NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

it occurs to me that the concensus is that the majority of players dont like ppl who buy in short. hopefully, a meanifull discussion will ensue.

its my obsevation that most short buy ins are bad players. any two will do. they are use to getting stacked; thus lose the minimum until the next reload.

they are more likely to call all ins preflop. they are more likely to call post flop with bad holdings or draws.

i would rather see the seat filled with a short buy in than being empty. atleast there's more money on the table.

the only down side to short buy in is when you dont have the implied odds to draw post flop if he bets a proper amount. ty for sites that dont have "bet pot".

i enjoy watching a good short stacker. perhaps hes near busto and trying to rebuild. any one whos played long enough knows this feeling.

for the haters, i think a re-evaluation of the short stacker may be in order. adjust your game.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I got the feeling that some of the players at the online tables either didn't like or didn't respect me for buying in short. (I assume here you have read the short stack discussion in Miller/Sklansky NLHE.)

The respet problem usually ends the first time I go AI. I can understand why they might be irritated. For a good tall stack player trying to max his BB/hr rate, a short stack buy-in must look like a half empty seat at a full table. It also puts a crimp in their implied odds strategy.

It is a perfectly legal strategy and part of the game. Objecting to it is like makeing a "No ckeck and raise" rule, it diminishes the complexity of the game.

Use it or don't use it, whichever is best for you.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

good point ifaiban,

if its allowed, then its proper to use it. smiling at the no check-raise rule. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

3 reasons
1) They would lose more if they bought in full
2)They take away from a lot of the post flop game making harder to exploit other weak players
3)its gay

I have no problem with someone buying in short in a live game at the lowest stakes
But online they have games as low as 10 dollar caps so I hope they all die

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

From my experience, I find that those who buy in short play much tighter.

Also, I think people are hatin on short buy-in people is because they seem to like to hit n run. At least when I hit n run, I buy in for half of the max. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I think it depends on how short is short...I love seeing people buy-in between 40BB and 75BB...These guys bring back memories of the Party glory days...The ones that buy in for 20BB is a waste...Playing a 20BB stack is like playing a SNG it all PF...Even the 20BB guys don't bother me much if they stick around either by re-buying or staying when they double up...

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
From my experience, I find that those who buy in short play much tighter.

Also, I think people are hatin on short buy-in people is because they seem to like to hit n run. At least when I hit n run, I buy in for half of the max. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
If a person is going to play a proper short-stack strategy, hitting and running is logical. The whole idea is to make post-flop decisions easy and to negate the implied odds of better opponents. Once you double and have something resembling a medium stack, you no longer have the ability to raise strong pre-flop ---> move in post-flop without giving your opponents the ability to call profitable pre-flop with hands like medium pairs hoping to bust you with a set.

Basically, if your game is to minimize your mistakes by playing NL pre-flop, then leaving once you stack-up is essential, otherwise you will simply negate your advantage.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

It's inane to imply that short stacking adds to the games complexity. All short stacking does is basically take away two streets from the game since the short stacks are usually all in on the flop, if not preflop. Taking away two streets of play = dumbing down, not adding complexity. And on top of taking away two postflop streets, short stacking also retards preflop play due to lack of flexibility.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's inane to imply that short stacking adds to the games complexity. All short stacking does is basically take away two streets from the game since the short stacks are usually all in on the flop, if not preflop. Taking away two streets of play = dumbing down, not adding complexity. And on top of taking away two postflop streets, short stacking also retards preflop play due to lack of flexibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's turning cash into SNGs. It's a beautiful thing.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I know at least 10 people buy-in 20BB and play 8 tables sametime. If it's not winning then why they do this???

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know at least 10 people buy-in 20BB and play 8 tables sametime. If it's not winning then why they do this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say you couldn't win money short stacking? It will be crap compared to what you'd earn full stacking, but require a whole lot less skill and that's a good thing for some players.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

Short stack buyin play in and of itself is not the problem.

In live play there are rules in place to prevent ratholing which is taking winnings off the table to protect them.

Since you can play multiple tables online, and come and go at will, it is not easy for online sites to enforce a ban on ratholing.

When a short stack buyin player chooses to become a ratholer then the integrity of the game is compromised.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack buyin play in and of itself is not the problem.

In live play there are rules in place to prevent ratholing which is taking winnings off the table to protect them.

Since you can play multiple tables online, and come and go at will, it is not easy for online sites to enforce a ban on ratholing.

When a short stack buyin player chooses to become a ratholer then the integrity of the game is compromised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree (as both a short and deep stack player).

Most sites have an anti-rathole rule which prevents players from coming back to a table after leaving unless they buy in for the same amount when they left (or more). They could lengthen the time, restrict multi-tabling or require larger buy-ins. They don't, so there's nothing unethical about the player who gets a hit, then leaves to find another game.

The same situation exists live -- you get up and find another table if you want to continue to play short after a big hit. THe only difference is that instead of seconds to find another table it might take a few minutes.

Jeff

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet! I never want to be known as mainstream.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one day soon there will be additional table types online with an absolute buyin and not a min/max range.

These would allow players to avoid the short stack buyin players that use ratholing tactics (if they prefer to not play with such vermin).

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
These would allow players to avoid the short stack buyin players that use ratholing tactics (if they prefer to not play with such vermin).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. "Vermin"?

Considering the fact that poker is a game in which an optimal play when you have crap is to sometimes misrepresent the strength of your hand and mislead others into thinking one thing so that they fold to you and you can take the money and run, I think that's a bit rich.

Personally, I will sometimes play shortstacked if there are a bunch of maniacs at the table or if I'm just coming in to the game.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I've never ran into a short-stacker who knows what they're doing. It's morons who are playing scared and they should burn in hell. They ruin the game and by buyin in short, they are tellin the table, "I don't belong here, I have no idea what I'm doing, I won a $5 SnG once so I must not be that bad."

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute tables are 200bb max if that helps.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

My problem with players using the short buyin is two-fold:

1. It has the effect of tightening up the whole table. A good shortstacker is only playing 5% (give or take a few percent) of the hands dealt. Every single time I'm at a table and a short-stacker buys in, you can see the average players per flop number drop steadily by 10 percent or more as the whole table dynamic changes. Wild and loose games become rock gardens or just break altogether.

2. It chases off the fish. The fish play the game to see a lot of flops and have a good time. It isn't fun for the fish to have someone sitting at the table that plays one hand every 3 rounds, pushes all in preflop, and then leaves the table with the fish's money when he wins.

In the short-term, it may be a profitable approach to the game. However, by tightening up the games and chasing away the fish, the strategy actually destroys the conditions that make it effective.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I'm happy I have the option to play full or short stack. The reason is I live in Los Angeles. If I want to practice online for my b&M play, I buy in for 20 or 33 big blinds so I can simulate casino play.

The main reason the full stackers dont want the short stackers is that IT COMPLICATES THE FULL STACKERS GAME. Its may be a small advantage, but it is an advantage to play short stack in NL.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The same situation exists live -- you get up and find another table if you want to continue to play short after a big hit. THe only difference is that instead of seconds to find another table it might take a few minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]
You have no concept of live play, do you?

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

Ive yet to see a really good short stacker. By and large they are bad. The only negative they bring is a limit to what i can win, and an ability to kill side action by making big overbets.

You gotta love them some times though:

Ive cut out the suits and the other stacks, they dont make a difference. Its 5 handed here btw.

Seat 5: pablos48 ($45.65 in chips)
Seat 6: MisterDiceman ($443.60 in chips)

pablos48: Post SB $1.00
MisterDiceman: Post BB $2.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pablos48 [A A] him
Dealt to MisterDiceman [J J] me
Xaitra87: Call $2.00
paymefriday: Fold
PFish112: Call $2.00
pablos48: Call $1.00
MisterDiceman: Raise $10.00
Xaitra87: Fold
PFish112: Fold
pablos48: Allin $43.65
MisterDiceman: Call $33.65
*** FLOP *** [Q 6 Q]
*** TURN *** [8]
*** RIVER *** [5]

Lololol.

Fwiw, he hung around and gave me a chance to beat him:

Seat 5: pablos48 ($50.70 in chips) DEALER
Seat 6: MisterDiceman ($450.90 in chips)

MisterDiceman: Post SB $1.00
Mubbben: Post BB $2.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to MisterDiceman [K K]
Dealt to pablos48 [10 10]
paymefriday: Fold
PFish112: Fold
pablos48: Call $2.00
MisterDiceman: Raise $8.00
Mubbben: Call $7.00
pablos48: Call $7.00
*** FLOP *** [J 8 2]
MisterDiceman: Bet $20.00
Mubbben: Call $20.00
pablos48: Allin $41.70
MisterDiceman: Raise $86.80
Mubbben: Fold
*** TURN *** [10]
*** RIVER *** [J]

Way it goes i guess.

My point, he played badly twice (see hand 1, if i have rags, check and someone else holds a Q, he busts that stack) - he doesnt even get away from his pocket pair with an over there.

Its all just variance. I have a loads of records of shortstackers who come sit down, play a couple of orbits, get it in bad and then leave.

I always assume shortstackers = fish, because 99% of the time they simply are.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

Why the hate indeed,

Shortstackers usually suck, they wouldn't play otherwise so yes I like them at the table. You do need to make adjustments against them, but I'd rather have a whole school of short fish than a table full of full stacked nits.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason the full stackers dont want the short stackers is that IT COMPLICATES THE FULL STACKERS GAME.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is untrue. Short stack buyin players eliminate many of the advanced plays available which actually simplifies the game.

Better players want a game to be more complex so their skills can come into play.

As I said above, short stack buyin players are not necessarily bad. Too many at a tables does tend to tighten up the whole table but good players can adjust.

It is the ratholing short stack buyin players that give them all a bad reputation.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. "Vermin"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I assure you there was no malice intended, simply a reference to "rat"holing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

there was a pretty good discussion about short-stackers in the ElDiablo forum recently.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. "Vermin"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I assure you there was no malice intended, simply a reference to "rat"holing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (Taking things too seriously today. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] )

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
there was a pretty good discussion about short-stackers in the ElDiablo forum recently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool! I assumed the El Diablo and Sklansky forums were just for fanboys and I have enough time sinks already. Guess I will go check it out.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

ElD forum is kind of for fanboys a little bit.
But not really.
It's mostly an OOT-mature type place (as opposed to regular OOT which sometimes can be pretty immature...but also has some occasional really good conversations).

he is stricter on the direction the conversation goes. He expects somewhat intelligent discussion without the insulting.
And poker topics are allowed such as the discussion on short-stackers.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
there was a pretty good discussion about short-stackers in the ElDiablo forum recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know the secret handshake

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

no secret handshake necessary.
you have to be selected in order to START threads.
But anyone is free to respond and participate in the current discussions taking place.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same situation exists live -- you get up and find another table if you want to continue to play short after a big hit. THe only difference is that instead of seconds to find another table it might take a few minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]
You have no concept of live play, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on where you play. In a LV room, where 1 or 2 games are going, very tough. In Los Angeles it encouraged to rathole as any table change you can only buy in with the max buy in at the table. Plus most of the large casinos have 4-10 games going on at a particular level.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

I'm gonna start shortstacking (40bb) the 5/10 and up games. With an extremely TAG preflop strat. Screw the haters!

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steel,

Take a look at my California online poker initiative (link in the legislative forum). If you can get past the hate about no HUD and no multitabling, you might see something you like there. Look midway through it in the section detailing games to be offered.

There is an anti ratholing provision too.

Tuff
.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

All,

Fanboys and haters alike are welcomed in the EDF.

A number of old-school NL players participate there, so perspectives are probably a little different than those of the majority of 2+2ers.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

The haters are also those who try to push out the short stacks by responding to a raise from them with an all-in/GTFO, only to be surprised when their A-2 offsuit fails to stand up to short stack's AK. LOL

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I got the feeling that some of the players at the online tables either didn't like or didn't respect me for buying in short. (I assume here you have read the short stack discussion in Miller/Sklansky NLHE.)

The respet problem usually ends the first time I go AI. I can understand why they might be irritated. For a good tall stack player trying to max his BB/hr rate, a short stack buy-in must look like a half empty seat at a full table. It also puts a crimp in their implied odds strategy.

It is a perfectly legal strategy and part of the game. Objecting to it is like makeing a "No ckeck and raise" rule, it diminishes the complexity of the game.

Use it or don't use it, whichever is best for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stackers are scum.

I am more of amateur player than a pro, so when I play poker its mostly for fun. But when I play NL, I want to play all three streets, and short-stacking douche bags take that away from the game.

Here's a clue for you, if you aren't buying in full, it's because you suck. Just take $40 bucks to a $50 game and learn to play poker instead of trying to ruin the game for every one.

Here's something else to think about, every live place I have every played, does not allow you to buy-in for less than 60BB's, so all you are doing is preventing yourself from developing as a player.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

in the long run, it is profitable to buy in short if you play it right. wait for premium hands, push all in pre flop and you will almost always get called by some rag hand from a large stack. as long as they keep calling with rags, i will keep buying in short.

Re: NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?
 

Huh?
Live places usually have a minimum that's less than 60BB's don't they?

Thought it was pretty common to have 1/2 $100 MAX NL in LV. Assume the min buy-in is even less than that.

In Tunica they have no caps on the buy-ins.
The minimum buy-in at 2/5 NL is either $100 or $200 depending on the room.
And a lot of the $100 buy-in players are just 'free money'. They hardly ruin the game. But they do keep it going imo.


FWIW - I don't know NL too well. Still learning.
So I buy-in short (live or online) if that's what I'm comfortable with. It's not against the rules and I don't feel like it's all the same as rat-holing which I am against and don't do.

If you think I'm scum because I buy-in short to an NL game then so be it I suppose.
But some of you may want to think twice about calling my all-in with your A2 as was mentioned in a previous thread.

Seems there's some serious meta-game advantages to buying-in short also. Short-stackers get zero respect for having any ability at all....so some make plays far more terrible than they would make playing super-careful against a bigger stack.