Anatomy of a shortstackers downswing.

Today I went all in with >60% equity 29 times, and won 19 times (67.4%). I went in 50/50 13 times and won 6 (the only thing that ran about normal) I went all in with <40% equity 23 times and won ONCE.

So even though I went in good more times than bad, I lost money. In fact, I lost a lot of money. At my lowest point I was down 22 stacks. I'm quitting my session -16 stacks.

I hereby revise my bankroll requirements for shortstacking. I severely underestimated how much variance will smack you even when youre playing well, and in all conceivable lights you should be winning. I no longer feel 50 bb is adequate. (Because when you drop 20 stacks which looks like it can happen pretty damned easily through no fault of your own, you'll only have 30 behind.)

Note, however, that I went all in 65 times and won only 27 of them. That would be a 38 stack loss, however I'm "only" down 16. Hence somewhere I picked up 22 stacks that I didn't go all-in for, so I'm pretty sure my methodology is sound.

huh?

what size shortstack are we talkin here?

20bb, sorry

20bb i think is very very very similar to sngs. basically you get your stack in the middle with 60% favourites all the time, and depend on luck that you win more flips than you should.

what's the recommended buyins for SnGs? 30-50 buyins. that's way more than the 20-30 recommended for NL 100bb stacks.

i dunno how to compare, since winning sngs you're essentially 4x your profit, whereas you'd have to double up 4 times shortstacking...but then there's the bustin sngs and not winning anything. i think they would probably cancel each other out, and you would have comparable bankroll recommendations for sngs and shortstacking 20bb.

play real poker?

lol

Who will ever have sympathy for you shortstacking on this forum? If they do they are banned!

I think Xianti should use the word sensor and switch Shortstacking to ratholing.

The two are not the same. Also ratholing is not the same as hit n running. Also all three are ruining the games. Funny observation though, no one is complaining about the shortstacking fish that are buying in with the last 150$ in their accounts.

A typical ratholer will have much larger swings just because their edge isn't that big.

No one complains about fish because they don't know how to play with 20bb

New emoticon for me, yay.

DIAGF

Originally Posted by EzDuzIt

play real poker?

Hrm.. lets see.. I buy-in, post blinds, bet/raise/check/call.
That sounds like real poker to me. What are you talking about?


I have sympathy for short stacking, alert the Banmin!

All this pissing and moaning about it makes me happy in my special place. (my wallet you pervs)

yes, the variance is BRUTAL.

thats why it was only a 15k hand "experiment" for me.

went back to buying in normal, and the graphs smoothed out. however, i learned what the douchebags are doing to me, and now i am killing them, too. lol.

I think I initially asked about shortstacking at 20bb's a couple of months ago. (when I was playing a 25/10 game lol, luckily I've progressed a bit since then am at about 18/15 or thereabouts)

Anyway I didnt really stick to it, as I found a few good counter arguments to it on this forum, 'the other one', as well as reading 'Killer Poker by the numbers' where the author (who seems a bit too tight) but is a caltech physics graduate (so his maths is sound) writes a paragraph on 'Never buy in for less than 25bb' on the basis that any reasonable aggressive opponent (who is raising & cbetting 15%+ or something) will be able to get it in with any tpmk profitably and goes on to explain that it
is generally a losing strategy.

(I didnt try very hard but I guess even if played perfectly against weak competition it must only be marginally profitable but as you mentioned rake back is better at higher levels than you normally play.)

I buy in full now, still mostly at Micro Limits but when I move up I think buying in at 60bb is reasonable as it should decrease variance and has some other benefits in 3 bet pots etc... will have to read up again on what they are.

Sidenote...Also if your Pstars handle is also Eupho.. something, I played against you a few times and it seemed like you had a really wide 3betting range wasnt sure how to deal it with at the time so just changed tables.
Gl

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

DIAGF

another point to "shorting." read Fnord's suggestion on bb's. he suggests more than 20 bb's. more like 40.

if you use 40, and keep "topping off," you have more FE at your disposal. you dont get called on the flop as often.

if you are only buying in for 20 bb's, you need to be uber-tight anyway.

Originally Posted by Chopper

if you are only buying in for 20 bb's, you need to be uber-tight anyway.

sure? i'd expect can't afford to be too tight since the blinds will come around too often too fast.

http://www.donkeydevastation.com/sho...oker-strategy/

anything i have read defies your logic about blinds. i agree with you, btw, but am going off of what i have read.

if people dont take your bets seriously, and realize its AI with 2 streets to draw for free, you will get a lot of calls. you really need TPTK and overpairs to hold up a lot against straights, gutters, combos, raggedy 2 prs, etc. villains SHOULDNT call you with this kind of crap, but they will because they are bad players against shortys.

and you dont have the odds to draw or call most raises, either. which is why you need to stick to the narrowness of your 3betting range. at least thats what i keep finding.

personally, i like it better when i can open up and show good stuff, but bump off the weak-tights with marginals because i know they cant call w/o solid hands. but, thats me going "against the strategy."

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

20bb i think is very very very similar to sngs. basically you get your stack in the middle with 60% favourites all the time, and depend on luck that you win more flips than you should.

what's the recommended buyins for SnGs? 30-50 buyins. that's way more than the 20-30 recommended for NL 100bb stacks.

i dunno how to compare, since winning sngs you're essentially 4x your profit, whereas you'd have to double up 4 times shortstacking...but then there's the bustin sngs and not winning anything. i think they would probably cancel each other out, and you would have comparable bankroll recommendations for sngs and shortstacking 20bb.

lol u go broke all day playing even middle level sngs with a 30 buy in roll. standard is 50-100 i would be broke 2 times now if i went with a 50 buy in roll, and my lifetime ROI over all levels is over 10%.

WIth SS i would think 30-40 full buy ins for the level you are playing would be ok. IDK though never shortstacked for a significant sample.

yeah 40 full buy ins sounds right.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Note, however, that I went all in 65 times and won only 27 of them. That would be a 38 stack loss, however I'm "only" down 16. Hence somewhere I picked up 22 stacks that I didn't go all-in for, so I'm pretty sure my methodology is sound.

65 all ins, winning 27 of them, is an 11 buyin downswing, not 38. You're doubling up 27 times, so in those hands you have made 54 buyins, so you just subtract this from 65. So actually, you are down 5 buy-ins in your non all-in hands, sorry.

I don't want to get into a "rigged" discussion, so let's not mention it. As for Cake, something is very weird about this site. I am not sure if it's the fact that they all like the Betpot button on all three streets, or that the just play such odd hands and are not afraid to get it all in, but their just seems to be an amazing amount of AA, KK and QQ hands getting cracked. There really seems to be quite a lot of monster hands either flopped or hit on the later streets. Is it the fact that hands tend to get all in more and I am seeing a lot of rivers over all. Is it that people play more drawy hands because they either know they are playing for stacks, or vice versa? Is it just the fact that I can't look at stats and my mind is just focusing on the bigger hands? Does anybody get this feeling, or have any ideas as to why this site just seems off compared to most?

thats what i had figured for myself. my standard full buy-in br strategy. i use 30-40 BI's before i hit the next level, so, i would use the high side of that as a minimum for s-stacking. that may take into account the higher variance you should see.