an *objective* look at shortstack strategy

[Sluggo 0]

Regardless of beliefs on the topic, I recommend that everyone play a shortstack strategy at least once. When you do, it gives you such a greater understanding of implied odds and you'll always remember to pay attention to both your and your opponent's stack sizes when you make critical decisions in the future.Royal_Tour, would you mind answering any of my questions or addressing any (supposedly) incorrect statements I've made with an explanation of where I erred in my judgment? I'm really looking forward to completing the holes in my understanding.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Regardless of beliefs on the topic, I recommend that everyone play a shortstack strategy at least once. When you do, it gives you such a greater understanding of implied odds and you'll always remember to pay attention to both your and your opponent's stack sizes when you make critical decisions in the future.Royal_Tour, would you mind answering any of my questions or addressing any (supposedly) incorrect statements I've made with an explanation of where I erred in my judgment? I'm really looking forward to completing the holes in my understanding.

dude.You keep asking why buying in for the "ante" isnt +EV. i have no idea what you are trying to prove.I told u already, we are discussing NL cash games. if u want to talk about stud , or tournament play, thats apples and oranges.

[Royal_Tour 0]

U need the hands, and u need people to call.

Isn't that true even if you have a big stack though? I forget who, but the old saying "I can beat pros with any cards, but I need good cards to beat fish" is true. I guess if you're at a table of all pros, you don't need the cards, but then you probably aren't too profitable at those tables anyway.

No. when i say u need the hands and u need the calls. its because at a table with 1,2 blinds and you have 50.00 u arent going to be able to last very long paying blinds, and or min. raises to see hands that could turn profitable if they hit.do you understand that when you are at 30.00 after paying for blinds and hands that didnt complete, if you double ur only 10.00 above ur original buy in.

That's why this strategy has all-in preflop as one of the more common moves. I really think you have a misrepresentation of how this strat works. It's not a bunch of limping with pp trying to flop a set. It's a lot more aggressive than that.

Ya, i'd agree with you if the OP used examples for all in pre flop plays.Instead it is a post flop elimination. not pre flop strategy. meaning you dont push until after the flop. (unless AA, KK)

[akishore 0]

i have been refraining from commenting in this thread for a long time, and will continue to refrain for a long time.however, i just want to add that a hugely important point that sluggo is repeatedly trying to add is being missed.if you buy in for the ante, you will be all-in on any hand you play before the cards are dealt. what does this mean?at a table of 10 players, you are ALWAYS getting exactly 9-to-1 on your money. since your winning chances will average out to be exactly 9-to-1 against winning, this seems to be 0 EV, or neutral EV.but, think about this--when other players go through betting rounds while you're all-in, some players will fold. this increases your winning chances on many hands to better than 9-to-1 against. yet, the whole time, you are always getting 9-to-1 on your money.thus, buying in for the ante can NEVER be -EV. in practically all games (where people can still bet after you are all-in), buying in for the ante will be +EV.it's not hard to see how buying in shortstacked, assuming you play optimally, will be +EV.aseem

[Sluggo 0]

Ya, i'd agree with you if the OP used examples for all in pre flop plays. Instead it is a post flop elimination. not pre flop strategy. meaning you dont push until after the flop. (unless AA, KK)Many shortstack strategies involve becoming pot commited pre-flop. This is essentially all-in. By only giving 0.3:1 on the flop, it is difficult to drive out other hands. If people do fold, it is often incorrect and ends up netting you even more EV.

[JaysonWeber 0]

Okay... Note.I have no read the original post in here, or any posts following the original post. This is why.Okay I realize that this is a probobly an interesting thread, w/ a lot of people spending a lot of time on researching for there answers etc...This is my take...Who cares about shortstack strategy? Honestly, think about it... When do you want to play in this situation. I think that this post should merit this much discussion... That's fine. But I think more importantly, we should be discussing Deep Stack! Deep Stacked No-Limit Hold'em is 10x as complex at Short-Stack, and requires much more knowledge to play correctly.Don't be hollering, I know you guys are doing a lot here but I would LOVE to have something like this w/ Deep Stack strategy... as it is much more informative.

[princeof56k 0]

if you buy in for the ante, you will be all-in on any hand you play before the cards are dealt. what does this mean?at a table of 10 players, you are ALWAYS getting exactly 9-to-1 on your money. since your winning chances will average out to be exactly 9-to-1 against winning, this seems to be 0 EV, or neutral EV.but, think about this--when other players go through betting rounds while you're all-in, some players will fold. this increases your winning chances on many hands to better than 9-to-1 against. yet, the whole time, you are always getting 9-to-1 on your money.thus, buying in for the ante can NEVER be -EV. in practically all games (where people can still bet after you are all-in), buying in for the ante will be +EV.it's not hard to see how buying in shortstacked, assuming you play optimally, will be +EV.aseem

I've seen people try a similar strategy at the micro limit holdem tables where there the min buy in is one small bet. They find the loosest preflop table they can find, buy in for 25 cents, make sure they arent in the blinds, and let fate run its course. Absolutely no thought process involved. I'm not sure if they're making any money doing this due to the rake, but I'll bet the variance is low.It might be interesting to make a bot that would do this and see how it does over the long term.So if you are interested in trying this strategy, just go to the micro limit tables. You will probably be surprised at what you'll find.

[Sluggo 0]

I think that this post should merit this much discussion... That's fine. But I think more importantly, we should be discussing Deep Stack! Deep Stacked No-Limit Hold'em is 10x as complex at Short-Stack, and requires much more knowledge to play correctly. I wouldn't even know where to start with a deep stack thread. I suppose you'd play slightly more loosely, adding hands with better implied odds. Deep stack poker is much harder to plan for and quantify because your opponents can always choose to fold in the face of a large bet. With short stack poker, both sides are committed on the flop and if either folds, he is making a mistake.I think short stack poker's allure lies in its simplicity. By nature, humans are greedy and we always want to make an easy buck.It might be interesting to make a bot that would do this and see how it does over the long term. Apparently Ed Miller knows of a winning bot that plays a short stacked strategy. However, I'm sure it buys in for more than one blind. Although in an ante game, buying in for the ante can be +EV, I don't think it is in a blind game.

[doctorpaul 0]

A disclaimer first,I have read millers book about shortstacked nlhe many times, and am about to take the plunge to check it out. Thus, please excuse my ignorance.I read the first couple of pages, but got sick of it when the discussion of theoretical poker turned into a slanging match or tripe.Lets take the following scenario. .5/1 blinds, four players, incl me, see the flop. I go all in, either pre flop or on the flop. Playing against me are three seriously big stacked people named bill gates, warren buffet and kerry packer (who was australias richest man before dying a couple of days ago)Now comes a potential brilliant play, which costs me absolutely nothing, with a potential pot winner, which can only occur because I am short stacked.After me being all in, Gates raises, and Kerry packer folds, Warren buffet reraises, and gates goes all in. Now, If buffet folds, I must only beat only ONE hand, if he calls, I must beat two, and if everyone was short stacked, I would have to beat ALL three. (admittedly with the raising going on, it signifies strong hands)Thus, it is possible that OTHER players will be folding, either rightly or wrongly, due to ANOTHER players chips on the table, not mine.This seems not to have been mentioned before, so I thought I might throw my .00000000000000000000000000002 cent in.Strangely enough, it is not mentioned in millers book, and, i think, may be the cause of the comments previously about how bad it is to play nlhe poker with players who are both big and small stacked to act behind you. After all, if you normally raise with a pair or suited connector, yes, you may be correct against a big, deep stack, due to your implied odds, but will be fleeced by the all in bet from the short stack, as they are forcing you to fold, due to your lack of implied odds. Also, if you are called by a number of big stacks, you may have the pleasure of knocking each other out, partly for your own benefit, but also to the massive benefit of the small stack.Secondly, we all seem to agree that playing with a short stack is basically going all in pre or on the flop, and is basically tight, agressive, and pretty easy to do, (as opposed to the minute intricasies of deciding whether to call all in river bets of 100BB.) If it is that easy (on a relative basis), then one could multitable more online.Thus, it would be concievable to me (at just a guess, so please dont quote me on this), to multi table say 6 tables at once, instead of two or three. Thus, even if the ev for a single table is lower, it may be possible to play two or three times as many tables at once, leading to a higher $profit, with a lower ev.Any thoughts or comments much appreciated.

[doctorpaul 0]

Oh, and another thing about what to do if you double or treble up, why not just play the rest of you free (okay, pre paid) hands with an appropriate middle stacked strategy, cash out, and immediately cash in on another table for the minimum? This would allow you to continue to play all of your hands short stacked (assuming that is what you wish to accomplish)

[Sluggo 0]

Any thoughts or comments much appreciated.

Yep. It's all true.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Any thoughts or comments much appreciated.

Yep.

thats a myth, and zeejustin can prove it.16 tables at once playing limit holdem, which requires more thought than NL short stack strategy.

[Sluggo 0]

How is it a myth? Are you talking about playing against different sized stacks being harder?

[Royal_Tour 0]

How is it a myth? Are you talking about playing against different sized stacks being harder?

I'm talking about this strategy being higher +EV due to multiple tables

[Sluggo 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

[Chief 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

[Royal_Tour 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

Yes, a higher +EV for playing this way, but not vs the max at same amount of tables. you're too stubborn to realise this "strategy" if you can call it that will never be a higher +EV than max buy in

[Chief 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

Yes, a higher +EV for playing this way, but not vs the max at same amount of tables.

More so than the max-buyin normal strategy at the same amount of tables.You can ten-table or probably even 15-table short stack strategy pretty effectively. You cannot do this buying in for the normal amount, because post flop play is complicated and with each normal buyin table you play you sacrifice more EV.Try 15 tabling short stack strategy and 15 tabling normal buyin NL and let me know what results that yields.

[Royal_Tour 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

Yes, a higher +EV for playing this way, but not vs the max at same amount of tables.

More so than the max-buyin normal strategy at the same amount of tables.You can ten-table or probably even 15-table short stack strategy pretty effectively. You cannot do this buying in for the normal amount, because post flop play is complicated and with each normal buyin table you play you sacrifice more EV.Try 15 tabling short stack strategy and 15 tabling normal buyin NL and let me know what results that yields.

try and re-read the post i made with zeejustin's name.thanks

[Sluggo 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

Yes, a higher +EV for playing this way, but not vs the max at same amount of tables. you're too stubborn to realise this "strategy" if you can call it that will never be a higher +EV than max buy in

Do you understand shortstack strategy?? Theoretically, if you have an edge, buying in for more will always result in more EV. However, the choice isn't between buying in for more or less. The choice is deciding what blinds to play at relative to what your bankroll can afford.If you have a 100k bankroll, would you rather play with the blinds at $.01/$.02 or $100/$200? The answer is at $100/$200 even though you'll being buying in with a shorter stack.

[Royal_Tour 0]

This strategy has more EV with more tables.

Yes, a higher +EV for playing this way, but not vs the max at same amount of tables. you're too stubborn to realise this "strategy" if you can call it that will never be a higher +EV than max buy in

Do you understand shortstack strategy?? Theoretically, if you have an edge, buying in for more will always result in more EV. However, the choice isn't between buying in for more or less. The choice is deciding what blinds to play at relative to what your bankroll can afford.If you have a 100k bankroll, would you rather play with the blinds at $.01/$.02 or $100/$200? The answer is at $100/$200 even though you'll being buying in with a shorter stack.

Of course i understand short stack strategy, which is why i continue to argue it.Please use a comparison which makes sense. Lets say you have a 1k bankroll. YOu can play .25/.50 with a 50 max buy in. or you can play 2/4 with a 50 min buy in. (which isnt the case on every site, some of the ones i play would have a 100 min buy in for 2/4)Now you can see roughly 8 rotations worth of blinds at 2/4 probably in the range of 45 minutes when at a cash game. (full ring)But you can see 66 rotations at the .25/.50 table, which is easily a few hours, and over 600 hands at a full tableI dont play "smash strategy" because i'm more comfortable post flop, opposed to preflop with a prayer.

[Sluggo 0]

Of course i understand short stack strategy, which is why i continue to argue it.Please use a comparison which makes sense. Lets say you have a 1k bankroll. YOu can play .25/.50 with a 50 max buy in. or you can play 2/4 with a 50 min buy in. (which isnt the case on every site, some of the ones i play would have a 100 min buy in for 2/4)Now you can see roughly 8 rotations worth of blinds at 2/4 probably in the range of 45 minutes when at a cash game. (full ring)But you can see 66 rotations at the .25/.50 table, which is easily  a few hours, and over 600 hands at a full tableI dont play "smash strategy" because i'm more comfortable post flop, opposed to preflop with a prayer.

I'm not sure where to begin...The limiting factor is time, not the number of hands you can play before blinding out. At the $2/$4 table, you'll see roughly one hand per minute. At the $0.25/$0.50 table, you'll see roughly one hand per minute. How does the amount of time you can go before blinding out have any relevance??? Of course having a deeper stack will allow you to play more hands before running out of money. Even if it were meaningful, it wouldn't matter because of symmetry: your opponents face the same problem.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Of course i understand short stack strategy, which is why i continue to argue it.Please use a comparison which makes sense. Lets say you have a 1k bankroll. YOu can play .25/.50 with a 50 max buy in. or you can play 2/4 with a 50 min buy in. (which isnt the case on every site, some of the ones i play would have a 100 min buy in for 2/4)Now you can see roughly 8 rotations worth of blinds at 2/4 probably in the range of 45 minutes when at a cash game. (full ring)But you can see 66 rotations at the .25/.50 table, which is easily  a few hours, and over 600 hands at a full tableI dont play "smash strategy" because i'm more comfortable post flop, opposed to preflop with a prayer.

I'm not sure where to begin...The limiting factor is time, not the number of hands you can play before blinding out. At the $2/$4 table, you'll see roughly one hand per minute. At the $0.25/$0.50 table, you'll see roughly one hand per minute. How does the amount of time you can go before blinding out have any relevance??? Of course having a deeper stack will allow you to play more hands before running out of money. Even if it were meaningful, it wouldn't matter because of symmetry: your opponents face the same problem.

Uhh, Sluggo, we can begin right here...The time is a factor in the same sense as variance weighs in on good players. (time is a estimate for hands played. Which is a huge factor when having to decide wether to re-load, or top up the stack at the higher limits. which the brings into question, "can your BR afford this?") It wont take long to go broke if you dont have the cards running your way. But seeing a lot of hands 100 + + etc.. will help to eliminate this issue, much like it does over time for winning players who have losing sessions to variance. I cant even tell you how many times i'm a "fold-station" in a NL cash game.

[iggymcfly 0]

Royal Tour, I agree with you about buying in for the max being best, as I usually do that myself. However, you're missing one key point that shows how buying in short can be +EV in comparison to coming in for a full buy-in.The point every one is trying to make is that a deep-stacked player will play more speculative hands than are profitable for a short stack in order to maximize his edge against other deep-stacked players. A short-stacked player can take advantage of this by raising the deep-stacked player preflop when he won't have implied odds to play against the short stack, even though he would against another deep stacked player. Thus, the short stack has an unfair advantage against the big stack, as he is allowed to pick up dead money from small pairs and suited connectors without ever having to risk getting into a tough situation postflop.Now in real life, it's probably higher EV for a good player to buy in for the max in order to maximize his edge against players who play poorly postflop. However, theoretically, if you were going against players who played just as well as you postflop, you could gain an edge in EV, merely by keeping a short stack and being able to exploit the other players.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Royal Tour, I agree with you about buying in for the max being best, as I usually do that myself. However, you're missing one key point that shows how buying in short can be +EV in comparison to coming in for a full buy-in.The point every one is trying to make is that a deep-stacked player will play more speculative hands than are profitable for a short stack in order to maximize his edge against other deep-stacked players.  A short-stacked player can take advantage of this by raising the deep-stacked player preflop when he won't have implied odds to play against the short stack, even though he would against another deep stacked player. Thus, the short stack has an unfair advantage against the big stack, as he is allowed to pick up dead money from small pairs and suited connectors without ever having to risk getting into a tough situation postflop.Now in real life, it's probably higher EV for a good player to buy in for the max in order to maximize his edge against players who play poorly postflop. However, theoretically, if you were going against players who played just as well as you postflop, you could gain an edge in EV, merely by keeping a short stack and being able to exploit the other players.

No i understand all too well, which is the problem. I'm not trying to argue the fact of the idea behind it.I'm arguing the fact that anyone who posted with positive figures in mind, is not making their case clear.we have 1 side who says you can buy in for the same at higher limits, and others who say we eliminate implied odds from our opponents.In reference to EV expected value, we cant increase this number simply because we eliminated implied odds from an opponent looking to play 6,7 suited vs our raise.However, we can increase the EV if we jump up in limits, BUT!, (and thats where my issue is), how can you prove this idea when you see less hands with the starting stack, and open the door to all kinds of problems and questions involving re-loading, or dry spans, variance, questionable preflop raises creating your hand selection much tighter etc.....on a side note, perhaps the only reason i continue my argument is because i would be happy if instead of being praised as a +EV strategy, it was known as "beneficial, eliminating implied odds"