Ethics of Shortstacking the 2k

[ahnuld]

another 4k in the last 2 sessions. Anybody who says this isnt a long term viable strategy better hope I cool off before my numbers become statistically significant or youll need to make a new theory.

[DonButtons]

I'd say you can make $.50-$1 per hand long term. But swings can get nasty.

Playing full stacks, a good player can make $2/per hand, up to the best player, who makes around $4-5 longterm.

and i think it's super unethical, and your just ruining good games, and being super rude

[SirShortStack]

Never played at the 2k level, but playing a short stack is a sure winner at the $100 table. People will call because it is only $20. I am sure this mentality is manifested at other levels.

I did experience a 12 buy-in ($20 x 12) down swing once. Other than that playing a short stack has been gold simply because most people on party at the $100.00 buy in level do not know how to play against it.

I am back to playing full stacks know because I am trying to master this phase of game also, but when I sure nuff need to win some cash, I go back to the short stack system.

[kr8tos86]

I think it is technically unethical, and have never done it myself although i have read the theory and i can see how it is approachable as a strategy. But i admit in certain situations it can become profitable but not for the right reasons, the main being relying on two cards rather than five. The only advice that i could give with my fairly small amount of experience i have, is to just observe, and read em until you decide to play them.
If they are pushing AI with mid/low pairs or A high kicker (and they are *every* single time) then all you can do is make sure that preflop you have a hand of +EV, AA, KK etc. You could also let him get beat because there is a very small chance that this will be unchallenged and successfull 100% of the time. All you have to do is be wise and not get involved. Have fun wise 2+2 posters [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Kr8tos Out [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[jshadow323]

Interesting thread, if you get rid of the childish responses.

I don't see how it can be unethical to play within the rules. Isn't game play all about designing a strategy within the rules that you feel will provide you with optimal outcome?

I do understand if you might like to see the rules changed.

[AngusThermopyle]

Let's see.
I have a great 6 inning starter, and a lousy bullpen.
You have a decent starter, great pinch hitters, and an excellent bullpen.
I am allowed to decide before the first pitch whether open the retractable dome after 6 innings and let the rain pour down or keep it closed thoughout the game.
What would you do?

Surprised only a few addressed the "unethical" question, only the unasked "is it viable" question.

By the responses, I would assume that it is viable. Why else would so many players hate it if others do it? Perhaps, because if it becomes a major style of play, thier max-buyin style won't be as profitable? And maybe that is why a couple did actually answer the question, and say it is "unethical".

[DcifrThs]

unethical or not, its within the current rules.

upside: may cause opponents to call bets with hands that they would have otherwise folded. bounded losses.

downside: bounded wins. difficulty protecting your hands on the flop (depending on "shortness" of buy in and action at the table)

from where i see it, if you expect to win more than your fair share then this strategy would need to make-up these losses with gains in terms of increased hand range calls vs. the short stack bets.

so at lower limits where the money is less and players poorer, the short buy may be more profitable than at the higher limits like 50/100 and 1/2nl where players adjust to it well. but the overall profitability may suffer at the lower limits b/c you could have even more money to cover the poorer players and profit from their likely sizable mistakes.

at the mid limits, it seems that at the mid limits we see the "optimal limit" to play short stacked in terms of average opponent skill level. probably at like 5/10-20/40 there are many players for which it may be more profitable to play short stacked than full buy. they may be close to breakeven with high variance and would have small dollar valued swings and higher expectation w/ the short buy strategy.

at the higher limits, players understand opponents' thought processes better on average so the short buy strategy would need to be implemented with a good deal of randomness and skill to be profitable against the good players at those levels. vs. the gamblers at those levels though it will be profitable, but again, not as profitable as having more to cover them. it keeps you out of trouble playing a very big stack vs. other good players at the table also though.

just some thoughts.

Barron

[allinrenco]

Maybe a strange question to the mathematicians under us:

But is it perhaphs also possible to apply something like game theory on short stack play in a way to make it profitable?

[binions]

Barry Greenstein says he usually buys in for the minimum in the side games. See Ace on the River. Harrington says he played the short stack strategy outlined in Miller's GSIH book when he was starting out.

Part of poker is exploiting others mistakes. At NL, it is a mistake to ignore implied odds. So if someone wants to get involved with a short stack without proper values considering the lack of implied odds, that's a mistake that any player should have every right to exploit.

End of story.

[Wardfish]

Ethics
------

As far as the ethics is concerned, its within the rules so who cares. Its not like anyone's gonna follow you out to the car-park and beat you up for being unethical. The online cardrooms are raking in massive profits from the rake because they implemented a set of rules that keep the losing players in action for longer. If someone can find and play out a strategy to turn a profit from this then good luck to them.

The only way to stop this is to increase the size of the minimum buy-in, but this will mean that the better players will win a higher proportion of the losers' money, instead of it staying in play longer and being collected in the rake. My guess is the online cardrooms are happy with the staus quo.

Strategy
--------

I agree with OP (and others) that this is a viable strategy when properly implemented in the right game.

Comments from the deep-stack players like "good players will adjust to it etc etc" miss one major point

ie. a lot of the time the short-stack will be getting all his money in the pot in a position where the (deep-stack) players already in the pot are compelled to call with an inferior/dominated hand (or coin-flip).

I have tried this strategy briefly (at $400NL, $40 in my case) and am convinced it can be very profitable.

However, because you can expect to get called more often than not, it is possible to have a bad run and lose many buy-ins.

Compare this to buying in for $40 at 25c-50c and you will find the variance is much much greater, whereas you can expect the profit to be somewhat greater to a lesser extent. At the lower level, playing a fuller stack , you wouldnt expect a bad run to mean losing as many buy-ins as a bad run playing a short stack.

Other major factor to consider: BOREDOM!!

You need to be focused on the money to want to do this long term, cos you wont get much satisfaction.