Have you ever...THE POKER GAME

[JKDS]

Easy game. Each page is dedicated to its own "have you ever" theme, with the condition that it is related to poker. The hope is to generate discussion on concepts/topics that noobs, like myself, typically either ignore or are ignorant about. I have three in mind that i've recently had an epiphany over that may not be obvious to the peeps in the bc. So without further ado...

Have you ever shortstacked instead of buying in full and why?

Obv, this page is devoted to shortstacking pros and cons, but keep it fun! (If mods be hating, be locking)

[spoonitnow]

I don't understand the first paragraph.

To the other, your stack size decision is a poker decision just like any other, including table selection, seat select, stake selection, starting hand selection, bet sizing, and so on.

[celtic123]

Hi JK.

I logged onto my Betfair account over christmas ,only to find $0.47 in funds.

I played with it. and ended up with around $3. I entered a $0.11 tournie to finish 9th and win $2.52. Last night , I had around $9 .

Its down to $1.88 now though.Sheer bad play.

Ive been sitting down with $1 and choosing my spots very carefully.

And ive enjoyed it .

[XTR1000]

Dear JKDS,

I hope this page isn´t dedicated to encourage people to shortstack. Also, you´ll find very little players talking about the pro´s of shortstacking because, apparently, everybody hates shortstacks.

I´ll just say, that the edge we can develop over our opponents grows with stack sizes (along with many other factors ldo), shortstacking is therefore a decent strategy if you suck at poker (because vice versa our opponents edge shrinks with stack sizes) and have no interest in improving.

[JKDS]

Also, you´ll find very little players talking about the pro´s of shortstacking because, apparently, everybody hates shortstacks.
.

This is exactly why there should be discussion. Most people on this forum hate shortstackers with a passion but many of these haters dont really see that there are legitimate reasons to do so. They just blindly hate.

Naw, I dont want to encourage shortstacking in general. I've only shortstacked once (yesterday in fact) because i was goofing around with my minuscule pokerstars br (main roll is on another site). The conclusion im hoping this discussion reaches is that there are specific situations where it can be more profitable to shortstack and I think it'd be beneficial...or at least neat...for the bc peeps to know. I'm going to hold off what im thinking of until a little more discussion occurs though.

This will be the case with every question if this thread doesn't just die because of unfunness.

[JKDS]

I don't understand the first paragraph.

To the other, your stack size decision is a poker decision just like any other, including table selection, seat select, stake selection, starting hand selection, bet sizing, and so on.

Of course, but have you ever and why?

[EasyPoker]

I don't shortstack atm as I'm currently grinding the microstakes. I'm not against it in principle though.

[eragotte]

if youre not quite rolled for a higher limit but u see a table with a huge fish so u feel like sitting on that table is more +EV then sitting on your normal table?

also people tend to call you down way lighter, i used to short stack when i was even more of a noob then i am now and i could stack off pre with like 99+, AQ+ and have no worries for like a half stack at 1/2 it seemed. this was a while ago though.

[oskar]

I hardly play a single session where I don't buy in for less than 100bb on some table.
Pretty damn obvious situation: A reg I respect sits with 350bb on a FR table. somewhere else on the table are a 55bb and a 35bb stack - most likely feesh... never seen them. I buy in for 55bb and sit to the left of the 55bb stack.
If I join a full table I always look what the stack sizes are to my left and right and adjust my buy-in accordingly. I don't even want to be 200bb deep oop against a fish, but I will buy in deep if there are some obvious soft spots with deep stacks on my right.

Buying in short on every table is also fine if you know what you're doing... for various reasons I would rather not have people discuss on this forum. I encourage anyone who doesn't like shortstacks to play 50bb min. tables.
That's what I do... In the unlikely event of me choosing to play a non deep table, I still refuse to play with more than one shortstacker because it screws with the whole game dynamic.

[EasyPoker]

Buying in short on every table is also fine if you know what you're doing... for various reasons I would rather not have people discuss on this forum. I encourage anyone who doesn't like shortstacks to play 50bb min. tables.

Errr, why?

[celtic123]

Perhaps this thread needs moving to tales of Poker.


Then this gets posted..

I hardly play a single session where I don't buy in for less than 100bb on some table.
Pretty damn obvious situation: A reg I respect sits with 350bb on a FR table. somewhere else on the table are a 55bb and a 35bb stack - most likely feesh... never seen them. I buy in for 55bb and sit to the left of the 55bb stack.
If I join a full table I always look what the stack sizes are to my left and right and adjust my buy-in accordingly. I don't even want to be 200bb deep oop against a fish, but I will buy in deep if there are some obvious soft spots with deep stacks on my right.

Buying in short on every table is also fine if you know what you're doing... for various reasons I would rather not have people discuss on this forum. I encourage anyone who doesn't like shortstacks to play 50bb min. tables.
That's what I do... In the unlikely event of me choosing to play a non deep table, I still refuse to play with more than one shortstacker because it screws with the whole game dynamic.

Intresting thoughts on table selection with relative position choices thrown in.Nice one Oskar.

[tomato paste carnage]

I tried 50 bb buy-ins for a few thousand hands awhile back. Not having as much money at the table as I normally would helped to focus and tighten my play, and it also stopped me from spewing.

[EasyPoker]

would any of u do this in live poker?

[rong]

I still refuse to play with more than one shortstacker because it screws with the whole game dynamic.

This does my nut in!

And I find that between 7pm & 12am GMT that nearly every 5nl & 10nl table on stars has approx half of the people on each table with half a stack. I spend more time looking for a table with 6+ players with 80bb or more than I do playing poker.

[Shifter]

I haven't, apart from the odd occasion when I've challenged myself to make X amount of money from it. Purely a bit of fun.

I doubt I would if serious about playing.

[spoonitnow]

I don't understand the first paragraph.

To the other, your stack size decision is a poker decision just like any other, including table selection, seat select, stake selection, starting hand selection, bet sizing, and so on.

Of course, but have you ever and why?

That's a really dumb question given the answer I gave. Of course I have, and the reason is [obviously] that I thought it was the best stack size to have.

[Pelion]

Well one obvious reason to shortstack would be if you found a table with plenty of 50bb fish and one or 2 deepstacked TAGs who you know are as good as you (or better). Buying in for 100bbs or 200bbs with one of those TAGs (especially if he has position on you) might even be enough to make the whole game unprofitable. Buying in for 50bbs means you dont lose anything vs the fish, the TAG can fuck with you less IP, and the TAGs are actually pretty likely to treat you as a fish for the first few orbits too. If a couple of the fish double up then you can top up anyway if you feel it would be +EV.

[JKDS]

I don't understand the first paragraph.

To the other, your stack size decision is a poker decision just like any other, including table selection, seat select, stake selection, starting hand selection, bet sizing, and so on.

Of course, but have you ever and why?

That's a really dumb question given the answer I gave. Of course I have, and the reason is [obviously] that I thought it was the best stack size to have.

The point is to play the game yah?

@oskar: if others agree then i'll request a lock. I dont see alot of general strategy/pokerthought posting on here and wanted to start a little. I like seeing posts, like yours, that talk about this kind of thing on the forum itself, but if people be hating then ill just continue in private or irc...but its less fun that way.

Anyways, people are hitting it at what i wanted to discuss. Basically theres a dogma that shortstackers are fish and suck and that you shouldnt ever buy in short because otherwise you suck and blah blah blah. This whole argument is ridiculous of course, which was the point.

As with what others have said, deciding on what amount to buy in with is directly related to what your edge is with that amount. If theres a guy on your left who's 200bbs deep and consistently out plays you and owns your soul, its probably a bad idea to buy in full. On the same token, if theres people you can consistently outplay then you should buy in so that you have the effective stack.

In Theory and Practice, they suggest the same but also talk about some common situations. For instance, when you just join a table and have no idea who you're playing against, it might be ok to buyin for like 60bbs until you get an idea of how the players play. Additionally, when moving up for the first time it might be ok to buy in short as well until you can get a feel for the difference between your old level and this one. All of this rests on how large you believe your skill advantage to be though.

Imma hold off on giving the next "have you ever..." to give ppl a chance to pm me saying "omg jkds, stfu".