Buy in short to protect your bankroll!

[Pokey]

You'll often hear people talk about playing a "short-stack strategy": the idea is that you buy in for less that the maximum (often for the very minimum) in order to take advantage of your opponents. You can get yourself all-in relatively easily, and if your opponents fail to adjust properly you can win money.

While this statement is undeniably true, there are some huge flaws with this thought process.

<font color="blue">Flaw #1: Short-stack strategy gives up your biggest poker advantage.</font>

As students of the game, we are better players than our opponents. While that superior game-playing pays off somewhat preflop, it pays off far more significantly on postflop streets. Think of it: most preflop hand matchups involve relatively narrow edges. Pair vs. overcards? You're going to win at showdown about 55% of the time. Dominated hand (like AK vs. A6)? You're about a 70% favorite. Even pair vs. lower pair is only an 80% favorite to win. Most hand matchups are relatively close, and multiplied by relatively small amounts of money. In a heads-up match, a $1 bet on an 80% favorite clears you on average about 60 cents worth of profit. This is not the way to get rich playing poker.

Consider instead the play on later streets. First, the edges can be FAR larger. If you flop a nice hand, your opponent could easily be a 5-to-1 dog to win the hand. On the turn, that same hand could easily become a 10-to-1 dog. Of course, on the river your opponent is either a 100% loser or a 100% winner, so that river money is PURE profit (or loss, if you've made a mistake).

In addition, the dollar values are usually significantly larger on later-street bets. Since our wagers are typically measured in fractions of the pot, we will often see river bets that are 10 times larger than preflop bets. Take the following representative example:

You have QQ on the button in a $25NL game. You raise to $1 preflop and get called by the big blind (who is holding AJo). As a 72% favorite to win the hand, the preflop wager earns you about 33 cents.

The flop comes JT3. Your opponent checks and you bet $2 into a $2 pot. Your opponent calls. As an 80% favorite, this bet earns you $1.20.

The turn is another 3. You bet $5 into the $6 pot and your opponent calls again. At this point you are an 89% favorite to win the hand, so this bet earns you $3.90.

The river is yet another 3. You bet all-in for your last $17 and your opponent calls. This bet wins you $17.

Notice the difference in magnitude of the money you make on various streets: your preflop bet wins you 33 cents but your river bet wins you $17. Notice also that if you had pushed preflop and somehow gotten called by AJ, your expected win is only $11, less than the river bet when you play the hand out. This is because of the significant chance of a suckout loss, which is nonexistent on the river.

Our opponents play sloppy preflop poker, but they play absolutely HORRENDOUS postflop poker. By outplaying them on the expensive streets, we stand to win heaping piles of money. Playing a short-stack strategy, we won't really have a chance to play postflop poker, and we will therefore surrender our chance at all that postflop shwag.

<font color="blue">Flaw #2: Short-stack strategy stunts your growth as a poker player.</font>

I consider this second point even more significant: short-stack strategy is an inherently preflop game. You wait for your good hands, you bet hard preflop, and you push any flop. In doing so, you never have to think about postflop strategy, you never have to put an opponent on a hand, you never have to develop your reading skills, you never have to learn multi-street gambits, you never have to worry about overarching strategies, and you never have to improve as a poker player. Because it is so mindless, you never have to apply your mind to the game, and most short-stack experts never do. Heed the words of an OUTSTANDING poker player (Jason Strassa) in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=3869603&amp;page=) where he suggested shaking yourself out of your comfort zone and putting yourself into challenging situations in order to improve as a player, knowing full well that you're not necessarily maximizing your profit for THAT EXACT MOMENT but that in the long run your strategy will quickly improve you as a poker player. From this, profits will follow.

In summary, playing short-stacked poker is a crutch that may make you some bucks in the immediate future but will cost you much in the long run. You play uNL poker to learn; don't subvert that learning process by eliminating the most challenging -- and most profitable! -- part of the poker game.

As a final parting shot, I offer up one little hand history to demonstrate one of the biggest pitfalls of short-stack strategy:

Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.50/$1
6 players
Converter (http://www.neildewhurst.com/hand-converter)

Stack sizes:
UTG: $182.55
UTG+1: $310.85
Pokey: $219.40
Button: $98.50
SB: $148.35
BB: $25.35

Pre-flop: (6 players) Pokey is CO with J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q/images/graemlins/club.gif
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#cc0000">Pokey raises to $5</font>, Button calls, SB folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: K/images/graemlins/heart.gif T/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif ($20.5, 4 players)
BB checks, <font color="#cc0000">UTG+1 bets $20.5</font>, Pokey calls, Button folds, <font color="#cc0000">BB calls all-in $20.35</font>.

Turn: 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif ($81.85, 2 players + 1 all-in - Main pot: $81.55, Sidepot 1: $0.3)
<font color="#cc0000">UTG+1 bets $50</font>, <font color="#cc0000">Pokey raises to $100</font>, UTG+1 calls.

River: 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif ($281.85, 2 players + 1 all-in - Main pot: $81.55, Sidepot 1: $200.3)
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#cc0000">Pokey is all-in $93.9</font>, UTG+1 calls.

Results:
Final pot: $469.65
BB showed T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and wins the $78.55 (after rake) main pot.
Pokey showed J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q/images/graemlins/club.gif and wins the $388.10 side pot.
UTG+1 mucks T/images/graemlins/spade.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

While I realize that this isn't a representative hand, it does illustrate a point: notice that the best hand won about one-fifth the amount I won. Don't stunt your game or your winrate by playing short-stacked!

[iraise50]

You know, this is one of the reasons I love reading anything you post. I think you do such a terrific job of explaining concepts and you are a real asset to this site.

This is the first time I ever read it so well-thought and well-written...I think I'm going to stop buying in for 50bb and leaving once I get to 150bb. Thank you for writing such a good post!

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, this is one of the reasons I love reading anything you post. I think you do such a terrific job of explaining concepts and you are a real asset to this site.

This is the first time I ever read it so well-thought and well-written...I think I'm going to stop buying in for 50bb and leaving once I get to 150bb. Thank you for writing such a good post!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you leave when you get 150BB. Unless you have to go their really shouldn't be any set limit as to when you should leave.

[D.L.M.]

Im new to NL so dont berate me. but given that river, if you were in first position would you still push?

[iraise50]

Yeah, I know, I just usually end up doing it out of habit from before, when I didn't have confidence to make the choices when I had larger stacks against others. I wouldn't mind some of it when it was 50bb versus 50, or 100 versus 100, but I wasn't trusting myself once I got past 150bbs...I feel I'm a stronger player now, and I just haven't stopped the old habits. They're gone now. We all have to evolve, and no one evolves all at once.

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]
Im new to NL so dont berate me. but given that river, if you were in first position would you still push?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, but only because of my read on the opponent (which I didn't bother to include in the original post). Villain was a 61/14 donk. He's the reason I'm at the table. He's terrible, and I know his range is blown completely out of the water by my hand. Against him, I push this river every time. In fact, from the flop on I was just trying to figure out how best to get all the money into the middle. With 220BBs, that's a non-trivial task. Luckily, he made it easy for me.

[Dans Full]

This is an excellent post, and I have realized the error in my ways.

[iraise50]

me too

[GtrHtr]

While I agree with this post and its well thought out arguments, there are reasons why playing shortstacked is a viable option.

1. As a technique to help some players mentally when moving up in limits.

2. When you need to tighten up your game. Playing short often forces players to tighten up their game when they would otherwise spew money with a full stack because of tilt, a bad run or just plain lagitus.

3. You often get called by crap when you finally shove AA with 40-50bbs against a standard player with 100bb's+.

All that being said, I much prefer to play with a full buyin, nh Pokey.

[CaucasianAsian29]

Cool Post, you da man!!

[Vammakala]

Aye. Good post!

iraise50, if you don't feel comfortable making decisions for deep stacks and that's the reason for buying in for 50 BB, move step down and buy in for 100 BB. You're "risking" the same amount of money, but now you'll get good practice for your deep stack game (plus the players are usually worse each step down so you won't have to pay so much for the lessons /images/graemlins/wink.gif You'll prolly beat them anyways)

[Shaddux]

Good post.

BTW, BB is a moron. Why would you play short stacked if you're going to hit a boat?

nh Pokey

[redCashion]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, this is one of the reasons I love reading anything you post. I think you do such a terrific job of explaining concepts and you are a real asset to this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

[gir]

I liked how misleading the title was. If it read "Buying in short does not protect your bankroll", I'd go "well duh!"...but the title forced me to read the whole thing. Very well written and damned true.

[SavageMiser]

Ultra Reader's Digest version:

[ QUOTE ]
By outplaying them on the expensive streets, we stand to win heaping piles of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Delicious!

[Elandriel]

i think now i wont buyin low again because of this post.. stll maybe for moving up.

[Sweir]

Yet another great post Pokey, ty. Good example hand too.

[RichC.]

i remember back when i was first starting out and always bought in short, typically half the max buy-in. then one day it was pointed out to me what i was missing out on, winning the most money. buying in short is good when moving up in limits but in the long run will cost you many many $$$$ left on the table because you bought in short and doubled up in one hand, which gets you to the max buy-in instead of double the buy in.

[Javanewt]

Good post.

I never buy-in short, but I love playing against people who do. They usually go bust, re-buy short, and just keep it up. I love taking their money, even if it is a little at a time. It's nice not having to worry about losing all mine if they happen to hit, too;)

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
While I realize that this isn't a representative hand, it does illustrate a point: notice that the best hand won about one-fifth the amount I won. Don't stunt your game or your winrate by playing short-stacked!

[/ QUOTE ]

He called a preflop raise for a fifth of his stack with a suited connector, and got the rest of his money in as a 10-1 dog; with a deeper stack, he might have delayed the all-in until the turn, when he'd be a 20-1 dog. The winrate being stunted here is yours, not his.

[HoldEmNewby]

Pokey is full of [censored] everyone knows we only play SSNL to help train ourselves to play in the WSOP ME. By forcing yourself to play with a small stack we are trained to deal with those preassure filled fluctuation points where our stack is dwindling away and we need to find a spot to get it in. What a hater he just can't bare to see people improving themselves!

On the real good post. In all honestly we are here to learn the game. Playing short stacked stunts our growth because we are never forced to play poker (its bad enough we spend our time at SSNL playing NLHE against players who think the game is "go fish"). You can't learn the game short stacked. You don't need reads (beyond pf stats) and you don't need to think if you know you never have to make a decision beyond the flop.

Players at SSNL have one objective: the come up. Build a bankroll and get beyond the basics to become a winning MSNL player. Playing short stacked is counter productive to both these goals: it limits your winnings (its more +EV to play full stacked against SSNL donkeys) and you will never learn the skills needed to be a winning MSNL player if you never have to think.

Play full stacked, turn $500 into $12,000 (bankroll for $400NL) playing SSNL and pick up the skills needed to move up along the way.

ps&gt; I'm sure there are players who have been able to move up and improve playing short stacked. That said the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason.

[Vinetou]

Great post Pokey. I would never play shortstacked because I like getting paid off when I hit a monster.

On the other hand, I heard from people who play at full tilt that you can sometimes see Phil Ivey playing shortstacked. What do you think about that? Maybe he is drunk at the time or did he find some strategy to make it profitable?

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
On the real good post. In all honestly we are here to learn the game. Playing short stacked stunts our growth because we are never forced to play poker (its bad enough we spend our time at SSNL playing NLHE against players who think the game is "go fish"). You can't learn the game short stacked. You don't need reads (beyond pf stats) and you don't need to think if you know you never have to make a decision beyond the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree are there are important things about NL you can only learn playing deepstacked. But it seems to me the lesson offered by this hand -- "Don't overvalue bottom two pair" -- isn't one of them. If anything, a thinking but novice player is more likely to learn that lesson cheaply while playing shortstacked.

If I'm short at this table, I'm folding 9Ts to Pokey's raise. Then I get to watch UTG go broke, and hopefully the 9 on the river doesn't stop me from doing the math and realizing how much trouble I would have been in on the flop and the turn.

If I'm deep enough to call the preflop raise, on the other hand, I end up in first position with a third-best hand that, to my novice eyes, probably looks pretty decent. And whether I manage to get away from it on the flop or go all-in, the 9 on the river is probably more likely to color my conclusions than if I were a bystander.

[AKQJ10]

Yawn. This has been talked to death (http://poker.wikia.com/wiki/Short_stack), so I'm seriously cutting down the keystrokes I devote to it. Not cutting down enough though.

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">Flaw #1: Short-stack strategy gives up your biggest poker advantage.</font>

As students of the game, we are better players than our opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on "us", and depends on "our opponents". No one advocates a short stack in games involving inferior deep-stacked opponents except for the other legitimate reasons cited (e.g., bankroll).

You'll see some hands posted here with bad postflop decisions. (I'm hardly one to talk, but I'm referring to hands with what even I can see are obvious blunders.) I hope those players take the OP to heart, because their money builds my bankroll the same as non-2+2ers.

The pedagogical point is valid but each of us has to determine how to allocate our scarce resources between donking off our training budget and building bankroll. You can also learn a great deal from sitting behind a short stack, tossing cards in the muck and trying to put people on hands, and once you double through then you gradually start playing deeper stacks. It's not a binary thing -- "I'm going to never play a deep stack in my life and cash out once my stack gets to 40 BBL." You just learn gradually rather than throwing yourself in the deep end of the pool.

But hey, Esteemed Beginner, as long as you're willing to subsidize your own learning, play a deep stack and gain all the education you want. Again, I'd love to help you gain experience for the right price.

Pokey, you do a great deal of very valuable writing on this site. I've seen you deftly explain topics that haven't before been clearly summarized for beginners, and when you do so I'm greatly in your debt.

Rehashing a trite topic that's been driven into the ground, and doing so in dogmatic fashion, is frankly beneath you.

[AKQJ10]

Upon reflection, I should probably try harder to articulate why this view, though not without merit, is in my opinion a suboptimal approach to learning NLHE:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Flaw #2: Short-stack strategy stunts your growth as a poker player.</font>

...In summary, playing short-stacked poker is a crutch that may make you some bucks in the immediate future but will cost you much in the long run. You play uNL poker to learn; don't subvert that learning process by eliminating the most challenging -- and most profitable! -- part of the poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, to reiterate, no one's saying that beginners should aim to spend the next 20 years and 500 thousand hands playing short stacks. It is indeed a crutch, and wise people use a crutch to support themselves until they've built up the ability to walk on their own.

Now, I'm not a trained educator, so I have to fall back on comparisons with poker to other more established disciplines with a similarly large body of knowledge. So let's look at how you might choose to go about learning Spanish, or how you'd learn to play piano.

Perhaps your goal is to become an expert in the language of Cervantes and Neruda. You might decide that the way to appreciate its beauties is to dive right into Don Quijote or at least into a daily newspaper. So you'd get a nice thick dictionary and possibly hire a tutor to explain some grammatical nuances, and if you didn't give up out of frustration eventually you'd get pretty good at reading written Spanish. Likewise, you could dive right into conversations or watching TV, and slowly you'd improve your listening comprehension.

But that's not what you find in an introductory Spanish class. Instead you find a controlled vocabulary and grammar, maybe 500 words and the present tense in a college semester. Although no one would argue that 500 words will make you a near-native speaker, it's enough to give you some benefit. Then if you're motivated, you'll move on to more advanced courses. You could certainly take on the whole language from the start, but most human beings learn from taking a smaller body of knowledge, reinforcing it, and then building it out incrementally.

Likewise, if you want to learn piano, you could pick up a score for the Rach 3 and pluck it out, note by note. With practice you might get pretty good. But a trained piano teacher isn't going to teach you that way; instead you're going to learn the basics like scales (thanks NLHE:TAP!) and simple songs. You won't be the life of the party playing "My Clever Pup" or "Yankee Doodle Drum", but the idea is that reinforcing the fundamentals will put you in great position should you decide to move forward.

<font color="brown">So in other areas we accept that human beings don't thrive by attacking an entire body of knowledge from the beginning. But for some reason, in poker gradualism will "subvert [the] learning process" and "cost you much in the long run." This isn't some minority opinion held by Pokey; this is the established consensus of the 2+2 NLHE forums!</font>

Think about it: start with "Una Coca-Cola por favor, y uno, dos, tres cafés," and once you've experienced some success, you'll likely be motivated to press on to the Quijote.

[LearningCurve]

Philip, I was all sold on the idea of the full buy-in and now you go and make this nice articulate post to put me back on the fence! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Having never even played poker until a few months ago, I'm still assuredly rather clueless with it and have MUCH to learn. Although you may find yourself in the minority here on 2p2 playing short-stacked, your arguments for doing so certainly have a good deal of merit for some of us. Thanks for taking the time to share your viewpoint in a most eloquent fashion.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokey, you do a great deal of very valuable writing on this site. I've seen you deftly explain topics that haven't before been clearly summarized for beginners, and when you do so I'm greatly in your debt.

Rehashing a trite topic that's been driven into the ground, and doing so in dogmatic fashion, is frankly beneath you.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to Pokey, this is a two-month-old thread; however, it's been added to the list of "essential uNL posts" stickied at the top of the Micro forum, which is where I ran across it while looking for advice on a completely different topic (and in that context, I think your two responses are more helpful than mine).

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Philip, I was all sold on the idea of the full buy-in and now you go and make this long-winded and boring display of logorrhea to put me back on the fence! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But at risk of beating a dead horse, you don't have to choose one or the other. I think you should take occasional shots at deep-stack play. If you feel like you're making good decisions and are adequately bankrolled, keep going. If you have hands where you think you misplayed the later rounds, back off, post hands, analyze, ruminate, and grind a bit on shorter stacks until you feel solid again. That way you'll have the benefit of both kinds of feedback -- maybe you make a lot short stacked and marginally lose a little bit deep stacked -- and you can take pride in your progress while planning to address your deficiencies.

Matt,

Good catch, and I should have noticed that. This thread must have been from the "dead period" in the fall where I wasn't participating.

Pokey makes some good points and does so persuasively. But I don't see anywhere above, until your post, that someone calls any of his ideas into question. He's obviously a very gifted player and teacher, but we should be a little more skeptical and not take everything a good player says as though handed down on stone tablets from Sinai. Sure, as a newbie it's wise to trust those with experience. But we learn from discussing our points of disagreement.

Just as a loose end, here's one more critique of the OP: For every full house-versus-straight or quads-versus-full house or straight flush-versus-quads you can pull out where you wish you were deep stacked, you could just as easily be on the losing end and pay off deep stacked. That's relevant only inasmuch as a good player would get away from those losing hands. The FH-straight-two pair hand is interesting but only shows that bad players take two pair too far, which obviously will benefit good postflop players. I don't think you can assume that readers of this forum don't take two pair too far just because they read this forum, so the example is really irrelevant to the OP. If the river is the K /images/graemlins/spade.gif instead of 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif then the T9 has limited how much he loses instead of how much he wins. How results oriented!

But regardless, I'm not saying anything new. This topic was already talked to death two months ago. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Route66]

I can't figure out the point of your posts. You seem to be simulataneously saying that the thread wasn't worth starting in the first place because it's a tired subject, while at the same time offering an opposing view. Hence, it's a topic worthy of discussion. I realize its an older thread, and perhaps you wouldn't have been so harsh had you realized it, but calling a guy out for writing something that's "beneath" him is a bit out of line I think. Especially considering what a great service Pokey has provided to the members of this forum. If someone writes something that's of no interest to you, then feel free to pass on it. Many others may gain from his insights, even if we don't always agree with everything 100%. As far as I'm concerned, Pokey can write about anything he pleases. And if he posts the occassional stinker, then he gets a pass. I think he's earned it.

[HitNRunPoster]

If the fish buy for 60bb and the tags buy for 100, and I don't think I'm better than the tags, would you recommend buying for 60bb while i learn the game? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Matt Ruff]

As long as we're beating a dead horse to death we may as well do a thorough job of it. And I'm actually curious about this:

Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.50/$1
6 players
Converter (http://www.neildewhurst.com/hand-converter)

Stack sizes:
UTG: $182.55
UTG+1: $310.85
CO: $219.40
Button: $98.50
SB: $148.35
Hero (BB): $200

Reads: UTG+1 seems solid, CO is a dangerous LAG.

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero (BB) has T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, CO raises to $5, Button calls, SB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: K/images/graemlins/heart.gif T/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif ($20.5, 4 players)
Hero ?

I have to say this is not the flop I wanted. Yeah I've got two pair, but it's bottom two, and the board has Broadway cards, a flush draw, and straight possibilities. I'm first to act against three other people, including a preflop raiser who's perfectly capable of repping pocket kings, a hand against which I am essentially drawing dead. Given that I like money, what's my line?

[Vinetou]

Matt Ruff, I don't think it is a bad play if you just put all your stack at risk and let the cards fall as they do. If you like money too much, as you say, don't play poker.

However, I think that if you are playing shortstacked, mistakes don't cost you so much, so you don't remember them so much and this is one of the reasons you should play big stack. It will really stuck to your memory if you make a stupid all in call with bottom two pair on river.

[Rev. Good Will]

Hey pokey,

Well put together, very thought out and informative post as usual. I have a few rebuttals though:

[ QUOTE ]

Flaw #1: Short-stack strategy gives up your biggest poker advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody has said short staking was the end all optimal way to play. In GSIH, Miller repeated if you are new to the game, though you won't make as much money playing deeper; as you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

Flaw #2: Short-stack strategy stunts your growth as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to refer back to some of my points made previously, you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, so on, and so on. If you aren't practicing observation skills when you aren't involved with your hand, I don't think you'll be doing it in the first place if you were to buy in full.

In short, nobody ever said that Short Stack stratergy was the optimal way of playing. BUT if you are new to poker in general, or even just big bet poker, you might be better off playing a few hundred hands short staked so you can at least be a part of the game, observe your opponents, and learn to identify what are the most significant mistakes are.

[Pokey]

Wow, this thread seems to have gotten quite a bit of attention lately. Let me address some of these new replies.

GtrHtr said:

[ QUOTE ]

While I agree with this post and its well thought out arguments, there are reasons why playing shortstacked is a viable option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I never said that buying in short was always wrong. There could certainly be times when buying in short was absolutely right. However, as a standard plan -- as your default buyin when playing poker -- I still believe what I said in my original post.

[ QUOTE ]

1. As a technique to help some players mentally when moving up in limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a viable exception. The "sticker shock" that comes with moving up can make it frightening to sit at the table for the first time with a particularly large pile of money in front of you. It took me nearly a year before I was able to make the distinction in my mind, so that now I have "money" and I have "bankroll" and the two have nothing to do with one another. I still think that some judicious railbirding can convince you that you are good enough to beat your opponents and give you the confidence to play for a full buyin if you are truly ready to move up, but if some people need a short-term crutch to help them make the adjustment, I see no problem with that, so long as they move beyond the crutch relatively quickly.

[ QUOTE ]

2. When you need to tighten up your game. Playing short often forces players to tighten up their game when they would otherwise spew money with a full stack because of tilt, a bad run or just plain lagitus.


[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't have to "trick" ourselves into playing smart poker. If you are playing too loose, then just tighten the &lt;censored&gt; up and be done with it. Incidentally, I have also known players who had the opposite problem: when their stack is large they respect the money enough to play their "A" game, but when they drop down to 20 BBs, they have an "aw, eff it" philosophy and push with all sorts of crap. Hence, buying in short is not a surefire guarantee of playing a tight game.

[ QUOTE ]

3. You often get called by crap when you finally shove AA with 40-50bbs against a standard player with 100bb's+.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and you often get called by crap when you finally shove AA with 100+ BBs against a standard player with 100+ BBs. That's not just true at the micro-stakes tables, either -- the other day I checked out of the BB with 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif and three of us saw a flop: 874 with two spades. I'm first to act and lead for half the pot (1.5 BBs). Second to act calls. The third player raises to 7 BBs. I push for 108 BBs. Second to act folds and the third player calls...with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif. The benefit of being deep-stacked is that players make all sorts of horrendous mistakes at the table, and there's no reason not to exploit them to the maximum. As long as there's one deep-stacked donator, you'd really like to have him covered, and if there's NOT one deep-stacked donator you should improve your table selection.

Vammakala said:

[ QUOTE ]

if you don't feel comfortable making decisions for deep stacks and that's the reason for buying in for 50 BB, move step down and buy in for 100 BB.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. Unless you are playing at the cheapest tables available, you can always drop down and buy in for full. Your winrate probably won't suffer and could even rise in absolute value; simultaneously, your skills will improve much faster as you make postflop decisions and gain experience at the game.

HoldEmNewby said:

[ QUOTE ]

In all honestly we are here to learn the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is my philosophy as well. The two ways to learn the game of poker are study and experience. Given that we're all 2+2 students, I'm assuming we've all put in some time studying. (If not, go read a book. /images/graemlins/grin.gif) However, experience is something you have to acquire at the tables, usually in the heat of the moment. A short-stacked player fails to gain the turn and river experience that can skyrocket his winrate, since it is only on the later streets that the big money decisions are made, and it is only by playing deep-stacked that we gain the experience and knowledge to fight well on those later streets.

Vinetou said:

[ QUOTE ]

I heard from people who play at full tilt that you can sometimes see Phil Ivey playing shortstacked. What do you think about that? Maybe he is drunk at the time or did he find some strategy to make it profitable?


[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I never said short-stacking isn't profitable. A good short-stacker can eke out a marginal winrate fairly consistently. However, I had an in-depth conversation with an SSNL player who has over a quarter of a MILLION short-stacked hands under his belt. His conclusions were that (a) your expected winrate is crappy -- something in the neighborhood of 2 or 2.5 PTBB/100, and (b) he learned virtually nothing about the game after the first 10k hands or so. In other words, playing short-stacked hurt his winrate and stunted his growth as a poker player.

As to Phil Ivey, remember that he's not primarily a cash player -- he's a tourney donk. As such, he's often working to improve his tournament skills. In a tournament you often find yourself short-stacked simply by the nature of the structures. I would speculate that Phil sometimes buys in short to practice short-stacked situations for future tournaments, rather than to maximize his winrate in the current game.

Matt Ruff said:

[ QUOTE ]

If I'm short at this table, I'm folding 9Ts to Pokey's raise. Then I get to watch UTG go broke, and hopefully the 9 on the river doesn't stop me from doing the math and realizing how much trouble I would have been in on the flop and the turn.

If I'm deep enough to call the preflop raise, on the other hand, I end up in first position with a third-best hand that, to my novice eyes, probably looks pretty decent. And whether I manage to get away from it on the flop or go all-in, the 9 on the river is probably more likely to color my conclusions than if I were a bystander.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that BB should have been able to escape from this hand preflop. As Grunch wrote in his famous PSA post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=6454057), bad preflop decisions lead to difficult postflop decisions. Clearly, BB didn't understand the philosophy of a suited connector; deep-stacked he could have folded preflop or he could have called, realized he had a tenuous hand, and bet/folded the flop. In fact, if he had bet the flop and CO had been stupid enough to try a multi-street slowplay, BB could have legitimately doubled up when he rivered his miracle card. (That wouldn't have happened in this case, but it's certainly plausible against some opponents.)

AKQJ10 said:

[ QUOTE ]

No one advocates a short stack in games involving inferior deep-stacked opponents except for the other legitimate reasons cited (e.g., bankroll).


[/ QUOTE ]

If that were true, I wouldn't feel the need to write this kind of post. Unfortunately, I see 2+2ers who routinely buy in short (half stack or less) in their regular game, despite the fact that they are winning players. There are regulars who have 10k+ hands under their belts who STILL buy in for half a stack as their default. This is self-defeating, and it sounds like you agree with me on that point. Really, that was the whole purpose of my thread -- to get these people to realize that the sooner they throw away their crutches, the faster they'll learn to walk.

[ QUOTE ]

You'll see some hands posted here with bad postflop decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they buy in deep and practice, practice, practice, they'll never learn not to make those bad postflop decisions. Luckily, if you start buying in deep at the micro-stakes tables your opponents will be even WORSE at postflop decisions, and you'll be able to gain your experience and skills while your mistakes are relatively cheap. Also, if you have even one or two really bad opponents on a deep stack (which is QUITE common at micro-stakes levels), you'll improve your winrate by buying in deep even if you're not yet good at postflop decisions.

[ QUOTE ]

each of us has to determine how to allocate our scarce resources between donking off our training budget and building bankroll.


[/ QUOTE ]

You assume that a typical uNL 2+2er would lose money by buying in deep-stacked at a typical micro-stakes table, and I disagree. Yesterday I spent an hour at a $10NL table to help teach my dad (a limidonk) how to play no-limit. I knew $10NL was bad, but I had forgotten just how incredibly awful the opponents were: at a six-max table we had two players with VPIPs over 70% and one more in the 45% range. You don't have to be a pro to absolutely DESTROY that kind of table: play tight, play aggressively, always c-bet heads-up, and don't bluff. Oh, and the deeper you are, the more you'll make in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]

Likewise, if you want to learn piano, you could pick up a score for the Rach 3 and pluck it out, note by note. With practice you might get pretty good. But a trained piano teacher isn't going to teach you that way; instead you're going to learn the basics like scales (thanks NLHE:TAP!) and simple songs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think your analogy is a good one, but I see it as supporting my position! Imagine if you went to a piano teacher who told you: "Playing the piano is a very complicated process. This month, we're going to work exclusively on the pedals. When you get good at pressing the pedals, we'll then move up to using your right hand on the keys. In six months, you may even be ready to use BOTH hands!" This is not the approach that a piano teacher would advocate. Even in a basic Spanish class, you learn all the aspects of Spanish: verbs, nouns, sentence structure, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc. You learn all of it at its most basic levels, but you learn EVERYTHING, right off the bat. Piano teachers have you use both hands from very early on, and within a few lessons you're plunking out songs (basic songs, but whole songs nonetheless).

I would suggest that short-stacking is analogous to learning to play the piano by starting only with the pedals, or learning Spanish by spending the first three months on nothing but verbs. There is a minimum "complete set of knowledge" for any study, and while there is much extra meat to throw onto the bones, you need that minimum complete set before you can even begin your study. For poker, I suggest that the minimum complete set is preflop play, flop play, turn play, and river play. Now, I agree with you 100% that we should start slow, but I believe starting slow means buying in full-stacked at the smallest stakes available. That way you gain experience at all the relevant aspects of the game while facing a very light challenge. Full-stacked play at $2NL is the "Mary Had a Little Lamb" of poker: the simplest form of covering all the relevant aspects of the game. Eventually you move up as you gain skills, knowledge, and experience, but you have to build all your skills to really be learning things properly.

Again, I agree with you completely that we must learn to crawl before we can walk, and we must learn to walk before we can run. There is absolutely a proper progression to gaining a mastery over any course of study, including poker. However, I still think that they way to master the game is to start studying every aspect of the game at its most simple level and gradually move up as you are ready. Short-stacking just won't give you that holistic knowledge of the game.

[ QUOTE ]

For every full house-versus-straight or quads-versus-full house or straight flush-versus-quads you can pull out where you wish you were deep stacked, you could just as easily be on the losing end and pay off deep stacked. That's relevant only inasmuch as a good player would get away from those losing hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and I also agree that good players usually can't get away from those hands either. However, for every hand where your flopped straight/set/flush/full house beats TPGK, there should NOT be an analagous loss. I'm even willing to say that at $10NL you might get stacked when your two pair goes down in flames, but when you've got KJo facing a three-bet all-in from a preflop raiser on a KQ7 board, a 2+2er should be able to find the fold whereas a standard donk often won't. We don't need to find EVERY fold for deep-stacked play to be profitable; we just need to find more folds than the idiots do. I don't see that as a stretch.

HitNRunPoster said:

[ QUOTE ]

If the fish buy for 60bb and the tags buy for 100, and I don't think I'm better than the tags, would you recommend buying for 60bb while i learn the game?


[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, we're talking about micro-stakes, here. If you've got a table with several deep-stacked frightening TAGs and no deep-stacked idiots, <font color="blue">change tables</font>. I'm all for learning through experience, but there's no reason why that has to be a death pact for your bankroll. There are TONS of tables at these stakes, and the opponents are horrifically bad; if you notice that your table has some tight and aggressive clever players with big stacks and no good targets, MOVE! Table selection is another basic skill in poker, and one that we have discussed occasionally in this forum (for instance, in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=microplnl&amp;Number=8276814&amp; Searchpage=1&amp;Main=8273325)), but it's a topic that doesn't get enough press. I really think that you can boost your winrate noticeably by exercising good table selection. Give it a try.

Matt Ruff said:

[ QUOTE ]

&lt;Regarding the hand posted in my original message, from BB's perspective on the flop.&gt; I have to say this is not the flop I wanted. Yeah I've got two pair, but it's bottom two, and the board has Broadway cards, a flush draw, and straight possibilities. I'm first to act against three other people, including a preflop raiser who's perfectly capable of repping pocket kings, a hand against which I am essentially drawing dead. Given that I like money, what's my line?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you realize this wasn't a fantastic flop for you tells me that you're going to outplay most of your opponents at this level. Depending on the opponent, I like a bet/call (re-evaluate on the turn) line or a check-raise (fold to a push) line. You have to assume that AK is in villain's range and that he'll play it reasonably aggressively. You also have to assume that he's capable of folding a missed hand if he gets a good deal of pressure. Of course, a hand like KK/TT/99 would take you to the cleaners. You're OOP with a mediocre hand and your opponent is aggressive and dangerous -- this is the worst situation in poker. To my mind, the obvious solution is to fold preflop and avoid getting INTO such messy situations in the first place.

My basic approach with this hand as played would be to try and pick up the pot cheaply on the flop, and if that didn't work I'm prepared to pay off small bets but I'm also willing to swear and fold if Button gets incredibly frisky. In hindsight, this probably wasn't the best hand to prove my point, but it was the only one that came to mind when I was writing the post. However, I'm sure most of the forum could find a hand history example where some short-stacked player with AA got all-in preflop against some deep-stacked player with KK or AK or QQ. In that hand, shorty has stunted his winrate, pure and simple. Now, a bad player would also have a number of hands where he lost less by playing short, but we're 2+2 damn it! We're NOT going to be the worst players at the table. As such, when we play we take money FROM the worst players, and when we buy in deep we take MORE money from them.

Rev. Good Will said:

[ QUOTE ]

In GSIH, Miller repeated if you are new to the game, though you won't make as much money playing deeper; as you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reading GSIH and/or NLHTAP does not make you an expert poker player, but it DOES make you better than the typical micro-stakes player. Study and experience are the twin paths to success in poker, and most of the micro-stakes players have NEITHER. As to practicing hand reading, you don't have to buy in AT ALL to do that: pick up Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book, or Harrington on Hold'Em Volume III, or the Killer Poker Hold'Em Handbook, or any of the other workbook-type poker books on the market right now and you'll not only get a couple hundred hands to walk through, you'll also have an expert poker player standing over your shoulder and guiding your thought process throughout the hand. Alternatively, you can spend three days reading every hand history thread posted in uNL. Another alternative would be to railbird on the sidelines for a few hours and watch hands as they unfold, trying to put players on hands. In short, you don't have to play AT ALL in order to develop your hand-reading skills. Learning the mechanics of the game can be done by reading a book or two; getting a "feel" for the game and getting started in hand reading can be done by railbirding or study. Once you're actually in play, there's no reason not to practice ALL of your skills.

[ QUOTE ]

if you are new to poker in general, or even just big bet poker, you might be better off playing a few hundred hands short staked so you can at least be a part of the game, observe your opponents, and learn to identify what are the most significant mistakes are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I see nothing wrong with this as a crutch for the VERY NEWEST players (though I would still prefer buying in full at the smallest stakes available). The point of my post is that if you do choose to lean on those crutches, you should throw them away relatively quickly and get down to the business of improving your game and building your bankroll by competing in the full game of poker.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out the point of your posts. You seem to be simulataneously saying that the thread wasn't worth starting in the first place because it's a tired subject, while at the same time offering an opposing view. Hence, it's a topic worthy of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But none of my arguments are really novel either. I'm just too lazy to dig them out. Plus I'd like one last crack at expressing my POV so I can paste the text into the February '07 short-stack thread, and the March '07 short-stack thread, and the April '07 short-stack thread....

Really, this was talked to death way way before November '06. I'm frustrated with myself, because I should have some easily-accessible boilerplate that says everything I've said so far in this thread, but I'm not that well-organized.

To say an argument is "beneath" someone means that it's not up to that person's typical high standards. That's hardly an ad hominem attack. That said, after having read Pokey's last reply I retract my statement that this thread is beneath him, because we're having a much more enlightening conversation here than the other times this topic has come up.

But I'm really less bothered by Pokey's OP than by the community's propensity to adopt certain views into the established consensus without sufficiently questioning them.

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Pokey. You make a lot of good points, and the NL10 games are quite likely may well be so bad that even a thoughtful beginner can tread water while learning. (Bankroll considerations make it a little different for B&amp;M, obviously, even though $1-2 is probably almost as beatable as NL10.)

I'll have to reflect more about your piano/Spanish points. We're advocating two different ways of looking at the issue of gradual learning.

[ QUOTE ]
However, for every hand where your flopped straight/set/flush/full house beats TPGK, there should NOT be an analagous loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% correct. But those aren't the hands people cite to say, "Look how much you're losing by buying in short."

Incidentally, not that it matters, the last couple of weeks I have been playing short a few times when I thought I wasn't psychologically prepared to play my best. But I'm generally too conservative with bankroll, which combined with playing too little really has slowed my progress.

I wish we'd had this conversation instead of the 50 previous times this has been discussed. Then I'd be less defensive on this topic. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Matt Ruff, I don't think it is a bad play if you just put all your stack at risk and let the cards fall as they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In practical terms, what does this mean? Are you suggesting Hero should open-push $195 into a $20 pot? Bet/reraise all-in? Check-raise all-in?

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think that if you are playing shortstacked, mistakes don't cost you so much, so you don't remember them so much and this is one of the reasons you should play big stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing a fundamental point about stack size.

If I've only got $25 in my stack, it's a mistake to call a $5 preflop raise with a suited connector. If I do make that call, though, and I'm lucky enough to flop two pair -- even bottom two -- it's a no-brainer to bet the rest of my money.

If I've got $200 in my stack, on the other hand, calling the preflop raise is a reasonable play (although I still might not want to do it out of position against a tough opponent). But betting the rest of my money on the flop is no longer a no-brainer -- it's a potentially huge error.

A play that is correct at one stack size may be incorrect at another. So increasing your stack size doesn't just make your mistakes more costly -- it makes them different.

[Vinetou]

Matt Ruff, it isn't important only how much you have, it is important how much your opponent has when you are calling with SC. And why would it be wrong put the rest of your money in when you are almost certainly ahead?

I didn't mean going all in instantly. This would be insane. Just bet a lot and if you end being all in, it is good. Checkraise is risky because you don't wanna give a free card. Depends on reads. If you have a special read that someone has you beat, you might make a tough laydown but you have to have VERY good reason.

[umdpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I'm sure most of the forum could find a hand history example where some short-stacked player with AA got all-in preflop against some deep-stacked player with KK or AK or QQ. In that hand, shorty has stunted his winrate, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

one of the advantages of shortstacking is that deepstackers sometimes can't adjust correctly to decent ones. (i am referring to 50bb shorties, not 10bber's) whereas most players won't go allin for their full stack with aq/jj, they see your short stack, and think "hell, its only half my stack, and this guy must be a donk because he buys in short. call." then they realize they are crushed. i have had some players i thought were decent call me with hands i know they wouldn't if i were full. sets almost always get paid off in limped pots by tpgk. if i had more behind me, i am certain my turn bet would be folded to much more often, because they fear the big river bet is coming too. basically, if you play under your opponent's pain threshold, they will pay. the key is to change your play once you double up. those who don't realize that you change strategy once you get to 100bbs then make more mistakes, thinking that you always play tptk for stacks. this makes them overvalue some hands, and not put me to the test as much, because they don't think i can fold strong but not great hand. it is very nice to have opponents misunderstand my play. i agree that you will make more with a deeper stack against bad players. that seems sort of common sense. however, buying on for 50 bbs isn't as bad as you think, simply because there aren't many 100bb pots anyways. i don't see how it is possible for the 20bb/less shorties to make any money, since they can't play postflop at all. they are also forced to take a lot of flips preflop(or the blinds take too much from stack between good hands), which basically feeds the rake.

[sisnarf]

I have heard that learning how to short stack can be more profitable. The decisions you have to make are generally straight forward and you end up getting the money in on the
flop. There are a few good reasons to become a good SS.

This can allow you to play more tables since decisions are easier. This leads to higher rake back.

You can play higher limits since your strategy is not as exploitable.

You don't make huge mistakes with a deep stack.

So maybe you will never be as good of a poker player as others but perhaps you can make more money than you would otherwise.

[dividius]

[ QUOTE ]
As to Phil Ivey, remember that he's not primarily a cash player -- he's a tourney donk. As such, he's often working to improve his tournament skills. In a tournament you often find yourself short-stacked simply by the nature of the structures. I would speculate that Phil sometimes buys in short to practice short-stacked situations for future tournaments, rather than to maximize his winrate in the current game.

[/ QUOTE ]Not to nitpick or hijack, but it should be mentioned that the opposite is true. Phil is known as a cash game player more than a tourney player, at least in recent years.