STTF SNG->cash thread

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been told by lacky, and experience confirms this, that I'm a liability with too many BIs. He actually said I should buyin for the minimum, but I don't have the nerve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] The "nerve"? You mean because of what the other players... who you are there to rape and pillage, remember... might think of you?

It's very reasonable to buy in short as you are learning cash, I did it for a while. Plus you can make a reasonable living never buying in deep if you play enough tables, which is easy to do as a shorty because all your decisions are preflop or on the flop. If you make too much $$ on one table just cash out and join another one.

Then as you make the transition and want to learn to play deeper, you can stay on tables where you win $$ and adjust your strategy, this serves as a hedge of sorts and also naturally leads to the "stack protection" approach that raptor recommends above, since you don't want to blow all your winnings from that table on one stupid hand.

Gradually as you get better, you can then buy in deeper from the start.

Of course you can make more $$ playing deep IF you are a good deep-stacked player. That IF is kinda critical, though.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
NL cash games, ESPECIALLY deep, are MUCH more about stack protection than hand protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the saying goes, if you learn nothing else in this thread, learn this.

Key insight, well stated. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Knight Vision]

I'm with Mcot. I learn more from my mistakes with the larger stack and win more when the donks donk. Also, short-stack and large-stack NL are two different games. I don't see the need to learn to play short-stack unless one is playing above one's BR, which sucks.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the need to learn to play short-stack unless one is playing above one's BR, which sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I did give a few reasons above that you probably missed, but whatever. To each his own. I'm just saying the idea shouldn't be automatically rejected.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been told by lacky, and experience confirms this, that I'm a liability with too many BIs. He actually said I should buyin for the minimum, but I don't have the nerve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] The "nerve"? You mean because of what the other players... who you are there to rape and pillage, remember... might think of you?

It's very reasonable to buy in short as you are learning cash, I did it for a while. Plus you can make a reasonable living never buying in deep if you play enough tables, which is easy to do as a shorty because all your decisions are preflop or on the flop. If you make too much $$ on one table just cash out and join another one.

Then as you make the transition and want to learn to play deeper, you can stay on tables where you win $$ and adjust your strategy, this serves as a hedge of sorts and also naturally leads to the "stack protection" approach that raptor recommends above, since you don't want to blow all your winnings from that table on one stupid hand.

Gradually as you get better, you can then buy in deeper from the start.

Of course you can make more $$ playing deep IF you are a good deep-stacked player. That IF is kinda critical, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm working on the theory that if I buyin for $120 ($1/$2) I just look like an oblivious donk buying in for the default amount, and not someone going out of their way to shortstack. Of course as the regulars get to know me this effect will diminish.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been told by lacky, and experience confirms this, that I'm a liability with too many BIs. He actually said I should buyin for the minimum, but I don't have the nerve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] The "nerve"? You mean because of what the other players... who you are there to rape and pillage, remember... might think of you?

It's very reasonable to buy in short as you are learning cash, I did it for a while. Plus you can make a reasonable living never buying in deep if you play enough tables, which is easy to do as a shorty because all your decisions are preflop or on the flop. If you make too much $$ on one table just cash out and join another one.

Then as you make the transition and want to learn to play deeper, you can stay on tables where you win $$ and adjust your strategy, this serves as a hedge of sorts and also naturally leads to the "stack protection" approach that raptor recommends above, since you don't want to blow all your winnings from that table on one stupid hand.

Gradually as you get better, you can then buy in deeper from the start.

Of course you can make more $$ playing deep IF you are a good deep-stacked player. That IF is kinda critical, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm working on the theory that if I buyin for $120 ($1/$2) I just look like an oblivious donk buying in for the default amount, and not someone going out of their way to shortstack. Of course as the regulars get to know me this effect will diminish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, 60 big blinds is not short-stacking. In fact it's a nebulous zone where you can find yourself pot-committed pretty easily with hands that you'd prefer the option to get away from, and meanwhile you can't profitably play many implied odds hands or 3-bet preflop because you aren't deep enough. I could argue that it's the worst of both worlds, really.

By short-stacking, I'm talking about buying in for 20 big blinds here.

[Knight Vision]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the need to learn to play short-stack unless one is playing above one's BR, which sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I did give a few reasons above that you probably missed, but whatever. To each his own. I'm just saying the idea shouldn't be automatically rejected.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think your reasons have merit and I wouldn't reject them. I just think that we (SNGers) are good enough at poker in general to play with a deeper stack, when we play within our BR. And by that I mean 1/2 might seem right for a BR of $5K or whatever, but it's not right for a beginning NL player. I would suggest moving down (to the dregs with me if you must). It's really no different than a beginning SNGer playing $55+. There's no need to cost yourself more than you need to as you learn that TPTK is no good and being pot-committed in cash is much different than pot-committed in an SNG - which frankly is what gets us into the most trouble as we switch.

But, your points are valid if one is to play where his BR says he should be able to play. I just think it's an unwise route.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been told by lacky, and experience confirms this, that I'm a liability with too many BIs. He actually said I should buyin for the minimum, but I don't have the nerve.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] The "nerve"? You mean because of what the other players... who you are there to rape and pillage, remember... might think of you?

It's very reasonable to buy in short as you are learning cash, I did it for a while. Plus you can make a reasonable living never buying in deep if you play enough tables, which is easy to do as a shorty because all your decisions are preflop or on the flop. If you make too much $$ on one table just cash out and join another one.

Then as you make the transition and want to learn to play deeper, you can stay on tables where you win $$ and adjust your strategy, this serves as a hedge of sorts and also naturally leads to the "stack protection" approach that raptor recommends above, since you don't want to blow all your winnings from that table on one stupid hand.

Gradually as you get better, you can then buy in deeper from the start.

Of course you can make more $$ playing deep IF you are a good deep-stacked player. That IF is kinda critical, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm working on the theory that if I buyin for $120 ($1/$2) I just look like an oblivious donk buying in for the default amount, and not someone going out of their way to shortstack. Of course as the regulars get to know me this effect will diminish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, 60 big blinds is not short-stacking. In fact it's a nebulous zone where you can find yourself pot-committed pretty easily with hands that you'd prefer the option to get away from, and meanwhile you can't profitably play many implied odds hands or 3-bet preflop because you aren't deep enough. I could argue that it's the worst of both worlds, really.

By short-stacking, I'm talking about buying in for 20 big blinds here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I thought $80 was the min. $40 sure would keep me out of trouble. Man I'd feel like a dick though. (cue exasperation)

[The Yugoslavian]

I have never understood what is dickish about buying in for the minimum.....ofc I don't do it tho, lolz.

Yugoslav

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is not necessary, especially if you don't play well with a deeper stack. Coming from a sng background, we are very well suited for buying in short.

I've recently switch to FT, where it seems 90% of the players buy in real short. Thankfully, none of them know how to play the short stack. Someone that plays well with a short stack is very annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table selection is key. Find tables where there are donkeys with large stacks to take. Why sit and wait for a powerful hand to win 10bb when a donkey will stack off 100bb with the same hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I was just giving an alternative. I buy in full for that very reason. I understand what you are saying.

But, you just made some definitive statement about always buy-in full and left it at that. There are merits to both strategies and both can very profitable if done right.