help needed -- buying in for less than max....

[fuzzyD 0]

Love hearing the likes of Dr. Zebra come in and display their arrogance.Heartwarming.I never said I was good.Doesn't it make sense to simplify your postflop play if that is your weakness?Haven't read the link yet aseem, going to now....I appreciate those who are sincere in their discussion and assistance.Dr. Zebra -- whatever.....i bet, then layed down set of 3s to two big raises at tight table with a rainbow flop and the showdown showed a set of 7s.If that's a terrible play, I guess I'm sunk.Note:played the "big stack" ($50, lol) and FIRST HAND flopped nut flush vs. J high flush and got it all in....funny.

[fuzzyD 0]

okay....aseem, that was a good read, even if the ensuing discussion degenerated into pablum.I understand it a bit better now, and I understand Royal_Tour's position (and frustration, my word...) as well. I think it is pretty much as I thought. If you're a good player, you're better off with a big stack.He pretty much hit it on the head. I wouldn't argue that it is BETTER to have a short stack, IF you are a good player to begin with....and while I don't think I'm just nutbarring and going all in all the time, there is no doubt the post-flop play is restricted. Since post-flop play is not my strong suit, this has probably been a reasonable short-term strategy for me.Now....the bigger picture....how does one develop better post-flop play?This is where I've been losing out, even though I have been somewhat profitable as the short stack (actually mid-stack, as there are plenty of $10 and $20 buy ins).Is my post-flop play good? No.Is it improving? Probably not much, as I'm playing short=stacked.In order to develop as a player, I now believe it is imperative that I drop down to whatever level is comfortable for me and play the full buy-in (I play almost exclusively NL cash games) in order to develop my post-flop play.Also have some reading to do, and I thank you all for your assistance -- I know it must be frustrating for some of you at times, but your assistance really is appreciated.

[akishore 0]

in all honesty, royal_tour was horrifically wrong on many, many points.anyway, TJ has already told you the best way to improve your postflop play. buy in for the same amount at lower stakes, so that you have a deeper stack. be comfortable with the idea of losing your whole stack on one hand.aseem

[Actuary 3]

just to add my two cents:Playing Short Stack Strategy is not Synonomous with Playing with a Short Stack.I'm embarrasssed that I felt I had to write that.editorially:Big stack play is more fun.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Don't forget to post hands you find interesting... win or lose.

[Sluggo 0]

These threads are becoming regular.Playing a shortstack can be just as profitiable if not more than playing a deepstack.Sigh.

[jayistheman 0]

I was always a rabid anti shortstack proponent. but tonight i picked up miller's book.the strategy def. seems to be pretty bulletproof. miller goes as far as saying that NL is flawed due to a short stack's distinct advantage..... i'm not a purist, i want to make money.... so its good enough for me. TJ, you are telling the OP to play in your image. you usually give good advice, but , with all due respect, not the case this time.OP, if you suck at postflop play, miller's strategy is for you. I am going to try it in the coming months once I get a workable NL 200 shortstack bankroll together.... (after rent and other expenses, that might take a while) and I will post my results. The strategy seems as though it is good for me due to the fact that I have taken an extended leave from the game...... My game is rusty, and I do not want to risk making mistakes in costly situations.aseem... are we happier now?

[psujohn 0]

I'm not a NL player. I don't know Miller's Short Stack Strategy well. But I beg to differ with this comment.

Also you ARE properly funded, you need x amt. of buyins. Not x amt. of buyins of the max buy in.

Isn't the whole point of the short stack strategy that you're going to push all-in a LOT more often? Doesn't it make sense that you'd need a LOT more buyins? I don't think buying in as a short stack reduces your bankroll requirements to be playing a particular level. There are reasons to choose to play a short stack. "I can't afford to lose the max buy-in" isn't one of them.

[brando 0]

I'm not a NL player. I don't know Miller's Short Stack Strategy well. But I beg to differ with this comment.

Also you ARE properly funded, you need x amt. of buyins. Not x amt. of buyins of the max buy in.

Isn't the whole point of the short stack strategy that you're going to push all-in a LOT more often? Doesn't it make sense that you'd need a LOT more buyins? I don't think buying in as a short stack reduces your bankroll requirements to be playing a particular level. There are reasons to choose to play a short stack. "I can't afford to lose the max buy-in" isn't one of them.

What it means, say you want to play $50NL and buy in for $10. Say your required bankroll is 30 buy ins you need $10x30, $300. You don't need $50x30, $1500.

[Bubba83 0]

Do whatever you are most comfortable with. Yes, I do believe to some degree that you lose potential money by not being able to push edges to their fullest extent post-flop. But if you're unable to be making the correct decisions to push post-flop, then you're costing yourself money by buying in for more. At the end of the day you want to get to the point of buying in for the max imo, when you can handle yourself on all streets vs all opponents in no limit it becomes a beautiful, and profitable, thing.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

sigh.aseem

[fuzzyD 0]

again, thanks to those who have helped.Sluggo, Psycho, et al. -- what is YOUR point? You just need to come in and sigh? Because you're so much better?Please. Why bother?I'm here to learn.

[jayistheman 0]

again, thanks to those who have helped.Sluggo, Psycho, et al. -- what is YOUR point? You just need to come in and sigh? Because you're so much better?Please. Why bother?I'm here to learn.

its not directed at you....they are sick of uninformed people blindly ripping on a strat that they hold dear.i used to rip on it, but after some research, it seems to be a pretty damn good way to play.if its ok for me to speak for them, that is.

[fuzzyD 0]

hahahaha,first of all, no one says short stack sucks. if your short stack game sucks, you suck. if your big stack game sucks you suck. thinking you will lose less money in the long run by buying in for less (somehow hiding your lack of skill) is absurd. negreanu has many posts about big stack vs. small stack. if you are the best player at your stakes, then you want to be big stacked so you win more--it's no easier.secondly, the hell you laid down set under set on the flop. if you did you're an idiot, you had 33 dollars!!!!!!!!

This is mainly what I'm talking about -- coming in to my thread and calling me an idiot? What's more, it's clear he didn't read my post -- I never said I was the best player at my stakes. Quite the contrary -- that's why I've been playing short stacked -- poor post-flop decisions.The name calling.......The holier than thou attitude......I'd like to see the moderators BAN this kind of useless garbage. Take out the trash and be done with it until he signs up under a different alias and starts name-calling again.....then take out the trash again.Most people who responded have been helpful. Others don't seem to have bothered to read the O post.

[Royal_Tour 0]

in all honesty, royal_tour was horrifically wrong on many, many points.anyway, TJ has already told you the best way to improve your postflop play. buy in for the same amount at lower stakes, so that you have a deeper stack. be comfortable with the idea of losing your whole stack on one hand.aseem

Aseem, Thanks for the Pstars sweater,But no offence, I love how you can possibly think "Your" short stack strategy, much like smash's strategy was so original.I love buying in for the short stack in games above my BR every so often just to get a taste.but playing a certain limit day in day out with short stack is just hurting your time and skill. (if you have any)You really havent given any reasons besides assumptions. Assuming people will call your pushes because you are the short stack. and B - it eliminates difficult decisions post flop.I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that you were new to the game, started a year ago or something??Its great that you've come this far, but short stack strategy should be left in the dust when you advance as a player.Thanks

[Royal_Tour 0]

These threads are becoming regular.Playing a shortstack can be just as profitiable if not more than playing a deepstack.Sigh.

Umm. correct me if i'm wrong but 2+2 = 4 while 4+4 = 8 right?seems to me the larger buy in is more profitable when comparing numbers.You're going to honestly say that the short stack gives you higher profit numbers?Are the cards better with a short stack? honestly, this is such a foolish statement. You know what else, if you pull the lever instead of pressing the button on a slot machine, you win more :roll: :roll:

[Royal_Tour 0]

Now....the bigger picture....how does one develop better post-flop play?This is where I've been losing out, even though I have been somewhat profitable as the short stack (actually mid-stack, as there are plenty of $10 and $20 buy ins).Is my post-flop play good? No.Is it improving? Probably not much, as I'm playing short=stacked.In order to develop as a player, I now believe it is imperative that I drop down to whatever level is comfortable for me and play the full buy-in (I play almost exclusively NL cash games) in order to develop my post-flop play.Also have some reading to do, and I thank you all for your assistance -- I know it must be frustrating for some of you at times, but your assistance really is appreciated.

I guess i should at least answer the OP in his own thread.Have you read any Harrington on Holdem books? I suggest both volume 1 and 2.Great books for NL strategy. we all know cash games work differently than tourneys, but by posting hands in strats you will get a lot of great feed back.You also want to play a lot of hands. There arent any physical tells online, however you can pick up on betting patterns, and can tag players. This comes in handy. and i say "is a must"Good luck

[fuzzyD 0]

There arent any physical tells online, however you can pick up on betting patterns, and can tag players. This comes in handy. and i say "is a must"Good luck

I think I've been "tagged," lol.....there are at least a couple of players who seem to "have my number." Of course, it could just be that they are better than I am. It would be interesting to read others' notes.I do attach brief notes to players, as I often find myself playing against familiar names. Most of the weak players are very tight, with the odd absolute maniac thrown in. It's easy to fold when facing the weak tight raise, and easy enough to beat down the maniac. There are other names who I would LOVE to track down, but they don't seem to be around anymore. Go figure.This is going to help explain my ignorance, but I haven't read ANY poker books yet. As I said, my main focus (apologies to the poker purists) is NLHE cash games at microlimits ($.50/$1.00). It has been difficult to decide WHICH books to read. Harrington sounds good, but isn't it focused on tournament play?A trip to the bookstore is in order, for sure. I'm guessing I should probably search the archives for recommended books.Thanks guys.Hoping to tune up my game to take advantage of the 'big stack."

[Royal_Tour 0]

Yes, it is geared for tournament play, however reading and learning strong NL tourney play will help your cash game play. The HU section is very good and can easily be applied in a cash game situation, ex: if you raise preflop and face 1 opponent, etc.... Also position poker does apply in cash games, much like tournaments.what is the min, and max buy in for the limits you play?

[fuzzyD 0]

For a long time, I played $.25/$.50 NLHE with a $5.00 min. buy in and $50 max -- I would generally buy in for 20 or 25.Lately, I've been playing $.50/$1.00 NLHE with a $10 min and $100 max. I've been buying in for 30 or 40.Both have gone reasonably well -- somewhat profitable....usually just staying afloat and hitting an occasional big hand. As I said, it's easy to know when to fold vs. the tighties, yet there always seems to be someone to pay off the big hands.I'm the first to admit that I am poor post-flop. I'm fine as long as I bet and they fold......lol. Otherwise, it gets complicated. Don't want to get pushed around....don't want to bluff away my stack.......don't want to just give up the betting when getting called....etc.....seems like I do fine for the most part but inevitably get the worst of a big hand when I play the big stack.

[Royal_Tour 0]

For a long time, I played $.25/$.50 NLHE with a $5.00 min. buy in and $50 max -- I would generally buy in for 20 or 25.Lately, I've been playing $.50/$1.00 NLHE with a $10 min and $100 max. I've been buying in for 30 or 40.Both have gone reasonably well -- somewhat profitable....usually just staying afloat and hitting an occasional big hand. As I said, it's easy to know when to fold vs. the tighties, yet there always seems to be someone to pay off the big hands.I'm the first to admit that I am poor post-flop. I'm fine as long as I bet and they fold......lol. Otherwise, it gets complicated. Don't want to get pushed around....don't want to bluff away my stack.......don't want to just give up the betting when getting called....etc.....seems like I do fine for the most part but inevitably get the worst of a big hand when I play the big stack.

I used to (and stilll do) play 100 nl max often with blinds .5/1.00 I used to bas e my buy-in on the number of players, and the avg pot size.Most of the time it was 50 that i baught in for. Sorta short stacked.I also play a lot of 200NL max with blinds at 1/2 and i normally buy in anywhere around the 100 mark, but this is also depending on who is at the table etc...In Vegas i played a 1/3 NL No max buy-in, and baught in for 300 because it was a brand new table that just opend and a couple of the players had baught in for large stacks. actually DCsports sat beside me at that table with 300 also and we both walked out of there with almost triple our buy-in. Had we baught in for the short stack, it wouldnt have been nearly as profitable.

[brando 0]

For a long time, I played $.25/$.50 NLHE with a $5.00 min. buy in and $50 max -- I would generally buy in for 20 or 25.Lately, I've been playing $.50/$1.00 NLHE with a $10 min and $100 max. I've been buying in for 30 or 40.Both have gone reasonably well -- somewhat profitable....usually just staying afloat and hitting an occasional big hand. As I said, it's easy to know when to fold vs. the tighties, yet there always seems to be someone to pay off the big hands.I'm the first to admit that I am poor post-flop. I'm fine as long as I bet and they fold......lol. Otherwise, it gets complicated. Don't want to get pushed around....don't want to bluff away my stack.......don't want to just give up the betting when getting called....etc.....seems like I do fine for the most part but inevitably get the worst of a big hand when I play the big stack.

I used to (and stilll do) play 100 nl max often with blinds .5/1.00 I used to bas e my buy-in on the number of players, and the avg pot size.Most of the time it was 50 that i baught in for. Sorta short stacked.I also play a lot of 200NL max with blinds at 1/2 and i normally buy in anywhere around the 100 mark, but this is also depending on who is at the table etc...In Vegas i played a 1/3 NL No max buy-in, and baught in for 300 because it was a brand new table that just opend and a couple of the players had baught in for large stacks. actually DCsports sat beside me at that table with 300 also and we both walked out of there with almost triple our buy-in. Had we baught in for the short stack, it wouldnt have been nearly as profitable.

ha ha, what a results based cheap shot.

[Royal_Tour 0]

ha ha, what a results based cheap shot

[Chief 0]

Had we baught in for the short stack, it wouldnt have been nearly as profitable.

Why playing shortstack is profitable: playing short stack (~15BB -- buying in for 50 BB isn't short stacked in the sense of this methodology) enables you to take advantage of the lack of implied odds the big stacks are getting when they call your preflop raises. Post flop play is also simplified.It is a different strategy altogether from big stack strategy. It isn't more or less profitable, it is just another means to get at your opponent's stacks.You also risk less. So while you did show a profit for the 300 initially invested, you can also get stacked for 100BB versus getting stacked for 15BB....You mentioned you sat down at a brand new table that opened.How read dependant were the plays you were making really, having never played these people before seeing appx 20 hands per hour? It would be fair to say you were playing the cards more, no? The shortstack strategy is much less read dependent than normal stack. It's also better suited for situations when you aren't practicing any table selection at all.gl, hfChief

[Royal_Tour 0]

Had we baught in for the short stack, it wouldnt have been nearly as profitable.

Why playing shortstack is profitable: playing short stack (~15BB -- buying in for 50 BB isn't short stacked in the sense of this methodology) enables you to take advantage of the lack of implied odds the big stacks are getting when they call your preflop raises. Post flop play is also simplified.It is a different strategy altogether from big stack strategy. It isn't more or less profitable, it is just another means to get at your opponent's stacks.You also risk less. So while you did show a profit for the 300 initially invested, you can also get stacked for 100BB versus getting stacked for 15BB....You mentioned you sat down at a brand new table that opened.How read dependant were the plays you were making really, having never played these people before seeing appx 20 hands per hour? It would be fair to say you were playing the cards more, no? The shortstack strategy is much less read dependent than normal stack. It's also better suited for situations when you aren't practicing any table selection at all.gl, hfChief

Not exactly sure what the point of this post is. These points have been covered.Also 50BB is infact short stack. Some sites wont even allow a buy-in less than 50x the BB for the selected limits.It sounds like you are trying to point out that my winnings were card dependent without any real reads on opponents making it a perfect short stack example?You sir are Bang on. I hit Jacks full vs. a player who hit the nut flush. This was a huge win considering he was all in on river and i had enough to cover him.was i lucky to hit the boat? Yes, was I lucky that i baught in for more than min? No, it was a higher investment for larger return on made hands.