Re: Player Discussion
It is a little much if you don't put that qualifier (in a book) on it Mason, as it otherwise implies that Ed developed that theory. (The specific quote I claimed was "a little much" - He's [Ed Miller] the first one to ever explain the advantages of a short stack strategy)
On this very forum, probably about 2 or 3 years ago, there were numerous discussions about how to have near guaranteed wins in one of the live games around here by buying in for the minimum of $100 and playing very tight. Those same short-buy discussions have been more recently discussed in depth in the context of online no-limit games.
Also, there have been many posts here by people like Matt Flynn and Tommy (and more recently from people like me and GiftofGab) that discuss optimal buyin levels, which often times is described simply as "enough to cover the bad players," not "cover the table." Obviously, when you are an awesome player like 2+2er KaneKungFu, you always want to cover the table.
You stated that you've talked no-limit over the years with many excellent players. I'm sure none of those players would make silly claims like "a tight short-stack strategy can't work" as these Florida home-game players were arguing.
If your point is that there are many bad players out there who have major misconceptions about NL strategy, of course I agree.
However, I do think it is a little much to portray what Ed wrote as some sort of innovative NL strategy. It is a basic, very simple and well-known winning strategy that is good for beginners, but usually far from the most +EV strategy once people advance beyond the basic beginner stage.
|