Hit and Run Strategy

[kfactorx]

Hey everyone... a bit new here in terms of posting so i apologize in advance for any mistakes. Anyway, I usually play .50/1 NL (6 max) ring games and developed a new style. I play 2-3 tables at once, buy in for $50 for all of them, and then play until I double up, then leave to another table, buying in $50 again, always leaving when I double up.

Let me break down how I believe this works for me: I am very confident in my play, and realize that mainly, my losses come from bad situations (AA vs KK) or bad beats. So by buying in only $50 and leaving at $100, I don't risk losing a huge amount in one hand. A friend of mine brought up a good point that by doing that, I do not have potential to win as much on a double up, but my argument is that players with $150+ on the table are generally good players, so it would rare to double up against them. Furthermore, in ring games, I win more small pots and rarely ever put all my chips in anyway.

Regardless, I've been making a decent amount playing .50/1 and SNGs (just moved to poker stars) but I just wanted opinions on this strategy. Thanks!

[dernulf]

It's called shortstacking and is usually frowned upon by 2p2ers. I don't like when people hit and run either.

However, I don't play at stars so keep it up.

[Djeorge]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called shortstacking and is usually frowned upon by 2p2ers. I don't like when people hit and run either.

However, I don't play at stars so keep it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortstacking is when you buy in for less than 100BB's. This is ratholing.

If you don't feel comfortable playing witha big stack then you don't have to play but if you're a player with a skill advantage over players at your stakes, which presumably you should believe you are, then playing deep should be more favourable to you. Your statement about having a big stack makes them more likely to be good only has a little grain of truth of it. The varaicne inherent in the game means that anyone can double up once or twice and thus the bayesian inference of saying "he's got a big stack so it's more than likely he is a good player" is false.

[Abramovic]

Better yet, if you want to play with $50, play $50NL!

[kolotoure]

This isn't ratholing

[SpecT]

1)big stacks are bad players just as much as they are good players
2)if u assume you have an edge, then u want to b as deep as possible
3)*insert link to pokey's post about buying in for full
4) I [censored] HATE SHORT STACKS, ESPECIALLY SHORT STACKS THAT HIT AND RUN... THEY'RE SO ANNOYING I WISH THEY WOULD ALL DIE Y DONT THEY JUST BUYIN FOR FULL AND THEN THEY STACK ME AND IM LIKE OOOOOO NOW UR A FULL STACK AND I CAN WIN MY MONEY BACK BUT THEN THEY LEAVE AND IM LIKE OMFG Y DID U LEAVE IM SO FUSTRATED RIGHT NOW THAT PUT MY ON MONKEY TILT I CANT BELIEVE HE JUST DID THAT HYACHAHAHAHAAHAHA

so yes, in summary, learn to play full and deepstacked poker, ur winrate shall skyrocket /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SpecT]

OP, read this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=microplnl&Number=7964709& Searchpage=1&Main=7964709&Words=buying+short+Pokey &topic=&Search=true#Post7964709)

[JackAll]

[ QUOTE ]
my argument is that players with $150+ on the table are generally good players

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOL'd

[TDouble]

Yeah it sucks when you keep getting it all in w/ AA against KK

WTF?

[Ratamahatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my argument is that players with $150+ on the table are generally good players

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOL'd

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this was true for a long time. Now if I see a guy with 200+bb stack, I assume that he's a donkey 75%-80% of the time.

[tufat23]

i just assume everyone is a donk

[n1nj4.br]

[ QUOTE ]
i just assume everyone is a donk

[/ QUOTE ]

[SinkRox]

You'll gain more experience and skill if you play deep stack poker....

get with the programme son!

[orange]

is this a [censored] joke?

[yundmi]

GREAT STRAT! you should take this strat to the next level...
start at 100NL...soon as you double, move to 200nl...rinse and repeat! then you'll be balllllllin.

[Setcho]

OP,

FWIW, Barry Greenstein says that shortstacking is the right thing to do. Mathematical edge etc. It has its pros at least.

A lot of poster in SSNL will argue against shortstacking not because the merits or drawbacks of shortstacking, but rather because they dislike playing against people with less than 100BBs. Ego > Money

Pokeys post brings up a lot of good points though.

[Thremp]

Shortstacking requires skill... You can't just be a total retard and shortstack.

[Stealthy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my argument is that players with $150+ on the table are generally good players

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOL'd

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this was true for a long time. Now if I see a guy with 200+bb stack, I assume that he's a donkey 75%-80% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey I had a 500BB+ stack earlier. Hee-haw

[kolotoure]

That just proves the point

[Confused1]

That's what Chris Ferguson did to turn $1 into $20K.

He bought in to the biggest table he could get on for 5% of his BR and then he always left that table when 10% of his BR was in play.

Rinse, repeat.

Note that he was trying to moving up and building a BR as fast as possible with little chance of going broke (and already knew he could beat every level). If you are just cashing out, I think you're giving up a lot of EV, if you are indeed disciplined and skilled.