Buy in short to protect your bankroll!

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] instead of 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[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.

[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.

[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

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[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, CO raises to $5, Button calls, SB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($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.

[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.