hear hear!

You imply that people complain because short stackers prevent them from making a bigger profit, but that is not the case: they complain that short stackers prevent the games from running normally. Short stackers force them to play a simpler form of poker, while they want to play the real thing. That's all.

I agree that people should do what is the most profitable for them in the short and long term, so the onus is on the rooms to offer good games for everybody, 100BB+ stacks included.

You think and write that good and only have 16 posts? Post more.

I doubt this is true. While the onus is on the poker rooms to provide games in which everyone would want to play, I think that the vast majority of players would rather play in a game that is more simple where they have a greater edge, than a more complicated game where their edge is smaller.

The game is the game, I don't see why short stackers should have the right to make it simpler for the whole table when their opponents just want to play normal poker.

Everybody at the table should be ok to play the current game--that sounds like a minimal prerequisite to me--and one should not be able to jump in at any table and turn a normal game into the "simpler form" that will give him a better edge. Nor should one be able to enter a chess tournament and decide Connect Four wil be played instead, since it will give him a better edge.

Hold up. The fullstackers are CHOOSING to play with the shortstackers. Both Stars and Full Tilt have tables where shortstacking is not possible so you can't use the argument that the fullstacks don't have the option to play 'their game' if they wish.

If there is a good choice of such games, then it's fine; the rooms de facto agreed that short stackers could be detrimental to some games--which was my point.

Could you define "normal poker"?

If you have enough chips to make a significant bet on each streets, then I would say you don't play a simplified form of poker.

Sooooo....how bout that book, eh?

Live short stackers tend to be those either starting the game, or those who just busted and are short on funds to rebuy. I assure you I don't fear or bleed money to either.

I suppose the author's belief that short stacking is the biggest edge you can have at PLO might have some validity online where you have many tables to choose from and can hop around after doubling/tripling up, etc.

I stand by my statement that the biggest edge at live PLO is when the money is deep and the pre- and post-flop play is poor.

Agreed. As has been my experience in home games.

I agree that if you are an expert at PLO, have a deep stack, and are in a game with a bunch of poor players who also have deep stacks that your edge will be the greatest. However, that's not what is happening here. If you are an expert player with a deep stack, and your game also features a couple of players with short stacks who know what they are doing, then they can erode your edge even though your understanding of the game is far better than theirs.

By the way, this idea of a short stack giving you an advantage is not new. In 1991 my book Poker Essays was published. Here is an essay that addresses this same idea:

The Magic Number

One question I am occasionally asked by other players is, “How much should I buy-in for.” It seems as if some people are looking for a magic number of chips to purchase. Well, is there a magic number? Is a certain number of chips clearly more profitable than another number? And how do we determine the correct amount?

Before answering these questions, let me state that I think there is an optimal amount to buy in for. Let’s see if I am right.

Suppose you were playing $15-$30 razz with a $1 ante, and further suppose that you were able to buy in for only $1. Well, you wouldn’t be able to do anything creative, you would be eligible to win only the antes, and if you had a good hand, you wouldn't be able to defend it or to extract any chips from your opponents. But there is one advantage that you would have: You would be able to play every hand to the end and, as just pointed out, be eligible to win the antes in a showdown.

But how often would you win the antes in a showdown? I’m not really sure, but I suspect that about one out of three times is in the ballpark, assuming that you are against typical opponents. This means that in a full game of eight players, you would show a profit of $5 for every three hands you played. If you then could leave the table, cash in your $5 profit, buy in again for only $1, and continue this process, in a typical hour’s worth of play — which means about 40 hands — your expectation would be slightly more than $65 per hour. Not bad. (If the game was short-handed, your expectation per hour probably would be even higher, since you would win a higher percentage of the pots and there would be more hands per hour. I’m sure this would more than balance the fact that the pots you do win would now be smaller since there are fewer antes.) I don’t know anyone, who is capable of winning at this high a rate in $15-$30 razz. In fact, I don’t think anyone even comes close. So it sure seems like a $1 buy-in is the magic number.

However, there is one problem: No cardroom will allow you to buy in for only $1, much less to leave the table every third hand (on average), cash in your expected $5 profit, then return to make another buy-in. A few rooms permit one short buy-in after you have gone broke. But even these rooms require you to then make a "full" buy-in after your short buy-in if you lose all your chips.

So even though it looks like $1 (or one chip) is the ultimate buy-in, it won’t do you any good to know this. I suspect there may be some advantages to always making the minimal buy-in, but ironically, I have always done just the opposite. I am of the school that believes a lot of chips in front of you makes your opponents — at least some of them — think you are a significant winner. This, in turn, causes them to play less aggressively against you and perhaps to make errors against you that they normally would not make. In other words, they may be intimidated and miss a bet, or even better, they won’t bluff you out of a pot in a situation where they easily can do so.

But this razz example seems to indicate that there are advantages to going all in. What are they? Basically, when it doesn’t cost much, certain weak hands become correct to play, even in situations where you know they will win only occasionally. For instance, in high games, hands like inside-straight draws, small pairs, three-flushes with two cards to come, and even just one overcard can all become profitable plays if you have to put in only a fraction of a real bet. On the low side, two-card draws and draws to rough hands also can be winning plays.

So what’s the conclusion in the real world, where the minimum buy-in rule does exist? Well, I’m not really sure. But I think I’ll stick to my big buy-in philosophy, although buying in for the minimum does have some things to offer.

It could be argued that short stacking (vs deeper stacks) is an abuse of the all-in rule, from the standpoint that the edge in a good, beatable gambling game should be correlated with skills.

I think it is all right to change rules and conventions so as to get better games eg. adding blinds and antes when people nutpeddled in games without blinds, or switching from No-Limit to Pot-Limit Omaha. It does not mean these games should not exist, since a game with no blind can actually be quite wild if people are ok to gamble--but if the flaws are being exploited, it kills the game.

I also believe the easy edge you can get with a (realistic) short stack is a very local optimum, and while you can do better in the short term using this strategy/trick, it prevents you from achieving a much greater edge later on.

I pretty much agree with everything above and would add that some short-stackers are those players new to the game of PLO. They are not there to play a short-stack game but to get their feet wet with less risk.

Even though Rolf's first book was all about short-stacking live games I just don't see it much in the live games I've played in Las Vegas, Biloxi, Tunica, AC, Hammond, St. Louis, and elsewhere in the US. It seems to me that live PLO for most is a game of small ball and relatively infrequent but exciting big scores/collisions. It just is not a game of multiple small all-in coup wins over time in different games with tiny edges. Live PLO games just aren't numerous and constant enough to make short-stacking very profitable let alone fun.

Rolf ace first book was based on a situation where you only post one blind and then you have the luxury of wiating 8 hands before having to post again, that suited the short stacking for with the blinds coming around so passively he could wait for aces.
it was in a differnt country asterdam so it would be hard to find that situation in the old us.

however in the second book rolf used that short stacking formula to get used to playing short handed then eventually begin to buy in for more and more as his short handed game evolved so he could buy in for 100 buy in and start tables.
so it is a good way to get used to the stakes, and game,

I dont understand it either. Shortstacking is a major part of PLO strategy and there are no PLO games today where everyone is sitting fullstacked.
On an average 9-handed table on stars or FullTilt there are usually 3 people sitting with 100BB+

To complain about a PLO book that covers SS is just bs.

Btw Mason, has the FT and or Pokerstars vip stores placed any orders for that book yet?

I believe that FT made a small order and PS has not yet ordered. If you request the book from them, this always encourages them to order and then get it up on their store site.

Best wishes,
mason

One thing that is getting lost in this discussion is that there are plenty of deep-stack concepts throughout the book. Here are some of the concepts which are focused on deep-stack play:

Focus in general. In particular the focus of your wraps, pp. 33-34.
The entire chapter on pocket aces and big preflop pots, pp. 48-58.
When an opponent bets into your marked aces, pp. 64-65.
Flopping the disguised nuts, p. 82
Deep-stacked set versus wrap, pp. 102-104.
The anti-draw call, pp. 106-7.
The last meaningful raise, pp. 153-4.

In addition to the above, there are plenty of concepts which, while they apply to both short-stack and deep-stack play, have greater importance for the deep-stackers. This applies to the entire parts of the book on turn and river play, pp. 124-149, for example. Short-stackers will occasionally get to use some of these concepts, but for the most part, they are all-in on those streets, so these concepts apply mostly to deep stackers. In a similar vein, we then have:

Flopping nut draws, pp. 73-8.
Flopping a monster, pp. 83-4.
The blush, pp. 159-160.
Blockers, pp. 161-163.
Blockers and call-or-fold decisions, pp. 164-5.
Repeated discussions of whether or not it is desirable to have chips back in various situations, appearing off and on throughout the book.

Keeping chips back when you are drawing to the nuts, but getting all-in or folding when you are not drawing to the nuts, mentioned off and on throughout the book.

By no means is the above an exhaustive list. There are plenty of additional paragraphs about deep-stack play, such as the example on p.146 which starts off "You are playing a large $30,000 stack in a 5-10 game . . . "

My point is that if you are a deep-stack player, this book has plenty for you.

Regards,
William Jockusch

I'm really surprised at all the hate on this book. I thought it was pretty good in general, and very strong for what it was going for, which was covering a) an audience of advanced beginner through very advanced intermediate players, and b) focusing on understanding a range of winning play and styles.

I'll reply to some specific comments separately.

I don't think this is a beginners book at all. It covers beginning play to be sure but all PLO books on the market purporting to cover PLO winning play do this (including Hwang's first book) and should do this. But it clearly covers more advanced topics as Black Arrow mentions in his first post such as the Anti-Draw call, leaving money behind etc. I don't think it covers expert topics much, but it specific says its not designed to.

I also disagree on how you characterize Hwang's book. It's an excellent book for what it covers, but can't possibly see how it can be definitive with, for example, only 20 pages devoted to post-flop play. And another book out after it to build on the concepts.

Hwang says things like "Bet it if you have it, bet a big nut draw like you have it until someone else says they have it. That's 50% of the game right there". Which seems like the definition of a basic book. To cite just once example, this book goes into more detail on betting a big nut draw by noting how you should just call once you get action to save money if the board pairs.

If this book had come out first, people would be saying Hwang's is very good but doesn't cover as much as this one. Either way, that's really irrelevant to whether you should buy this one vs Hwang's

I don't get this. There are only two good books for PLO beginner through advanced intermediate type players: Hwang's and this one. This has roughly twice as much material.

2+2 has always focused on that segment for their books, and the NL market is as you say, but not the PLO market, which is only just getting there with Hwang's and Slotboom's second books.

I wouldn't say a lot of players are hungry for 2+2 equivalents of the books you mentioned. I'd say longtime 2+2 posters and coaches are hungry for those books. Those are great books for experts, but cost anywhere from $200 to a couple thousand, and it seems ludicrous to compare this to those.

You're criticizing 2+2 for not putting out an advanced PLO book before they've publushed any PLO book.

This is misleading.

This book has around 90 pages on postflop play, which according to the table of contents breaks out to roughly 63/7/20 for flop/turn/river play. But a lot of the flop section covers how to play the turn and river so there is a lot more than 7 pages on turn play.

And for comparison, Hwang's first book has a grand total of 20 pages on postflop play, and while it doesnt break it out by flop/turn/river focus, it looks like it's 20/0/0 if you were to use the same classification as this book does.

You should just be honest and say up front "This book has a lot about short-stacking, I hate shortstacking, so I'm going to give it a bad review. And Hwang's book focused more on deeper stack play which I like so it's better."

You clearly think short-stacking is a lot less interesting than deep-stack games and that poker rooms that allow it make the games less fun, interesting and profitable for good players. We get it. I personally completely agree and wish they'd change it. But that's irrelevant to whether the two books cover what hands to play, how to adjust to opponents play, what characteristics hands have on various flops and so forth. Which is how you should judge whether a book is good or not.

And I don't see how you can say Hwang's book covers basic material in greater depth when the book as 20 pages on postflop play and is half as long.

There are plenty of other good reasons you might want to short stack
- limit your variance over the session you're playing
- get your feet wet at higher than normal stakes
- exploit the mistakes your opponents are making (typically playing too loose preflop in order to maximize posflop edges vs other deep stacks at the table)
- increase the number of tables you can play, since you have simpler decisions
- and for a beginner book, its easier to learn the game for less $$ commitment when short-stacking

The fact is many poker rooms allow it, its can be a profitable strategy, and at minimum many of your opponents may be doing it so you should understand how the mechanics of short stack profitability works and how to counter it.

Frankly, given all that, a book designed to cover winning play SHOULD cover short-stacking.