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

[CobaltBlue 662]

Royal, as Chief noted, it sounds like you were mostly buying in for medium stacks as opposed to short stacks. The whole point to short stack theory is that you're killing the implied odds of opponents who don't adjust for that fact. If I'm big stacked, my opponent can profitably call my raises with a very wide range of hands hoping to hit a flop and bust me.Now, I almost always buy in for the big stack. I enjoy the leverage and the increased profitability, and I feel that I'm somewhat competent post-flop. That said, I have occasionally been buying in for the minimum lately to work on my short stack strategy. (It was also a decent way to clear Absolute's bonuses while having a tiny roll.) As most advocates will note, it makes you more aware of relative stack sizes and implied odds.Say I'm a big stack w/ $100 at .5/1 and pick up 66 in MP and limp in. Let's say an LP short stack w/ $20 raises to $5 and it folds to me. It annoys the hell out of me, but I can't call there. If he had a bigger stack, I'd love to call there and try to flop a set, but he's destroyed my implied odds by having such a small stack. Granted, he's probably not aware that he's doing that, but it's an interesting tool that he's using nonetheless. I think it's a useful tool given certain game conditions.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Royal, as Chief noted, it sounds like you were mostly buying in for medium stacks as opposed to short stacks. The whole point to short stack theory is that you're killing the implied odds of opponents who don't adjust for that fact. If I'm big stacked, my opponent can profitably call my raises with a very wide range of hands hoping to hit a flop and bust me.Now, I almost always buy in for the big stack. I enjoy the leverage and the increased profitability, and I feel that I'm somewhat competent post-flop. That said, I have occasionally been buying in for the minimum lately to work on my short stack strategy. (It was also a decent way to clear Absolute's bonuses while having a tiny roll.) As most advocates will note, it makes you more aware of relative stack sizes and implied odds.Say I'm a big stack w/ $100 at .5/1 and pick up 66 in MP and limp in. Let's say an LP short stack w/ $20 raises to $5 and it folds to me. It annoys the hell out of me, but I can't call there. If he had a bigger stack, I'd love to call there and try to flop a set, but he's destroyed my implied odds by having such a small stack. Granted, he's probably not aware that he's doing that, but it's an interesting tool that he's using nonetheless. I think it's a useful tool given certain game conditions.

Yes, these exact points have been covered in the previous debate. buying in for 15.00 at .50/1.00 NL is almost a joke. of course you eliminate the implied odds for ur opponent but what exactly do you gain? My whole past argument was that there is too many variables with a micro stack.when do you push?, we all know AA isnt a guarantee even if its every 250 hands or so. Not too mention posting blinds after 3 rotations without a solid starting hand leaves you at 11.50 going 0 for 30 hands is very very common. do we re-load at this point back to 15.00?Some sites wont allow a buy-in for less than 50X the BB at NL.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

After sleeping on this thread for the weekend, I'd like to clarify my position.I think too often I reply to situations the way I know best... how I'd play it. I think my best game is deep stack cash game NL. That makes it somewhat predictable how I'd reply to a shortstack post.I agree with the points that shortstacks kill the implied odds of big stacks. I'm too used to using that as my OWN advantage as a big stack.I need to stop being used to that. I'm going to try to play some $25 NL tables as a shortstack now to see how that goes.

[Royal_Tour 0]

After sleeping on this thread for the weekend, I'd like to clarify my position.I think too often I reply to situations the way I know best... how I'd play it. I think my best game is deep stack cash game NL. That makes it somewhat predictable how I'd reply to a shortstack post.I agree with the points that shortstacks kill the implied odds of big stacks. I'm too used to using that as my OWN advantage as a big stack.I need to stop being used to that. I'm going to try to play some $25 NL tables as a shortstack now to see how that goes.

Tell u what TJBuy in for 15.00 at a .50/1.00 table play that way for a week and let me know how it goes. If you have poker tracker it would be great.I'd love to see if profit is made, and how much is made per hand and with what hands.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Tell u what TJ Buy in for 15.00 at a .50/1.00 table play that way for a week and let me know how it goes. If you have poker tracker it would be great. I'd love to see if profit is made, and how much is made per hand and with what hands.

I don't have pokertracker...But I think a big leak of mine on a money management side of things is that I don't keep good records. Not keeping good records leads to qualitative (not quantitative) assessment of my own play... and I think it leads to roller coaster rides that kills my game.I haven't come up with how I'm going to do this yet, because I'm at work, but I'm excited to be thinking about it.

[brando 0]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthre...252&page=0&vc=1http://megapotsofgold.blogspot.com/2005/07...o-ive-been.html

[Royal_Tour 0]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthre...252&page=0&vc=1http://megapotsofgold.blogspot.com/2005/07...o-ive-been.html

Thank you Brando. Very interesting stuff.Although i'm sure you are quite aware that the 2nd link is someone with 1600 - 2400 hands or so. haha which is the same amount True_Poker plays in a day. the amount i play in 2 sessions. Not near enough to even be considerd10k is a bit better, stil not enough, and i'd be interested to see his actual results rather than just a posting with claims.Unless i missed it? was there another section that he had actual history of his 10k?thanks man, I appreciate it

[brando 0]

yeah I know it's not a huge sample. It's fairly doubtful that someone has something like 20k or 30k hands using this strategy though, so I posted what I could find.*****Someone correct this if it's wrong*******Say our bankroll is 30 buyins (not max buy in, just what we buy in for)$1-$2 - We need $40 (our ss buy in) * 30 = $1200From the numbers given it seemed like 4PTBB/100 is attainable.4PTBB/100 = $16/100 handsSame BR requirement ($1200) we could get by playing$.25-$0.50 at full buy in. From what I understand 10PTBB/100 iscrushing that game so...10PTBB/100 = $10/100 hands*********************************************If all that's right and I *think* it is, our winrate is higher as a short stack. Our bankroll requirement is even less b/c 30 buyins at $0.25-$0.50 is $1500 as compared to $1200 for our ss.

[Royal_Tour 0]

yeah I know it's not a huge sample. It's fairly doubtful that someone has something like 20k or 30k hands using this strategy though, so I posted what I could find.*****Someone correct this if it's wrong*******Say our bankroll is 30 buyins (not max buy in, just what we buy in for)$1-$2 - We need $40 (our ss buy in) * 30 = $1200From the numbers given it seemed like 4PTBB/100 is attainable.4PTBB/100 = $16/100 handsSame BR requirement ($1200) we could get by playing$.25-$0.50 at full buy in. From what I understand 10PTBB/100 iscrushing that game so...10PTBB/100 = $10/100 hands*********************************************If all that's right and I *think* it is, our winrate is higher as a short stack. Our bankroll requirement is even less b/c 30 buyins at $0.25-$0.50 is $1500 as compared to $1200 for our ss.

Yes, this was covered in the other thread posted months ago,and is the main reason why i really want to see large samples from micro limit players, playing 2 or even 3 levels above their normal limits. And if player X who has baught in for the ss is winning 4PTBB/100 what is his win rate with larger buy-in? and is the 4PTBB sustainable? downswings are supposed to remain constant since the buy-in is constant between both examples, however we havent cleared up re-buy's as such when our stack becomes less than 10BB during the session at higher limits.Its perfect if player X is winning at these limits with a small BR, but actual facts of player X being a consistant winner over 100k hands playing 1/2 with 15xBB buy in, is still not present.

[brando 0]

I see what you're saying, the others who posted their win rate was something like 6 and 7 PTBB/100 so I decided to cut it down to 4 just to paint a picture. I don't know how we can exactly prove it over a 100k hands w/o a 100k hand sample....As for the rebuys those are already factored in their winrate by default on how PT calculates win rate, so that's not an issue.I think I was being really generous when I took it down to 4 and that proved the point. I believe the actual would be a bit higher. In the example I gave for the win rates to be completely equally you would only have to make 2.5BB/100 at the higher level, which seems very very possible.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I see what you're saying, the others who posted their win rate was something like 6 and 7 PTBB/100 so I decided to cut it down to 4 just to paint a picture. I don't know how we can exactly prove it over a 100k hands w/o a 100k hand sample....As for the rebuys those are already factored in their winrate by default on how PT calculates win rate, so that's not an issue.I think I was being really generous when I took it down to 4 and that proved the point. I believe the actual would be a bit higher. In the example I gave for the win rates to be completely equally you would only have to make 2.5BB/100 at the higher level, which seems very very possible.

Ok, so can we find out info about the rebuy?You say that PT factors rebuys into the win rate. Is there an average of rebuys per 100 hands? Obviously it is very possible for these players to have win rates of 6-7PTBB/100 with an average of 2 buyins/100, for example. which would then make the total buy in of 80.00 at the 1/2 table per your earlier example.some sessions might be 1 buy in, some might be 4 etc... and if thats the case, then our BR would need to increase and you then void the idea of jumping 2 - 3 levels

[brando 0]

This whole rebuy thing doesn't matter. PT takes your starting amt. for the hand and then adds/subtracts wins/losses. Then totals all that up and factors in the amt of hands played and gives a win rate.Also when you rebuy in a session that doesn't mean you need more buy ins for your bankroll, that's why you have a bankroll...

[brando 0]

Don't know if that made sense or not so I'll give a short versionHAND ----- AMT+/-1 ------- -12 ------- +23 ------- -14 ------- +105 ------- -3-----------------------5 ------- +77/5 = 1.4/hand1.4*100 = $140/100 handsSee rebuy/how much you have in your stack doesn't come in to the calculation of win rate.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Don't know if that made sense or not so I'll give a short versionHAND ----- AMT+/-1 ------- -12 ------- 23 ------- -14 ------- 105 ------- -3-----------------------5 +77/5 = 1.4/hand1.4*100 = $140/100 handsSee rebuy/how much you have in your stack doesn't come in to the calculation of win rate.

i follow you,, but to make this simple cuz i'm having trouble explaining itYou buy in for 40.00 into a 1/2 game. lose the 40 after 10 hands played. that means 0 profit so far,you are - 20BB in the hole. you re-buy, double up and are at 80.00 back to even par. You then win a bit from that 80 before ending your 100 hand session. Does PT take any of this into account?Or does it simply average out over a 100 hand ratio, meaning you are up xx amount of money after playing 1400 hands, and it gives you the numbers?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Also when you rebuy in a session that doesn't mean you need more buy ins for your bankroll, that's why you have a bankroll...yes, but this is why i'm curious to know how often these "winning players" are reloading?do they reload more often? or same amount if they played lower limits with max buy-in? My guess is at lower limits they wont go bust right away, which is very possible with the SS theory

[brando 0]

Right, it just gives you up xx amt. overall. Then calculates win rate based on the xx amt. and number of hands played.

[brando 0]

Also when you rebuy in a session that doesn't mean you need more buy ins for your bankroll, that's why you have a bankroll...yes, but this is why i'm curious to know how often these "winning players" are reloading?do they reload more often? or same amount if they played lower limits with max buy-in? My guess is at lower limits they wont go bust right away, which is very possible with the SS theory

This concerns variance. Which are we discussing here win rate, variance, or both :-)

[Royal_Tour 0]

Also when you rebuy in a session that doesn't mean you need more buy ins for your bankroll, that's why you have a bankroll...yes, but this is why i'm curious to know how often these "winning players" are reloading?do they reload more often? or same amount if they played lower limits with max buy-in? My guess is at lower limits they wont go bust right away, which is very possible with the SS theory

This concerns variance. Which are we discussing here win rate, variance, or both :-)

lol, i'm discussing everything cuz this is a fun topic.I'm not a max buy-in nazi or anything, because very often i'll buy into ring games with a shorter stack.I just like seeing peoples point of views on this subject, and as always, looking for the best way to max. profit while multi tabling NL ring games

[CobaltBlue 662]

Royal, I apologize for covering previous ground. Wasn't my intent to bring up points that you're already aware of. So...let's pretend it was a general example review for those that are new to the strategy. :-)Absolute doesn't allow you to buy in very short stacked. Therefore, I'd just play middle stacked until I got blinded down or won. If I got blinded down, I'd switch to short stacked mode. Once I was up, I'd switch up to big stacked. I still can't argue that it's a more profitable approach than big stack poker, but I think that it is profitable (monetarily and education-wise).The nice thing about being short-stacked against a really big stacked player is that they can get really reckless with what they'll call you with. I recall one incident recently at a .10/.25 table where I had $8 and another guy had $50. He raised to $2. I went all-in with my AKs. When he called, I figured I was toast, but he flipped up KQo, and I ended up taking down a nice little pot.

[brando 0]

For multi tabling the ss has to be better. There are fewer decisions and less read dependent. You really need to get his book! Off to a Marketing test...

[Royal_Tour 0]

For multi tabling the ss has to be better. There are fewer decisions and less read dependent. You really need to get his book! Off to a Marketing test...

Good Luck Brando.. unfortunetly the main site i play only allows min. 50xBB buy in for limits .50/1.00 NL 1/ 2 NL 2/4NL and 5/10 NL, only if i drop to 0.25/0.50 can i buy in for less than 50xBB

[brando 0]

That test wasn't so bad...now to poker.There's tons more than 1 online poker site, move around! Not sure if you have rakeback there or something that would prevent you from playing somewhere else part time. A suggestion, you could take a couple hundred and put it on another site and try out the ss strategy.All this discussion has wanted me to get some numbers on this, so I may do the same as the suggestion above.Also, I would think this would be more profitable than your heads up thing you're doing, just switch to this....

[Royal_Tour 0]

That test wasn't so bad...now to poker.There's tons more than 1 online poker site, move around! Not sure if you have rakeback there or something that would prevent you from playing somewhere else part time. A suggestion, you could take a couple hundred and put it on another site and try out the ss strategy.All this discussion has wanted me to get some numbers on this, so I may do the same as the suggestion above.Also, I would think this would be more profitable than your heads up thing you're doing, just switch to this....

i actually have money on 5 sites, some bonuses and rake, some no.i just favor this 1 particular site more.