I've always held my tongue when it comes to short-stacking because I know some people play on a short-stack when they are first learning a new poker game. But I've seen enough of this palgue now, and it's time someone speaks up.

Bob Ciaffone recently wrote a column criticizing the concept of playing a short-stack as a strategy in order to "have an edge" over the deeper stacks. He mentioned certain "writings" that promoted playing a short-stack strategy, and without calling the author out by name, offered a logical criticism of the promotion of short-stacking. he was obviously talking about Rolf Slotboom, and that bull**** book he wrote titled, "Secrets of Professional Pot Limit Omaha."

I think Rolf is an excellent writer, and I've enjoyed many of Card Player articles, but I have to draw the line at the suggestion that short-stacking is somehow a legitimate form of "professional" poker. It's not.

Playing a short-stack strategy is like announcing to the world that you are too bad to play with a full-stack of at least 100 BB's, and you are too damn lazy or stupid to learn how to play with a full-stack. Poker is a game of skill, and if you don;t have the bankroll to play in a game, go sit in a game you can afford, and work your way up.

Short-stack players can get away with this nonsense online, because the internet provides them with anonymity, but let me tell you how the real world works, especially when it comes to playing at higher stakes. I was in a game recently, and young guy sat down and attempted to buy-in for $1,000, or 20BB's for our game. Everyone got quiet, but I had no problem asking this clown if he had anymore money, and when he said he didn't, I told him he should just leave and come back when he could afford to play in our game.

In fact, we made it clear to him that we would all just sit out, and take a break until he saw fit to leave our game. And if he was still around when we got back, he would be "removed" from the table.

I do realize some people play short when they are trying to learn. But with the micro-stakes being offered online these days, there is never a legitimate excuse to play short.

If Rolf Slotboom is responsible for the explosion of short-stackers at every online poker site, then it's time "real" poker players started punishing not only Rolf, but the legions of idiots who employ this stupid short-stack strategy. Enough is enough.

wat? okay, seriously.. No, no way. WAT?

I wonder why it is "accepted" to buy in low in the 200 400 PLO games but not at lower stakes.
You mean Ivey, Benyamine and all the others who buy in low at the nosebleed level are too damn lazy or stupid to learn how to play with a full-stack??

Basically you are saying that you are not good enough to adapt playing vs smaller stacks. Thats a huge leak imo.

BTW i always buy in full, but dont mind playing bad short stacks. You have to be careful tho and recognize when the regular short stacks sits down.

Maurice your one of those, right? Think i remember playing you on stars 5 10.

i don't see this problem at the microstakes (up to PLO200)
is they really so annoying at PLO1000-5k?

I won't bother going into detail about how full-stack players should adjust their play with short-stacks at the table, because based on your reply, your opinion doesn't mean that much to me.

Knowing how to adapt your play against short-stacks, and being willing to tolerate them in your games are two entirely different concepts. And the "nosebleed-stakes" players ALL buy in short routinely because, A) they are playing a completely different game than everyone else on the planet, B) everyone of them would need a huge roll to always buy-in full at $200/$400 and C) since nearly everyone buys in short in that game, starting with a short-stack doesn't alter the dynamics of the game as much.

"Regular" short-stackers can get away with playing short online, but you would never be invited back to a private game if you made a practice of buying-in short. Hell, they might not even let you play. I read Slotboom's book to develop a full understanding of the strategy "regular" short-stackers use, and while I admit playing a 20BB stack in a full-ring game is very +EV, I wouldn't tolerate short-stackers (hit & run artists) in any private game I was playing in.

What short-stackers don't get is that if they learned to play a full-stack well, they would make more money. So they aren't just ruining the dynamics of the game for the full-stack players, they are short-changing themselves as well. My OP was not a case of someone whining because they lost a pot to a short-stacker, I just realized how the acceptance of these legions of short-stackers online has begun to bleed over into Live games as well.

If you look at any online poker site at just about any time of the day, they are littered with these parasites. These players could only get away with this nonsense online. I am pretty sure quite a few very prominent high-stakes online players have complained to the sites about players short-stacking their games in the past. (although nothing was ever done about it)

You can defend short-stack "regs" if you want, but I don't care who gets offended... short-stacking is for those who are broke, and idiots, plain and simple. Someone should have stripped the word "Professional" from Slotboom's book before it went to press because there is nothing "professional" about being a parasite.

Well poker is about having an edge on your opponents. And you have an edge on you 100-200BB stacked opponents. An edge you dont have against the 20BB opponents. So your frustrated that you cant maintain your edge (understandable) in your games.

So how does your strategy differs from those who try to get an edge by shortstacking? They accually have an strategy to gain an edge on you. Is that worse then for you to try to have an edge on you opponents.

Im not defending shortstackers but I se as long as your allowed to buyin for 20BB its nothing wrong if people use this feature.

If you dont like shortstackers online use the Deep tables (min 50BB buyin) or just change table when a shortstack comes along.

Or adapt your game to prevent shortstackers having an edge on your game.

PS: Parasite is the name on all winning pokerplayers I think. All winners parasite on those who they have an edge over.

I dont defend short-stack regs, not at all. My edge is less imo vs those than vs regulars who buy in full stack so obviously i would prefer if everyone was buying in for full stack.
I just think its pathetic complaining about it.
And you are wrong about so many things i dont even know where to start...
Hastings, South, Sahmies etc never buy in low. If everyone at the nosebleed level where buying in low then the value in buying in max would be huge.

I know short-stacks who buys in low with several hundred BIs so your wrong about that thing 2.

Do you think anybody cares about u not tolerating short-stacks in your private games ??

I never said "no one ever buys in full-stacked" at the nosebleed stakes. Of course they do, but a significant percentage of the players in that game will routinely buy-in short, so its pointless to even debate.

The intent of my OP was more general than specific. It's not geared at any specific players, just the overall notion of tons of idiots being encourage to "buy-in short so I have an edge over the full-stacks." It seems to have gotten way out of control online, and it affects the quality of the games.

Your last post didn't make much sense, and to be honest I don't care to debate whether specific high-stakes players ever buy-in short or always buy-in full, or whether you know short-stacks who sometimes buy-in full. It makes no difference to me, and that's an pointless discussion.

The fact is that the number of "regular" short-stacks has increased so much that it has begun to alter the dynamics of the games to the point where it makes playing online almost an annoyance. And to the genius who said "winning players are parasites," I rarely give short-stacks any profitable action, and if there is more than one at my table, I do leave. (Strong poker players are referred to as "sharks" not fleas for a reason)

This is not a situation of someone who can't handle playing with short-stacks, but you would think anyone with any sense, would not want the games they play in littered with parasites that make the games less fun.

No strong poker players whine about short-stackers so you are obviously not one of those.
You think Roger Federer blames Roddick for making the game less fun by serving too good?
He might blame ATP, and you should blame the pokersites not the short-stackers.


LOL, i wrote

I know short-stackers who buys in low with several hundred BIs so your wrong about that thing 2.

They still buy in low even tho they have the roll for buying in for a full stack.
So many of those are not broke idiots like you said...

FYP.

Wrong. DUCY?

Fell

I respect theviralmind, but this thread is lame. Yeah I'd wish shortstackers would GTFO out of my games too but it's never going to happen. Most of the people that play shortstacked probably aren't even doing it intentionally, it's just a stupid byproduct of low default buyins set at the site level. I play on sites where the default is to buy in for 20bb and (shocker!) there are a lot more shortstackers there. I also play on sites where the default is higher and there are fewer shorties. You should be going after the sites that unwittingly promote the lower buyins, if anything.

Don't get me wrong, I ***** hate shorties and ratholers send me on instamonkeytilt. However, I heard a guy the other day who justified it by saying "it's not my responsibility to make the games more enjoyable or easy to play for my opponents", and I thought that was fair enough.

I know everyone gets tired of hearing about short-stackers, and I will be the first to admit that they are in a +EV situation in full-ring games. (although much less so in 6-Max) I have always treated short-stacking as an annoyance that simply "must be dealt with."

The reason for my OP is that short-stacking seems to have become so prevalent online in the last year, that it has really begun to affect the quality of the games for full-stack players. When you open up the tables and almost every 6-Max table running has at least 2 (and sometimes 3) short-stackers, it has an impact on whether you even decide to play or not.

Everyone on this forum know I don't make a habit of complaining about short-stacks. My attitude has always been that they will get their crumbs from the game, and to focus on the deep-stacks. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a much greater percentage of players have decided to start playing short than I can ever remember. FTP was over-run with them this weekend.

I just don't understand the mindset of legitimizing the strategy be defending it. Yes, short-stackers have a right to play short. But full-stack players also have a right to keep them out of their games when they have the opportunity.

There are plenty of professional players at the highest levels who are very able full stack players who have come to different conclusions.

There are tons of reasons (some of them meta) to play a short stack.

this is also fair enough. i guess shortstacking has become popular because slotboom is the main book that noobs read, and because a lot of people buy in short in the big games on ftp which are probably responsible for the growth of PLO's popularity. This being said, there are deep stack tables available so that looks like the only option to avoid the little bastards. Other than relentlessly baiting and abusing them until they leave, although this is probably not +ev as it takes quite a bit of focus.

I actually enjoy having the majority of short stacks at my table.

Most are bad players and will reload more times than if they brought in full and sometimes do that as well in the end.

The ones that are good you just ajust to like any other tricky player.

If this really bugs you, you should play at the tables that limit how short you can buy they do exist so use them. Or you could play 6 max where the advantage of a short stacker is less.

Short-stackers and ratholers are the white trash of poker. You can't call them the scum because the hustlers and colluders are there for that.

First off, the min buy-in should be 100bb's period. Given that you can play penny stakes, if people want to be cheap, they can buy in full else where.

As to ratholers, you should not be able to take money off the table period. If you get up from one table, you should have to get up from them all for at least one hour.

And I can bet you bankrolls that my second suggestion is the most important and would stop shortstacking ratholing pigs overnight.

Also, saying that most short-stackers are bad and therefore not a problem is stupid, because especially in PLO, even if their bad, they are probably still exploiting you more often than you think.

Cliff notes: The bad short stackers are still exploiting you

LOL

This thread is silly, but it has prompted me to send for Slotboom's book. I can be bad and still expoit this maestros.

wtf?

So you are multitabling 8 tables, grinding it out. You bust a fish on one table, he leaves. First on the list is your nemesis who owns you, and he's sitting on your left. You leave the table because it is no longer profitable for you, and you think you should have to leave all 8 tables???

Fell

Save your money as it can be summed up as:
1) buy in for less than a full stack (20BB)
2) play hands that are double suited and stand up well when all in
3) sit on the right of an aggro
4) limp or minraise when you have your hand
5) wait for someone to raise it
6) push and keep pushing until all in (unless you are not all in and the flop comes and there is just no way you are good)

He doesn't go into much detail on #2 in the book, and much of the book is his discussion of how he played some hands, not always with a short stack.

That's really about all there is to it. That combined with testing it on poker tools would do it.

That said, it would be really boring to play given that there aren't many options given to you, you piss off those at the table, and if your site doesn't have many tables available at the limit you are trying this, ratholing means less time spent on the tables.

Also the mention that PLO shortstack is suited for FR means that you immediately limit the number of tables you can select from. Even on a big site like Stars there aren't that many of them.

People have shown that you can easily and profitably shortstack NLHE on 6max tables, essentially using the same strategy as you would in an SNG when you have less than 10BB in your stack, stealing blinds aggressively - but I personally don't really think the same could be said of PLO as no one hand really offers any huge advantage, so you essentially hold zero fold equity with the combination of the short stack and inability to get it all in pf with one move.

So that loops back - if you cannot easily play 6max profitably, then you can only play FR. There are fewer FR tables and in order to rathole, that means you spend less time on the tables than if you had just bought in normally and played poker.

One compromise around this is if you want to move up to a level that has you unsure, or you have no data - buy in short stack and observe the tables and therefore risk less of your money at any one time, and then instead of ratholing, once you double-up, buyin for a full stack and then play for real.
You will have potentially pissed off at least one person in the process and therefore moving to just a normal tight style, you can then hope they will play back against you aggressively when you are in the spots where this gets their full stack.

. Just play at deep tables if you don't like it so much. 50bb min. isn't so bad to play at.

This thread would be silly if there weren't 3 short-stackers trying to get on every 6-max table on FTP and Stars 24/7. I agree with everything morphball said. (although I hope the concept of bad short-stackers exploiting you is probably a "level")

griz is correct as well, but I'm talking about the overall "state of the games", and not just an isolated situation of having a short-stack at the table, or what the handful of "nose-bleed" stakes players are doing. Maybe it's just me, but it definitely feels like the number of players short-stacking has increased exponentially over the last year.

I honestly don't know how much Slotboom's book contributed to the increase in player's who decided to become "short-stack regs," but I think the very idea of titling a book "Secrets of Professional Pot Limit Omaha" and espousing a short-stack sandbagging approach is hardly a "professional" approach to the game. I read Slotboom's book, and every point he makes about playing with 20BB's in a full-ring game is 100% correct, but it didn't make me want to start short-stacking.

There's a big difference in trying to parlay a small amount of money by winning a 3-4 handed pot in a full-ring game because you are on a short bankroll, and settling for the "crumbs" from the full-stacks in a 6-max game where more pots are heads-up.

I realize a large percentage of people on this forum probably play online exclusively, but people who play live poker as well generally have a little more respect for the game. Can you imagine hordes of short-stackers descending on the Bike, or Commerce, and hopping from table to table as they double-up? That's essentially what is happening online. It would never be tolerated in a live setting on the scale that it is online.

Yes a legitimate reason to buyin short is to get to know the table before buying in a full stack.

As Sklansky said in one of his book. You can always add chips to the table if you like it but you cannot remove chips if you find out that you dont want to have a full stack.

This does however not only apply to PLO.

Thanks for the Sklansky quote. If you happen to see him playing online anytime soon, tell him I appreciate his input into the short-stack debate.