beating the big NL games..

[mle]

ok..how could someone combat a player buying in for 1000 or 1500 at the 10/25 blind NL game who would go all in preflop with AK or JJ or better..and call preflop limps with any poket pair and go all in on flop if flop a set. maybe have 10 buy ins for variance...hard to beat, yes?

seems like a recipe for a winner?

thought and/or things to improve on would be appreciated.

[engineer_mba]

Hi,

Umm, perhaps I am missing something, but there seems to be a fairly obvious method to combat this strategy:

Don't Call without a monster!

If I were at a table and noticed someone using this strategy, I would only call pre-flop with premium hands. Once others figured this out, with a great hand you are picking up $35 (plus $$$ from previous limpers) or facing another monster. Note sure this is the best EV play when you flop a set either because there is a good chance you will lose all your customers.

In closing, if you decide to try this strategy, I would love to hear how it works.

Cheers,

Leo

[AaronBrown]

Out of 1,326 possible hands, he goes all in on 40, and calls if no one raises on 54 more. He folds 93% of his hands. He has to make $50 per hand he plays just to get his blinds back. If everyone folds every time he plays, he's a loser because he only makes $35.

When he goes all-in, you know what he has. About 12% of the time at a table of 10, someone will have something better. That means when he does go all-in, he's likely to be called only when he's behind.

When he calls, he also gives away his hand. If you only have to worry about pairs from 2 to 10, and if you know he goes all in with a set on the flop, it's easy to raise when you're ahead and fold when you're not.

This guy will collect a lot of money from foolish people who call all in bets from a guy who plays less than one hand per round, while holding weak cards. He'll collect more from people who call all-in bets after the flop, when someone has represented a set. But he'll lose money against people who have figured out how to play him. He'll lose money when everyone folds, and he'll lose money when he's called.

[AKQJ10]

engineer_mba is right, of course. That said, I strongly suspect that OP's strategy will work in all but the toughest B&M games. Ed Miller certainly seems to think so when he picks the Bellagio $10-20 as an example in GSiHE.

It's a combination of opponents who are clueless preflop and opponents who are clueful but playing speculative hands to take aim at the bigger stacks (see NLHE:TaP).

[NMcNasty]

Buying in for 1000 and 1500 is a bit too deep for that strategy to work right. You would be spewing chips against AA and KK more often than getting a donk with AQ or 99 to call. Unfortunately, that type of strategy with the minimum stack ($500 or so) is +EV if used correctly. You would however never get away with in a casino 10-25 game without being berated for playing cheeseball poker. In the online 10-20 games people do it all the time and its ruining the games. There's nothing more annoying than calling some mediocre player's raise with a hand like 68s with the hope of outplaying them postflop but then having some donk 15 year old push allin with his little stack.

The strategy is easy to beat itself, but it forces you to play tight boring poker and fold hands that are marginally profitable against lesser skilled but equally stacked opponents.

So yeah, the strategy might work but it will never be as effective as a good deepstack strategy and it will never make you a better player.

[WhoIam]

This strategy would probably work better if you mixed things up a bit--like sometimes limp-reraising with a monster or pushing 88 pf w/ position. It would also be to your advantage to keep track of your table image. For example, if you pushed preflop several times in a short period, people would be more willing to look you up, so play accordingly. Also, knowing your opponents' basic tendencies would increase the EV of this strategy.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing more annoying than calling some mediocre player's raise with a hand like 68s with the hope of outplaying them postflop but then having some donk 15 year old push allin with his little stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting -- there's a negative correlation between age and ability to play a SS strategy correctly? And what site violates its users' privacy by displaying their age, even if they're underage?

Moreover, I thought that considering the action behind you was part of poker. It's not a Constitutional right to see a cheap flop with all your drawing hands. Maybe you're overvaluing 86s in MP with players yet to act.

[ QUOTE ]
...it will never be as effective as a good deepstack strategy...

[/ QUOTE ]

True, every one of the five million times this gets discussed to death, everyone agrees it's less +EV than playing in a deep-stacked game where you have the advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
and it will never make you a better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. By allowing you to sit in a game that you otherwise would bleed money to sit in, you're getting a great learning opportunity. I don't think anyone reads GSIHE and thinks, "I want to grind short stacks at $10-25 for the rest of my poker career!"

Anyway, I have yet to see any arguments on this thread that aren't already on the wiki page. Nothing new under the sun.

[NMcNasty]

I'm hostile toward the shortstacking strategy because its ruining internet poker at the higher levels and I want to discourage its use as much as possible. Do you not agree that it harms the games at the higher levels?

Also you're right the issue has been beaten to death, but then why would you say something like "I thought the action behind you was part of poker". Its not like im calling raises with suited connectors then suddenly finding out there's a shortstacker behind me. Marginal hands become less profitable with shortstacks behind you but not necessarily unprofitable. I might still have correct odds to call with 68 but then when a shortstack pushes allin there's nothing I can do but grumble. Maybe you should reread a couple of those 5 million posts so you can grasp this concept.

[AKQJ10]

I don't play that high, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's ruining the game. If you're bothered by the prevalence of short stacks then write to your favorite online site or cardroom rather than complaining about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should reread a couple of those 5 million posts so you can grasp this concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand perfectly well why it could be a good move to call a raise with a speculative hand then let go of it when a short-stack pushes behind you. (If the call was already marginal, as it would be with 86s except against a bad postflop player with fairly deep stacks, then the prospect of action behind could certainly make the original call of the raise unprofitable, just given the slight probability you're going to have to dump your hand. Furthermore, depending on stack sizes, it might be right to fold to a deeper stack's reraise too.)

What I don't understand is why you seem to feel so aggrieved, as though your opponents are obligated to give up playing in a way that makes them money. It's the sense of entitlement I don't get, not the frustration.

If you don't like the rules, try to get the rules changed. Don't blame someone for playing their best within the rules.

[NMcNasty]

A lot of people did send emails to Party Poker complaining about ratholing which basically every shortstacker does. Pokerstars doesn't allow you to rathole, and generally you'll find less shortstackers on that site for that reason. There's a thread about this in some other forum, supposedly party responded to a few emails saying they are working on the problem. Fixing ratholing is the first step. The next step I think would be to simply double or better yet triple the minimum buyin. I would imagine 90% of online regulars would support this. Until that gets fixed though, all we can do is discourage it.