You can't have a table where only one player is playing deep stacked.

Why not GiantBuddha?

Ace now Im confused, didn't you just say that if MT2R posted his information you would post counter information, thus giving it out for free? Similarly if you are worried about short stackers shouldnt posting this information, that will enable other players to exploit SSers and thus cause SSers to possibly give up, be a good thing to do for free? As it will cause more people to play full stacked? Possibly worried is not the right word, its more like you dont want to play against SSers. So yea I'm confused, either you want to play vs full stacks in which case you should teach others how to beat them or your counter strat against SSers is so good that you would want more SSers and thus be happy with MT2R posting?

I'm confused! :P

i give up

Effective stack size. If 8 players have 20BB each, and one player has 100BB, then everyone's playing a 20BB game, until someone doubles up. One player has a deep stack, but he's not playing a deep stack.

Cash game =/= tournament

Laugh Out Loud. Seriously.

This biggest no-limit hold 'em myth: big stacks can "bully" the table.

uh... so many players out there at NL100 and below suck so bad, and clearly have taken no time to learn the game it's hard for me to believe that the fish would just go out of their way to learn how to short stack.

I mean is a 32/4/1.25 really going to suddenly say 'hey, i've been playing poker on the internet for three months without a clue or reading even the most basic strategy- but i'm going to take a huge amount of energy to learn an unexploitable SS strategy similar to the most mindnumbing aspects of SNG poker'

Alternatively, will a bunch of shortstacks really be more of a buzzkill to the fish than the now 24-tabling nitswarm on pokerstars now?

Or is it more likely that some will read a SS strategy thread, and missapply it badly and exploitably?

And BTW- GOOD short stack poker is hard to learn. I think endgame SNG strategy is the closest thing to it in terms of math and precision needed to turn a profit against players with a clue.

SS poker is easy to play, and I lol'd at the person wondering if proper SS play can profit, 2+/100. I played a 10K hand session at 2/4nl on stars and was easily greater than 2+/100 and ran bad during the time. I could write the strategy on the back of a business card but only a decent player could utilize it. I beg of MT2R. please go no further with this, But I would have no problem with him coaching people privately for a typical coaching rate. It would def make the games less profitable if more people were "Correctly" shortstacking. I have no problem with the mass of idiots that attempt to SS now and are unsuccessful.

I will take bets for any amount that I can profitably SS the 2/4 NL games on stars for any where between 10K-100K hands. and be greater than 2BB/100

nice, I thought you left the forums never to post again? When I say that I wouldn't mind playing all short stacks is because I think I am +ev vs their strat, after seeing how they play and reading posts here. You aren't as such bullying them but I would steal ruthlessly from them and limit their FE.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and MT2R posting information will destroy the game, but the game will eventually evolve anyway. A short stacker replacing a rock really doesnt make much difference in the greater scheme of things.

You're basically just claiming that you play better short stack poker than any other possible short stack strategy. That just isn't possible - best case against a bunch of short stackers playing near optimally is you can play the same as strategy.

If you steal ruthlessly you're going to be raising lots of marginal (or worse) hands. To limit their Fold Equity, you're going to be calling shoves with these marginal hands? You can't do both.

If you play great shortstack strategy against 8 other great shortstacks, you're all going to lose rather substantially to the rake.

I doubt you could do it over 100K hands, but not strongly enough to bet on it. If you did, it would be because you're better at deep stacking than your opponents, though.

ok, I guess I'm probably a tad over confident with dealing with short stacks as I probably haven't played any great ones, limp folding is not smart. But what your saying also proves my point, if this thread has as much impact as some people are worried that it will, it will end up with SSing being non viable. Pokers dynamic is always changing and as one strategy becomes popular a counter strategy will be more profitable. The people that are worried about change should embrace it, it gives you a chance to learn more about the game and to exploit strategies.

@Pokerboy, sorry I reread my post and it sounded a bit harsh, you were one of the first posters that I read when I originally joined these forums. So yea I wasn't trying to piss you off or anything but I was actually wondering what happened to you (:

The reason that shortstackers are so secretive is that the strategy relies on a limited set of calculations for a relatively narrow set of situations, and lends itself to fairly mechanical play. The calculations are simple but non-obvious enough to the typical player that their exposure lends the strategy to easy implementation and exploitation. For shortstacking, once you learn to play it or counter, there's really not a lot you can do wrong.

Compare this to strategy discussion about full stack NLH, of which there is an overabundance available to any player who chooses to seek it. The situations and factors in NLH are so diverse and nebulous that exposure of 'secrets' is relatively safe since most players do not have the intelligence, judgement, or discipline to apply what they learn, if they bother to learn it all.

There's really no big "secret" to shortstacking that someone with the willingness to dink around with pokerstove and make a few empirical generalizations about ranges and betting patterns couldn't figure out with a week or two of work.

I've been shortstacking since before the Ed Miller book came out, though I started in live games. I realized early that as a novice I simply was not versed or experienced enough to play in a game where mistakes can be so devestating. I had to do a lot of work to determine how to balance not offering implied odds on the one hand, with playing enough to not lose money to the rake and blinds. I did fairly well and still do.

I come from a background in the humanities and was not a math guy at all when I started to figure all this out. Doing so though has made my knowledge of the math of poker much more sophisiticated and has helped me to hone my deepstack cash and tournaments skills, which I used to make a living, full and part-time, in Las Vegas and online for four years. So it's not true that a shortstacker has to be a bad player or one-dimensional.

It's certainly true that if you stop at shortstacking, you are stunting your growth as a player, but if you take it seriously and follow the math, it will lead you to conclusions about poker in general which lead you to a better all around game.

I am pretty much focused on shortstacking currently, because it allows me to multitable virtually without table limit, eke out a small profit, rake in tons of FPPs, all while watching TV, and certainly not working a hump job.

your name says it all. But here is some more deep down truth. If you truly understand all that you type here, you could be making much more playing a fullstack if your BR is not an issue.

I highlighted the part you seemed to miss.

If he's playing 10 tables at a time, then he's seeing 300 hands an hour. Doesn't take long to make Super Nova that way if poker is his full time job. And he's probably playing more than 10 tables at a time.

In all probability rake back & bonuses make up the majority of his income. The 2bb/hr just maintains his BR.

Oh, did I just give away one of the Illuminati's major "secrets?"

10tables shud b about 645hands/hr

ummmm....I do about twice that many hands per hour

JUICE

agreed--the game will evolve anyway
MDMA once posted well about how ss'ers are different from rocks
here is what he said:

LOL I remember playing live 2/5 with a $1500 after cleaning a couple donkeys out when some dude walks by and sits down and says"o we have a chip leader guys, hes gonna try and push us around now".... I find that the biggest struggle for me playing live is to keep my laughter to a minimum when people talk at the table =)

o yeah a couple points to be made.

1. i hate shortstackers but respect them
2. if the game gets over run we will basically have a table selection war where full stack players will imediately leave talbes with to many shortstackers eventually leading to tables full of shortstackers where they have no edgy over each other and the rake-rakeback will barely worth their time.
3. a sight could make 40bb min where only full stack players will play.
4. 6 max will become more popular becuase its much easier to hop around on tables and avoid shorstackers (thats what i do i hate 6 max ssers)


I do wanna say that ss'ers who currently make money... im sorry that you suck at poker but please dont ruin the good thing you have now by trying normalize and expand your "STYLE". It will only end in your demise. that is all.

ummmm....6max is better for shorting than fullring

But the blinds will eat you alive!

This makes my head explode. I cannot for the life of me figure out how you can SS 6-max profitably - them psychos won't be lying back and taking it, and surely they figure out the plays pretty damn quick.... Or I guess it could be such that, EVEN IF THEY KNEW YOUR PLAYS/RANGES, THEY STILL COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? Am I getting warm?


I think I'm focussed way too much on a Miller-type approach, when in fact there's some sort of optimal/game-theory approach.

Really? I would think that, with the blinds coming around so frequently, it would eat up your winnings.

Hmm... Let's see... What would make MT2R say that shorting at 6-max is more profitable...

Shortstacking is a game of hand range vs hand range and denying implied odds. Full stack 6-max is all about position and aggression. Loose & aggressive opponents play a wider range of hands. The shortie, then, could open up his range and still have an equity advantage. (I guess this is where Pokerstove comes in handy.)

Plus, the shortie doesn't fear aggression. When he enters a pot, he intends to get all in. 3-bet him pre-flop? He just shoves. Re-raise his c-bet? He just shoves. You can't "play chicken" with him.

Interesting. I've always told people in the Beginner forum to short stack at FR. I'll have to tell them to go annoy the 6-max players from now on.

Personally, I find the 6-max snobs far more annoying than short stackers. They deserve more shorties at their tables, IMO.

So, what are likely ranges, broken down by position, for 6-max players to be raising with? From there, it shouldn't be too hard to use Poker Stove and come up with a range of hands that has positive all-in equity.

Here's a little jump off point for the people who are arsed to do the math - I have a buddy who's a full time 6-max pro and has his own blog/strategy site. He wrote this cool article a few months ago:

Pillaging Short-Handed 6-max No Limit

If we use his starting hand ranges, then what are some positive equity hand ranges to play back with?