. I had never heard of buying short to be a strategy at all.

Indeed, it has often been called the hallmark of a weak, or new player. Imagine my surprise that there's a discussion of it going on. It's fascinating to read about it.

And in the middle of this interesting discussion, an outcropping of ugly bickering appears about rat holing and "despicable shortstackers." First of all, Ethics are not universal. They are a set of standards loosely agreed upon by a singular group of people. Not even all people within a metagroup (poker players) have to agree: sub groups within said group can have their own set of ethics. Look at doctors, or Police officers, or any other wildly recognizable group with a well-known set of ethics.

Morals, on the other hand, are almost universally recognizable, and generally agreed upon (though not usually through all of their interpretations). Almost every rational person agrees that people generally have a right to life, etc. However, some people allow the context of the a situation change such a belief. As above, some people may believe it's immoral to terminate a pregnancy, but are for the death penalty. These conflicts of belief happen all the time and are part of the human condition.

Regarding poker and short-stacking, I think that discussing the ethics of playing a short stack is quite like putting the cart before the horse in this case. Disccuss the strategy, investigate whether it can be a profitable strategy in the long run or whether it's merely a learning tool for the inexperienced. Then, once that discussion has run it's course, maybe then you can discuss the "ethical" ramifications.

But screaming at the top of your internet lungs that short stacking is wrong, unethical and bad seems, at least to me, to be very close minded.

Cheers, OP. and other posters. Thanks for the food for thought.
holyground is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 11:39 PM   #146
kal_Nora
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 63
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Luna>>> I find half stacking to be far more profitable than full stacking, I've tried both. When I first started playing poker, about a year ago, I adopted a half stack strategy that was as it turns out, actually fairly good. I was winning a ton... almost 10 bb/hour at 25 NL.

So I made the switch to full stacking thinking I could win more... I was totally wrong. People no longer gave me any action... I pretty much had to lag it up to get paid off anymore... But I bought into this "never buy in for less than 100BB" garbage for quite a while... My win rate had dropped significantly though and I always wondered why I wasn't doing as well as I did when I started.

So rather then staying at 25 NL and buying in full.. I decided to buy in at half and go up to 50NL... same dollar amount as a full stack at 25NL... People started paying me off again right away... They'll happily double you up with some strange holdings, and make some really idiotic bluffs against you. End result... my win rate shot up..

Of course, being that I need to work on tilt control I started playing to many tables (a bit overly encouraged by these results) and donked off about a quarter of my bankroll soon after, but that's another story and totally my fault.
kal_Nora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2009, 11:45 PM   #147
RoSeeker
banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,008
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Kal, whilst getting paid off is a definite boon of being shorter stacked, do remember the other side of the argument that it could simply be variance, and playing shorter stacks certainly reduces variance by lowering the effects of coolers, and increasing the effects of "basic" plays (cbets value bets). What it also does is lower the effects of sophisitcated plays which gives a player an edge at higher levels of play where simply vbetting and making small bluffs is not enough, where you have to 3bet, triple barrel, check raise turns and or rivers, so just remember that there are two sides of it.

Playing half stack is good for you because you're better at it, and because it is more straightforward, but it does not make it untrue that, for a good player, full stacking is probably a better option, and I do suggest that you also try to work on adjusting your play for taller stacks.

While I have always argued that players adjust badly to short stacks, it's equally true that players used to short stacks adjust badly to taller stacks once they've doubled up or bought in for more, for instance, when a SnG players moves to playing cash.
RoSeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 03:57 AM   #148
kal_Nora
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 63
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Yes, now that I look back at things, I think you're right. Variance was definitely a factor in my full stack results. I just remember getting so many coolers that it would make me sick.

But another factor when I said I'm winning more after moving up a level and half stacking there has to be simply that I moved up a level (50 NL).. 1BB at 50NL = 2BB at 25 NL, so it's not to hard to imagine a profit increase, I'd think. And of course, as I said, they stack off way light against me... but maybe it's not that because of my stack size and maybe they're just complete idiots. I'll have to try buying in full at this level once I get a big enough bankroll to do so comfortably and find out for sure. I still think my stack size and donk image for not buying in full has a lot to do with it, though.

But... then again, there's probably other things I can do at the table to seem like a donk rather then buying in short. I've come to the thinking that people seeing you as a total donk = much $$profit. If they see you as a solid, tight abc player, then they simply don't put money in with you unless you have the nuts.. Is this correct?

Would I get the same effect if I say, bought in for 80-90BBs as I do at 50?
kal_Nora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 04:27 AM   #149
ThaHero
Pooh-Bah
 
ThaHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,783
Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Play whatever makes you feel most comfortable.
ThaHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 11:41 AM   #150
Dire
banned
 
Dire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: wasting less time
Posts: 8,581
Thumbs up Re: The Never Buy in for less than 100BB 'rule'

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
in 2 yrs ull look back on this post n ask urself 'jeez wtf was i thinking back then; i was so bad!"
....or realize even 45bb was too hard for him and become a 20bb rat holer.
Dire is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive