my local casino does 1-2 with 5$ bring in,

thinking about buying in for 100-150$ and just trying to hit flops and shove and see if I can get to 100BB then play a different approach.

what are some things I need to consider if I do this? AAxx hands might be hands I might mess up especially ****ty AA hands, anythign else you guys think I shoudl pay attentiontoo?

Step 1: Someone does their action
Step 2: Hero piles his chips in

You're not going to make a mistake with AAxx at 50bb in a live 1/2 game...

Is first raise after bring-in to $15 or $20?

you can't really go wrong with this strategy, especially since its more like 20BBs effective. just realize this may be more high variance than playing 100BB deep.

Consider PLO is a big bet game, and how much we all hate "short Stacker" no one is going to teach you how to short stack.

You can not basically make mistake,but you need to include more hands you want to play,can`t wait just for AA.

The 1-2 5 bring-in game I play at often times there'll be a raise, 5 callers then it goes to the short stacker who jams, there's a few sighs and a caller or two.
Like the others have said, it doesn't take a whole lot of thought.

-d

My two cents,

Short stacking is the best strat in live games because a majority of casinos limit buy in to 100BB which is imo kind of an in-between stack size.

Ex, Aria 1/2 $5 open (list is ***** huge right now) has max BI of $500

I've played against many with this strategy, and their probability of success is <10%. With everybody having you covered by multitudes, you have no fold equity, and so it's easy for everybody to realize their equity against you when you GII.

Even if you triple up, the next time you're all in, everybody still has you covered and can realize their equity easily.

The time after that you're finally all in with 100BB everybody still has you covered and can easily realize their equity.

Your chance of busting that $100 is incredibly high, but if that's all your BR can afford, go for it....

thansk guys.

i ran the numbers a bit, surprised how much equity even really ****ty AA hands have like AA84 etc,


I thought the advantage of me short stacking was being able to get it in with 60% equity and then getting to 100-150BB and then being able to switch gears and play PLO "deep stack"

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

591,870 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
aa	35.49%	207,971	4,225
20%!aa	21.54%	123,335	8,358
15%!aa	21.47%	123,064	8,162
15%!aa	21.50%	123,305	8,050

You're getting it in with 33% equity. Even less if opponents are calling hoping you have AA, and therefore calling you with stuff like 9876

I assume when you say fold equity that your talking about the ability to leverage your stack (big stack indicates possibility of bigger bets on future streets).

Q: Do you think players at 1/2 $5 with $500 max buy-in are aware of this? From my experience thery're not

Short-stackers always realize their equity, its your opponents who have trouble realizing theirs...

In the above example, we are basically getting a 40% ROI, that's basically getting it in as a 70/30 favourite headsup.

read slotboom (ebay for a tenner)!

it's 12 years old and still works since it's literally a gto strategy.

wow so its just as good as AKQ9 or hands like that. damn didn tthink ****ty aa hands were that good

This is completely missing the point of the strategy. It's profitable because

(1) live PLO is very loose preflop so you'll always get money in with a marginal hot and cold advantage

(2) you benefit a bit from deeper stacks knocking each other off their equity post

(3) this is the only part where FE matters and it's rare. If you have a lot of people limping or calling raises and folding to you pot 3! then you have a gold mine. 3 bet any plausible hand (single gap rundown with a suit) until they stop folding and flip over the dead money.

But you don't need #3 to make this profitable.

Now the problem is, you'll often have say 30 to 35% equity four ways (or even 20% six ways if there have is wild) with your AAxx or AKQJ. That's a real edge but you can also run really bad. You might go through $1500 just shoving money in with AAxx and getting outdrawn.

But to learn the game and watch your opponents, it's marginally profitable.

The one time it's indisputably correct to buy in short is a setup like this: you have three reasonably competent deep stacks to your left and three short stacks to your right. Now it would be preposterous to buy in deep just to play that extra money OOP--but the testosterone-driven average 2+2 reg would buy in deep and not think twice.

It's weird people never talk about this. It's really a big deal to EV.

The comment also fails to demonstrate understanding of AI dynamics.

A $5000
B $5000
C $100

Action is 4 bet to $250 preflop leaving C all-in.

A and B have no easier a time realizing their equity against each other than they would if C weren't in the pot. Some of that equity leakage accrues to C as they fold hands with winning chances.

They can realize their equity perfectly against C once the other deep stack folds, but C has been realizing his equity perfectly regardless.

If you want to gamble, shortstacking PLO can give you a better edge than roulette will at least. Go for it OP!

How is easy to realize equity for deep stack players?When you go all in on the flop short and players have to act with marginal holding deep with players behind that means opposite:it is much harder to realize equity.

Next 2 statements also doesn`t make much sense.Let`s give some example to illustrate.You have aa67ss on k59r.Are you more likely to realize equity

if you were short and have spr 0.5 on the flop,or if you are deepstacked and have players behind to act?When short nobody can push you of the pot,but if you got raised with high spr here you often have to fold and underealize equity.

Regarding chances of busting 100$,it is proven there is much less variance with shortstack play and also higher winrates have been achieved.

There is a massive advantage to being short when everyone is a deep in a loose game, because you will often be able to get 6 or 7 to 1 on your money and then someone will bet and protect your pot for you.

If a deepstack player got raised here by another deepstack, AA67 is way behind, so your point is moot...

True, though OP should be prepared to lose several, if not many, buyins in a row before seeing a penny of profit.

If aa67 is way behind,and that s what I also said, that means deepstack will NOT realize equty and shortstack will which is the main problem.

Second thing you said about preparing to lose many buyins is again wrong,compare winrates and variance with deepstack and shortstack play:game is less swingy with later approach.

You two might be speaking different languages. Shortstacking has way higher variance PER BUYIN. How could it not? If you always get your little stack in 5 ways preflop with 25% equity, you're going to lose your next 5 stacks almost a quarter of the time.

I've done this. It sucks to blow thru $2000 in an afternoon of loose 5-5 PLO in $300 and $400 increments. But the variance IN DOLLARS is much lower. I could do a "proper" buyin of $1000 or $2000, get sucked out on, and be done after an hour.

---
Regarding AA67: It's relatively uncommon for it to be a huge underdog HU or 3h, hot and cold, on the flop. Facing a PSCRAI, so getting 2:1 with no more betting, AAxx will often want to call off. The problem is implied odds. If you don't know if your opponent has a set, two pair, or a wrap, you're going to throw away money playing that guessing game with AA unimproved.

So when the wrap knocks out the deeper stacked AA (winning a nice side pot) and misses, and the all in wins the pot with a hand that couldn't have beaten AA, then the AA's implied odds misery fuels the all in's rejoicing