an *objective* look at shortstack strategy

[mrdannyg 274]

errr - not quite sure what point you're trying to make. you seem to state rhetorically the problem we're dealing with, i.e. whether its better to buy-in fully (500 at 500) or short (500 at 1000).i think your statement "dimishes the magnitude of EV, which is totally irrelevant" is incorrect. the magnitude of EV is relevant."Using the minimum buy-in strategy allows you to play at higher limits safely, which increases the magnitude of your EV. "It seems to be logical that as limits increase, so does the skill of opponents, and your EV therefore decreases. So playing with, say $500 against better players who all have $1000 is worse than playing against slightly worse opponents who also have $500.While the shortstack strategy does have benefits, such as removing the implied odds of opponents calls, almost every (and possibly every) benefit assumes imperfect post-flop play by us.and i love that we're both business students and Aseem is some genius at MIT who probably sees right through our remedial arguments.Danielp.s. not that his ego needs any more stroking, but i think aseem is probably the smartest guy here.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Buying in for the minimum diminishes the magnitude of your EV, but it's totally irrelevant.Look at ROI, not EV.Using the minimum buy-in strategy allows you to play at higher limits safely, which increases the magnitude of your EV.Which is better:$500 NLHE buying in for $500or$1000 NLHE buying in for $500?Ignoring the utility of money, your EV is equal (higher at $1000 if players don't adapt perfectly).Aseem is the third-smartest player here; think before you type.

This pointless drivel is great.Soo.. you always just sum up the OP thread? Basically what some are saying is if you play NL in a ring game with the min buy in, what are u hoping to accomplish? double up? then u are at the full buy in, so now what?YOu cash out and leave?. A skilled player can turn the 1000 into 2000 without worrying about losing their entire stack on a all in push.I have done both. baught in for min stack. play tight aggressive, and double it. or buy in for max, play my regular NL game tight aggressive without pushing preflop and win large amount at that also.Both work well, but my idea is max buy in is a higher EV than min.

[Sluggo 0]

My only dispute is with the claim that short stack poker always has a lower EV (that is false).My question was meant to illustrate that the player buys in with the same amount regardless of the stakes. If we were debating buying in for $500 or $1000 in the $1000 NL game, $1000 would obviously be superior. However, buying in for the minimum at one game can be financially comparable to buying in for the maximum at another game.

[Petoria 0]

My only dispute is with the claim that short stack poker always has a lower EV (that is false).My question was meant to illustrate that the player buys in with the same amount regardless of the stakes. If we were debating buying in for $500 or $1000 in the $1000 NL game, $1000 would obviously be superior. However, buying in for the minimum at one game can be financially comparable to buying in for the maximum at another game.

Ok, you completely misunderstand what's going on, and if you truly understood the concept you would not even bring up this point.It's not about $$$$$, it's about BB's.Even if you're thinking about it the only other way that marginally makes sense, the above statement applies.Just leave it at that

[MrNiceGuy 0]

Just a thought to add -Sometimes, even when playing with a deep stack, you may find yourself in a short stack situation if some of your opponents are deep stacked, so it's good to recognize how lower implied odds should affect your early street play for these situations, even if you yourself have a deep stack.

[No_Neck 0]

Buying in in an uber aggressive $100 NL with $25 is EV + that is allgood luck.

[Sluggo 0]

Ok, you completely misunderstand what's going on, and if you truly understood the concept you would not even bring up this point.It's not about $$$$$, it's about BB's.Even if you're thinking about it the only other way that marginally makes sense, the above statement applies.Hi, fish.If poker is about BB's and not $$$$$, then why don't I play at the $.01/.02 tables? Pokertracker says my winrate (in bb) is highest there. Hmmm...OPTION 1: $x (100 bb) buying in for $x/5 (20 bb)OPTION 2: $5x (100 bb) buying in for $x (20 bb)OPTION 3: $x (100 bb) buying in for $x (100 bb)EV1 < EV2 assuming you're a winner (which from your post, I seriously doubt)EV2 can be > EV3Ev 3 can be > EV2good luck.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Ok. some of these last few posts are just ridiculous.Some of you are using EV as a term for "good thing". its expected value.Lets take it down to very simple terms here:when you buy into a 1 dollar big blind table with 50 bucks, and you double up u made 50 x the BB.if you buy in for 100.00 and double up you made 100 x the BB. simple math.U are not increasing anything with a short stack, except 1 thing. The possibilty that you will get a call on your push. But this is theory. Not guarantee. Which means its not "expected".Also if you are playing a super aggressive table, like some suggest, and some say the min buy in is + EV at super aggressive tables, that is wrong.With a short stack you are simply waiting for hands, and eliminating any post flop strategy, You elimnate the risk of risking a large stack.However, if you apply these same strategies to a max buy in. at a aggressive table, not only will you still have no problem getting callers, but your double up is now double what your min stack buy in double up would be.The only time a min buy in is considered higer expected value then a max buy in, is if you guarantee pre flop calls for your entire stack.Other than that, if you think waiting for AA.KK flopped sets, and then pushing is only acceptable with the min stack, then you need to re-examine your cash game play. The amount of money to be made with your monster hands with a large stack, will always be More than lower stacks. Its that simple. You Can Not guarantee better cards, or more value for ur chips with a min stack buy in.

[Petoria 0]

Ok, you completely misunderstand what's going on, and if you truly understood the concept you would not even bring up this point.It's not about $$$$$, it's about BB's.Even if you're thinking about it the only other way that marginally makes sense, the above statement applies.Hi, fish.If poker is about BB's and not $$$$$, then why don't I play at the $.01/.02 tables? Pokertracker says my winrate (in bb) is highest there. Hmmm...OPTION 1: $x (100 bb) buying in for $x/5 (20 bb)OPTION 2: $5x (100 bb) buying in for $x (20 bb)OPTION 3: $x (100 bb) buying in for $x (100 bb)EV1 < EV2 assuming you're a winner (which from your post, I seriously doubt)EV2 can be > EV3Ev 3 can be > EV2good luck.

Obviously you still misunderstand the concept. Poker is about winning BB's, no matter what table you're playing. Obviously it's better to choose the table that is going to win the most money, but I'm playing to win BB's. You do this to avoid looking at a table saying, "I have $150 on the table, that's a lot" then you end up playing too tight. It's better to say, "I have 25 BB's on the table" and just play your game.I'm just thinking in a way to avoid letting the amount of money I have on the table dictate my play.

[Petoria 0]

Ok. some of these last few posts are just ridiculous.Some of you are using EV as a term for "good thing".  its expected value.Lets take it down to very simple terms here:when you buy into a 1 dollar big blind table with 50 bucks, and you double up u made 50 x the BB.if you buy in for 100.00 and double up you made 100 x the BB. simple math.U are not increasing anything with a short stack, except 1 thing. The possibilty that you will get a call on your push. But this is theory. Not guarantee. Which means its not "expected".Also  if you are playing a super aggressive table, like some suggest, and some say the min buy in is + EV at super aggressive tables, that is wrong.With a short stack you are simply waiting for hands, and eliminating any post flop strategy, You elimnate the risk of risking a large stack.However, if you apply these same strategies to a max buy in. at a aggressive table, not only will you still have no problem getting callers, but your double up is now double what your min stack buy in double up would be.The only time a min buy in is considered higer expected value then a max buy in, is if you guarantee pre flop calls for your entire stack.Other than that, if you think waiting for AA.KK  flopped  sets, and then pushing is only acceptable with the min stack, then you need to re-examine your cash game play. The amount of money to be made with your monster hands with a large stack, will always be More than lower stacks. Its that simple. You Can Not guarantee better cards, or more value for ur chips with a min stack buy in.

Sounds like what Akishore is trying to say, I do agree that buying in max is better than min. Akishore is just exploring the results of playing short stack poker. While it can be +EV it is rarely more +EV. The only case being that a weak player makes more money with a short stack than he would with a big stack.The whole point is that you can take skill out of the game by buying in min.. I'm sure you agree with that.

[Sluggo 0]

Didn't anyone ever teach you to think?Poker is about winning money, not bbs. Expected value can be measured in both dollars and big blinds.Bb/100 is a concept used to optimize plays.$/hour is a concept used to maximize winnings.Obviously you still misunderstand the concept. Poker is about winning BB's, no matter what table you're playing. If poker is about winning bbs and not money, can you explain to me why a reasonably intelligent player such as Daniel Negreanu would play in a 4k/8k game with a winrate of .5 bb/100 rather than a 4/8 game with 5 bb/100? Shouldn't he play in the second game to maximize his bb/100?I'm just thinking in a way to avoid letting the amount of money I have on the table dictate my play.You should always know players' stack sizes, especially your own. Implied odds and future betting are important concepts to learn before moving off to real money sites.when you buy into a 1 dollar big blind table with 50 bucks, and you double up u made 50 x the BB. if you buy in for 100.00 and double up you made 100 x the BB. simple math. when you buy into a 1 dollar big blind table with 100 bucks, and you double up, you made $100.if you buy into a 5 dollar big blind table for 100.00 and double up you made $100. simple math

[Royal_Tour 0]

when you buy into a 1 dollar big blind table with 100 bucks, and you double up, you made $100.if you buy into a 5 dollar big blind table for 100.00 and double up you made $100. simple mathYou.. STOP POSTING IN STRAT!you are stupid.at a 5.00 BB NL table, your max buy in will run close to 500.00 which means buy in for the max, and double up. not buy in for 100.00 at a 5.00 table.slow down, think about things before you reply.

[Sluggo 0]

Why buy in for the max at a $500 table when you can buy in shortstacked at a $2000 table?Let me give you an example irrelevant to the question above:You and I play a heads up game of $0.50/$1 NLHE. You sit down with $1,000,000. Is it worse for me if I buy in with less than $1,000,000? Is it worse for me if I buy in with only $1 (1 bb)? No, because the implied odds afforded to both players are limited by the smaller stack. Even when I buy in for $1, it doesn't matter that you have more money. Effectively, we each have $1. $1 is the most I can lose and the most you can win.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Why buy in for the max at a $500 table when you can buy in shortstacked at a $2000 table?Let me give you an example irrelevant to the question above:You and I play a heads up game of $0.50/$1 NLHE. You sit down with $1,000,000.  Is it worse for me if I buy in with less than $1,000,000?  Is it worse for me if I buy in with only $1 (1 bb)?  No, because the implied odds afforded to both players are limited by the smaller stack. Even when I buy in for $1, it doesn't matter that you have more money. Effectively, we each have $1. $1 is the most I can lose and the most you can win.

comparing HU with full ring is apples and oranges.If you cant understand that, stop arguing, you are out of your boundaries

[josh_x 0]

Doesn't sluggo (and aseem in posting this) just basically mean that with the hundred dollars (or whatever) you have to play with, you can play smaller stakes where you may make more bb's, or play higher stakes where you make less bb's - still risking the same $100 - and play shortstacked on the higher stakes or bigstacked on the higher stakes table. If you learn to play the shortstack well then you can minimize this EV gap between short and big stacked play, meaning you will be able to make closer to as much BB's at either table. The higher the stakes the more the BB/100 hands equates to in $/hour, which is after all what matters most.Upon reading the OP i wondered as i was reading situation 1 whether situation 2 would be the same stakes with less buy-in, or higher stakes with the same buy-in. I think there is a reason why aseem choose higher stakes to play with that $100. You may make less BB/100 but by risking the same a mount of money, with proper shortstack play you can make more $/hour.

[kennyboy 0]

I guess it comes down to whom you believe: Royal....or Ed Miller and Barry Greenstein.No offense to a fellow Canuck with great taste in women, but I'll take the latter.

[Petoria 0]

Ok, people stop being idiots. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO PLAY PROFITABLE POKER. Anyone saying that either Aseem or Royal is wrong is misinformed, there are situations when each approach is profitable, more often than not Royal's way is the most profitable. Again, though, players with less skill make more money when buying in for less than the max. Think about it, and try to come up with a good argument for why I'm wrong,

[Royal_Tour 0]

I guess it comes down to whom you believe: Royal....or Ed Miller and Barry Greenstein.No offense to a fellow Canuck with great taste in women, but I'll take the latter.

this could be because u are not a very good player, and this technique along with some "smash" strat can be more profitable for you, opposed to the full buy in.But to say it is The best thing to do is just ludacris

[CobaltBlue 662]

But to say it is The best thing to do is just ludacris

:!: :evil: 'ludicrous', people! 'ludicrous'! Damn that freakin' rapper.

[custom36 4]

But to say it is The best thing to do is just ludacris

:!: :evil: 'ludicrous', people! 'ludicrous'! Damn that freakin' rapper.

I got yelled at by a friend when I did that. I still can't spell the word right.

[Royal_Tour 0]

But to say it is The best thing to do is just ludacris

:!: :evil: 'ludicrous', people! 'ludicrous'! Damn that freakin' rapper.

wurd

[Sluggo 0]

Royal_Tour, you're a donk. Try giving reasons or examples next time you respond.Buying in shortstacked doesn't involve playing with or for less money; it means the blinds are higher.Let me give you an example: You and your eight clones sit down with $1,000,000 each. I, obviously a better player, sit down with $100,000. Now, what are the ideal blinds for me to play with? $.01/$.02 so my stack is deepest? Or perhaps $500/$1000 so I can take you money faster?comparing HU with full ring is apples and oranges. If you cant understand that, stop arguing, you are out of your boundariesBuying in with the shortstack is never +EV.Is it your contention that while headsup, the shortstack strategy is fine, but as soon as a third player joins the game it becomes impossible to win over the long haul?this could be because u are not a very good playerHow does kennyboy's skill have anything to with Ed Miller's and Barry Greenstein's skills?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Royal_Tour, you're a donk. Try giving reasons or examples next time you respond.Buying in shortstacked doesn't involve playing with or for less money; it means the blinds are higher.Let me give you an example: You and your eight clones sit down with $1,000,000 each. I, obviously a better player, sit down with $100,000. Now, what are the ideal blinds for me to play with? $.01/$.02 so my stack is deepest? Or perhaps $500/$1000 so I can take you money faster?comparing HU with full ring is apples and oranges. If you cant understand that, stop arguing, you are out of your boundariesBuying in with the shortstack is never +EV.Is it your contention that while headsup, the shortstack strategy is fine, but as soon as a third player joins the game it becomes impossible to win over the long haul?this could be because u are not a very good playerHow does kennyboy's skill have anything to with Ed Miller's and Barry Greenstein's skills?

You dont read do you. Do you realise that the OP is saying it is better for less skilled players.It is not + EV for someone who can dominate a NL ring game to buy in with the short stack, because over XXX amount of hands, buying in with the max would have made it a higher EV.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Let me give you an example: You and your eight clones sit down with $1,000,000 each. I, obviously a better player, sit down with $100,000. Now, what are the ideal blinds for me to play with? $.01/$.02 so my stack is deepest? Or perhaps $500/$1000 so I can take you money faster? If you are a much better player, it would be in your best interest to buy in with the max and wipe out my entire sit down.In your example you are playing with 100X the BB, that is fine. That is not short stacked you stupid fool.The example should be you sit with 25k and i sit with 50k. How many times do you plan to reload this if you go broke on 1 hand?.why is it +Ev to sit with 25K less than me? if you think you will take my full 50, it doesnt matter what you sit with.do you see what i'm saying. It is something to be considered for people with NO bankrole management, or people with lack of skill at higher limits.why?. because they can make bold moves when they have a strong pre flop hand.ex. push with AA or KK. and try to double up.If you think for a second that being short stacked is better than chip leader, you have little skill in post flop play, and rely entirely on the luck of your pockets.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Buying in shortstacked doesn't involve playing with or for less money; it means the blinds are higher. actually. yes. it doesn mean you are playing with less money.In a tournament situation, this is called having 1 move. all-in.