Ethics of Shortstacking the 2k

[Shaun]

I've done a version of this before but with a 50BB stack instead of only 20BB. My strategy was therefore very different in that I wasn't pushing pre-flop very often. My major decision street was usually the flop, and this size stack would sometimes let me see flops for one raise with a smaller pair in hopes of flopping a set. Anyway it was really boring but I'm convinced it is a good way to take a shot at a bigger game and get a lot of action on your money.

Of course it's ethical. If it's allowed within the rules, it's fair. People who are properly funded for the game don't like it because they want your seat to be filled by a fish with a full buy-in, not by someone employing a strategy that causes them to adjust to perhaps a less than optimal style of play.

That said it is easy to avoid giving short stacks action. Simply folding all but the best hands to their pushes is it. If no one else gives them action, the blinds will eat them up. The problem is, you want to give the short stack action to get at a big stack's money. Herein lies the dilemma and this is obviously why it is such a good strategy.

No limit is a great game precisely because many more strategies can be used than in limit, simplistic or no. Limit poker is a showdown fest. Limit sucks.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most of these guys dont know how to play postflop either. If u do, u should buy in for more $.

[chicagoY]

I thought big stacks loved to crunch short stacks, besides, isn't it a relief to know your all in can't hurt you much?

[SlowStroke]

I don't think it is profitable.

First, you don't get quality hands often enough. The blinds will be more expensive than you expect.

Second, too often you win only the blinds and limpers money, failing to double up.

Third, you will tend to get called by hands that dominate you more often than is the case in tournaments.

Any solid played using Poker Tracker and a Heads Up Display will be able to calculate from your Pre Flop Raise percentages the kinds of hands you are moving in with and adjust their calling requirements accordingly.

If you still think it will work, then put it to the test with your own money and report back with your results.

An opinion not backed by money is worthless.

[PanRains]

I find it irksome (note: speaking as a fully funded player at 2/4 and 3/6), but not for the AK v 55 reason. If anything, for the opposite reason.

A shortstacked player fundamentally changes the game, both in ring games and in tournaments. If I'm up against a group of players with reasonable stacks, I may standard raise with fun, well disguised hands - suited connectors, small pps, that if I'm reraised, I have strong implied odds. Against shorties, T9s is almost certainly behind right now, and I don't have odds to try to catch up.

Or conversely, if I hold 44 on the BTN, you have a 100 BB stack and raise to 3BB - I have implied odds to perhaps take your stack or at least a portion of it. Whereas in my experience, not only do the shortsacks not give me implied odds (heck if I'm 8 to 1 flop a set, and nobody else is in the hand, someone playing with a stack of < 20 BB isn't giving me odds) usually these guys are making crazy big raises.

In my experience, it makes for a boring, tentative game.

Now what you're describing is somewhat different, and it sounds like you're benefitting from the psychological environment that perhaps you're creating.

Also, calling a CR on the turn with Ace high no kicker is probably not winning poker in the long run, not without a stone read, and I would suggest that perhaps you could have taken more of that particular player's chips if you had the full buy in at the table.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

A shortstacked player fundamentally changes the game, both in ring games and in tournaments. If I'm up against a group of players with reasonable stacks, I may standard raise with fun, well disguised hands - suited connectors, small pps, that if I'm reraised, I have strong implied odds. Against shorties, T9s is almost certainly behind right now, and I don't have odds to try to catch up.

Or conversely, if I hold 44 on the BTN, you have a 100 BB stack and raise to 3BB - I have implied odds to perhaps take your stack or at least a portion of it. Whereas in my experience, not only do the shortsacks not give me implied odds (heck if I'm 8 to 1 flop a set, and nobody else is in the hand, someone playing with a stack of < 20 BB isn't giving me odds) usually these guys are making crazy big raises.

In my experience, it makes for a boring, tentative game.


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a good observation re: implied odds. Here is a Rx for learning to play with shorter stacks:

Play NL 6Max.

Nearly every table has at least 1 and often 2 players at 40xBB or less.

You still raise with your "fun" hands. You simply fold more often when the short stack re-raises.

[bulldawgblue]

I'm still not convinced that this is +EV strategy. Mainly because when some who is doing this gets called they are either a dog or only a SLIGHT favorite. Either way, it doesn't really bother me. If I see someone doing this I never give them any action, and if it gets really annoying I just leave the table. But unethical....nah.

[BaggyAnt]

There is nothing ethically wrong with it - However, it is one of the reasons as to why Pot Limit is the most skillful HE game out there

[mjws00]

I'd love to see someone with a large sample size running this kind of play. Bottom line is it works best to hit and run with this type of strategy. You can double up twice on a table then even the most aggressive just stop calling. Or only call with AA KK.

I don't have the patience to build a huge data set, but ran for 2 nights. Had to 6+ table 6-max and that was boring as hell. Full tables were better, but even more boring as the blinds don't come around as often. Didn't know what range to push so started JJ+ or AKs. Ended up about 24 to 6 busts. Didn't bother cashing out just pushed the double or triple stack when it was there.

Can't see any ethical issues at all. You need lots of available opponents as the play is so transparent, and easy to adapt against. Didn't feel like a winning longterm move, but short term ended up 15BB/100. Extremely unsatisfying poker, but kind of fun to be WAY ahead every time you see a flop. Would be fun to see how far you could open the range and still be +EV. Lots of loose callers down low.

I'm guessing bots could beat the fishes this way. Just got to program them to jump to a new table after taking down only the blinds twice, or doubling up 3x.

If I could 32 table the mid-stakes with the right roll it could be fun. Or hire a couple of kids at $6/hr to push when appropriate. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

If you model the calling range of your average donk, aggressive, or gambler. I think you could get paid mega-tabling. Way too easy for good players to adapt at the high levels unless they are just calling for fun to swat the gnat.

Mike