PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

hi all,

getting slammed at work today so hopefully Sunny will wake up soon. i'll be here intermittently.

fire away!

matt

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

This may be more of an SPR question but would you say that in a 50BB buy-in game it is more difficult to play a strategy based on stealing?

Specifically, with 50BB stacks good stealing type hands like SC's lose a bit of their ability to draw so they will not have as much value. Since they are relying mostly on stealing to make a profit is it much more opponent dependent on whether or not these hands are profitable?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

My first question is on page 35. I understand we'll get into the REM process later; however, this hand is in this section so I'll ask away. If you want to save it for later, ok.

At any rate, You have A6 and the flop comes A high and the EP opener moves all in and it folds to you getting 3.1:1 "There can not be any more betting, so it's an easy call".

I'd like to see some sort of break down on why this is an easy call. I mean...I now 3.1:1 means we only need to win like 25% of the time. If our 6 outs are good, then we are 12% to hit that, so against a bigger Ace, we have like 13% equity. So, we're saying here that he is twice as likely to have something else?

Wow.

I just ran this in PS, and I didn't appreciate the impact that even one 6 hand combo would have.

Board: As 9h 4d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 30.361% 29.04% 01.32% 7476 339.00 { Ac6c }
Hand 1: 69.639% 68.32% 01.32% 17586 339.00 { KK+, AJs+, AKo, AdQh, AJo }

I need to play with this stuff more.

Guess there's no question there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be more of an SPR question but would you say that in a 50BB buy-in game it is more difficult to play a strategy based on stealing?

Specifically, with 50BB stacks good stealing type hands like SC's lose a bit of their ability to draw so they will not have as much value. Since they are relying mostly on stealing to make a profit is it much more opponent dependent on whether or not these hands are profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my understanding too. I've been thinking about this and playing like an 80x stack. I find that this gives me more flexibility. I can create lower sprs, and at the same time, give my oop opponents some fits with their big pair hands. Problem is, my stack normally only stays there for an orbit or 2 anyway, and I'm back to 100x.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]


... I've been thinking about this and playing like an 80x stack. ... Problem is, my stack normally only stays there for an orbit or 2 anyway, and I'm back to 100x.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you poor thing! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be more of an SPR question but would you say that in a 50BB buy-in game it is more difficult to play a strategy based on stealing?

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily - depends on how tight your opponents are postflop. you might still be able to steal effectively.

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, with 50BB stacks good stealing type hands like SC's lose a bit of their ability to draw so they will not have as much value. Since they are relying mostly on stealing to make a profit is it much more opponent dependent on whether or not these hands are profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be more of an SPR question but would you say that in a 50BB buy-in game it is more difficult to play a strategy based on stealing?

Specifically, with 50BB stacks good stealing type hands like SC's lose a bit of their ability to draw so they will not have as much value. Since they are relying mostly on stealing to make a profit is it much more opponent dependent on whether or not these hands are profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, to take this one step further, what sort of adjustments would you make in a slightly loose game with a 50BB stack size. Is there any way to exploit these players other than playing tight ABC poker with more value betting? Do you find these types of games tend to have some more FE than I am giving them credit for?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
My first question is on page 35. I understand we'll get into the REM process later; however, this hand is in this section so I'll ask away. If you want to save it for later, ok.

At any rate, You have A6 and the flop comes A high and the EP opener moves all in and it folds to you getting 3.1:1 "There can not be any more betting, so it's an easy call".

I'd like to see some sort of break down on why this is an easy call. I mean...I now 3.1:1 means we only need to win like 25% of the time. If our 6 outs are good, then we are 12% to hit that, so against a bigger Ace, we have like 13% equity. So, we're saying here that he is twice as likely to have something else?

Wow.

I just ran this in PS, and I didn't appreciate the impact that even one 6 hand combo would have.

Board: As 9h 4d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 30.361% 29.04% 01.32% 7476 339.00 { Ac6c }
Hand 1: 69.639% 68.32% 01.32% 17586 339.00 { KK+, AJs+, AKo, AdQh, AJo }

I need to play with this stuff more.

Guess there's no question there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that you have a decent-but-not-great hand and you're getting 3:1. Normally, that makes it hard to fold. Add in the fact that you will only have to call $10 (you won't have to call any other bets), and it's pretty much impossible to fold.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]


getting slammed at work today so hopefully Sunny will wake up soon.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol. awake, but will soon be getting slammed too (albeit at the golf course). [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, to take this one step further, what sort of adjustments would you make in a slightly loose game with a 50BB stack size. Is there any way to exploit these players other than playing tight ABC poker with more value betting? Do you find these types of games tend to have some more FE than I am giving them credit for?

[/ QUOTE ]

well if they're loose it sounds like your fold equity is not what you should rely on. however, you can loosen up your own "value betting" range. for example, if your normal nut tight strategy involved playing only premium top pair hands, you might add a few more like KJs or whatever to your range if these guys will call with weak top pairs and second pairs all the way down.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, to take this one step further, what sort of adjustments would you make in a slightly loose game with a 50BB stack size. Is there any way to exploit these players other than playing tight ABC poker with more value betting? Do you find these types of games tend to have some more FE than I am giving them credit for?

[/ QUOTE ]

well if they're loose it sounds like your fold equity is not what you should rely on. however, you can loosen up your own "value betting" range. for example, if your normal nut tight strategy involved playing only premium top pair hands, you might add a few more like KJs or whatever to your range if these guys will call with weak top pairs and second pairs all the way down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so my top pair hands are going to go up in value.

Do you agree with the basic idea that stealing becomes a bit more difficult(at least post flop) when you have shorter stacks?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]


Do you agree with the basic idea that stealing becomes a bit more difficult(at least post flop) when you have shorter stacks?

[/ QUOTE ]


as a general premise, yes. but in practice, it really does depend. if you have enough stack for a c-bet, in certain games that's all the stealing you need.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Do you agree with the basic idea that stealing becomes a bit more difficult(at least post flop) when you have shorter stacks?

[/ QUOTE ]


as a general premise, yes. but in practice, it really does depend. if you have enough stack for a c-bet, in certain games that's all the stealing you need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanting to make sure I am thinking about things in the correct way. Thanks!

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

As far as bankroll management goes, if I decide to sit with a 50BB stack, would it be ok to jump up to the next highest game?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as bankroll management goes, if I decide to sit with a 50BB stack, would it be ok to jump up to the next highest game?

[/ QUOTE ]

hm, bankroll management discussion is tricky. here are my thoughts, but I'll give fair warning that this is just an inkling and has not been mathematically verified.

Playing a 50bb stack size will have more variance in terms of comparing exact dollar amounts, because you are essentially playing "big pots" very often with a 50bb stack. However, playing a 50bb stack relative to the blind level will have less variance.

For example, say you have $100. If you play the $100 as a 50bb stack in a $1-$2 game, your variance will be higher than if you play the $100 as a 200bb stack in a $.25-$.50 game. However, playing a $100 stack in a $1-$2 game will still be lower variance than playing a larger stack in a $1-$2 game.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

What are the advantages/disadvantages to playing with different stack sizes? People often advise to buy-in for 100BB (usually the max online), but they often don't explain why. People who shortstack are usually dismissed as being "donks". What are some reasons to consider playing with a shorter stack, and how should your play change as a result?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

I think the point of buying in for the maximum is to maximize value with your hands. So let's say you're playing 100NL in a HU pot and you have the nuts: you have the chance to get a full value of $100 for your hand rather than a shortstacked value of < $100.

On the other hand, the advantage of shortstacking is that you're minimizing risk. So in doing so, you're either moving up to a new level, or you're simply not that good and you're playing with scared money. And I think that's why you're viewed upon as a donk. You're simply not that good to comfortably play at those stakes.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the advantages/disadvantages to playing with different stack sizes? People often advise to buy-in for 100BB (usually the max online), but they often don't explain why. People who shortstack are usually dismissed as being "donks". What are some reasons to consider playing with a shorter stack, and how should your play change as a result?

[/ QUOTE ]

broad topic, but I'll give a few thoughts. when you have the biggest stack at the table, you have the advantage of being able to win anyone's stack on any hand. but you can also lose it too! so having the biggest stack is good if you play better than all your opponents, and of course have the appropriate bankroll etc for your stakes.

more generally, stack size influences the style of play. with a smaller stack, you necessarily will have less money to play the turn and river, so you adjust your strategy accordingly to play less hands that require implied odds, etc.

also, certan game types can make playing certain stack sizes profitable. playing in a passive game where no one "puts you to the test" can be great for playing a deep stack - particularly if you yourself can use your stack to apply pressure.

playing in a revved up aggressive game where players play loose preflop but are good smart postflop players can benefit a shorter stack because you exploit their weakness of playing too loose. I remember a few years ago when I was building my bankroll I'd often buy in short into really good bigger games. A lot of players I know built their bankroll like that. It's a great way of not only playing in a profitable situation, but also watching and learning from good postflop players, getting experience with higher chip denominations, feeling comfortable in a different setting, etc.


PS - I gotta run right now guys, but I'll be back later.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as bankroll management goes, if I decide to sit with a 50BB stack, would it be ok to jump up to the next highest game?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, say you have $100. If you play the $100 as a 50bb stack in a $1-$2 game, your variance will be higher than if you play the $100 as a 200bb stack in a $.25-$.50 game. However, playing a $100 stack in a $1-$2 game will still be lower variance than playing a larger stack in a $1-$2 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have looked at this some and I you are exactly right. My experience, and the experience of several others, is that playing super short (20BBs or so) is about half as volatile (IN TEMRS OF BLINDS) as playing a 100BB stack. A 50BB stack is actaully closer to a 100BB stack in terms of variance, but it is still less volatile.

If you are looking at bankroll requirements, though, the correct way to think about this is terms of dollars (or if you like in terms of buy-ins), not in terms of blinds. In that context, playing $100 at a .5/1 table will be half as volatile (in dollars) as plying $100 at a 2/5 table. If these two strategies had the same win rate (in dollars), then you would need a commensurately bigger stack to have the same risk of ruin playing the short stack strategy. (If one had a higher dollar win rate, then that would be in play as well.) I do not have a huge amount of data on playing with a 50BB stack, but similar logic would apply. Playing up a level but with half the stack would likely be higher volatility and higher win rate (in dollars), but it is not at all clear to me how those two would interact. Whether your win rate in a given game with 50bb vs 100BB stacks is higher or lower depends on much. EDIT: See Sunny's post immediately above. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

The stack sizes chapter is really straightforward so there's not much to discuss. I wrote down a few words on short stacking opponents anyway:

General thoughts
A situation we are faced with quite often is short stack opponents. At our levels theses are very rarely good players. Most are in fact extremely bad players. Their motivation for short stacking is often that they don't want to lose too much money (here's a hint: not playing at all will lose you even less money) or that they don't have a sufficient roll to buy in full.

In any case, even when we are faced with extremely bad players we need to adjust properly. I we make -EV plays even the fact that our opponent is bad won't help us.

Pre-flop
The first adjustment we need to make pre-flop is that we need to take quite a few hands out of our range if we are against a short stack. Suited connectors and low pocket pairs, hands that rely on implied odds, often become unplayable against shorties. We can still raise them when we open the pot but we must be aware that instead of a semi-bluff our hand is now almost a complete bluff. If Mr. Short is unlikely to fold on the flop it is usually better to just fold pre-flop.

This is even more true for calling a raise with pocket pairs. Here's an example that is maybe a bit extreme because our hand has at least some showdown value even unimproved. I chose it this way to maybe get disagreeing views:

SB: $61.30
Hero (BB): $68.85
UTG: $16.50
MP: $53.55
CO: $41.95
BTN: $20.00

Preflop: Hero is dealt 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (6 Players)
3 folds, <font color="red">BTN raises to $1.75</font>, SB folds, Hero folds

Since the short stack was an unimaginative player but would almost certainly cbet the flop we would automatically be in a commitment situation without knowing anything about our opponent's hand. We can't play for set value because he is too short.

Post-flop
Stack sizes also influence our post-flop play. If we raise a good hand pre-flop and only a short stack calls us it can frequently be wrong to cbet if we miss. This is because we would put so much money in the pot by cbetting that we cross the commitment threshold. This is a very common leak even among otherwise solid aggressive players.

Another example where stack sizes come into play is if we flop a very good but vulnerable hand and we have a short stack and a big stack in the hand. Before betting we should look at the remaining stack of the shortie. If we bet more than half of his remaining stack then if he comes over the top we can't 3bet because the rules don't let you re-raise if the previous raise was too small due to an all-in. This could be a disaster on drawy boards if the other big stack comes along because he now gets odds to draw and we can't re-raise him.

There's no need to be afraid of bad shortstacks. We just have to adapt properly. This can mean to surrender pots to them that we would normally not so readily surrender. The good thing is that since we still cover them we will eventually get all of the surrendered pots back along with the rest of his stack sooner or later.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]


In any case, even when we are faced with extremely bad players we need to adjust properly. If we make -EV plays even the fact that our opponent is bad won't help us.



[/ QUOTE ]

The whole post was great but I think this is the best part.

I used to play like the one who would call/raise with 88 in that situation, but now I can find a fold there. You don't need to force yourself into a marginal spot when all it takes is one hand where you CB with TPGK and they shove with a 2nd pair SC or a draw. I've handled so many more shorties lately by picking better spots.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as bankroll management goes, if I decide to sit with a 50BB stack, would it be ok to jump up to the next highest game?

[/ QUOTE ]

hm, bankroll management discussion is tricky. here are my thoughts, but I'll give fair warning that this is just an inkling and has not been mathematically verified.

Playing a $100 stack in a $1-$2 game will still be lower variance than playing a larger stack in a $1-$2 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you can verify it with the Kelly Criterion.

Assume Player A buys in for 60xBB in a 5-10 NL game, and wins +1500 in his winning sessions and loses -800 in his losing sessions. He wins 55% of his sessions, in part because he doesn't chase his losers. So he doesn't dig himself out of a hole that often.

Kelly would say he gives 1500:800 or 1.88:1 odds to himself every time he sits down. And he wins 55% of his gambles. So, 1.88*55 - 45 / 1.88 = 31.1%. His average loss (ie the amount he risks when he sits down) should be 31.1% under Kelly. So, bankroll = $2572.

Player B buys in for 1500 in the 5-10 game. His average win is +3500, but he chases losers to get even and sometimes sustains large losses. His average loss is -2500. He wins 60% of sessions. He gives himself 1.4:1 odds. 1.4x60 - 40 / 1.4 = 31.4%. So, 2500 = 31.4% of bankroll, or bankroll = $7962.

Of course, full Kelly has 13.5% risk of ruin if you don't drop down in levels. If you are unwilling to go to smaller games, better to operate at quarter Kelly, with 0.03% risk of ruin.

Player A quarter Kelly bankroll = 10,288
Player B = 31,848

Player B wins more often than Player A (60% to 55%), and the difference between Player B's winning and losing sessions is greater ($1000 to $700). Over time, Player B rates to win more money.

But Player B needs a bigger bankroll because of the bigger variance. More succinctly, he simply risks more on each gamble, which in turn impacts the odds he gives himself every time he sits down.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stack sizes also influence our post-flop play. If we raise a good hand pre-flop and only a short stack calls us it can frequently be wrong to cbet if we miss. This is because we would put so much money in the pot by cbetting that we cross the commitment threshold. This is a very common leak even among otherwise solid aggressive players.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost exactly the situation I was thinking about in my post. C-bet here and you'll get yourself in a sticky situation way too often.

Ret

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stack sizes also influence our post-flop play. If we raise a good hand pre-flop and only a short stack calls us it can frequently be wrong to cbet if we miss. This is because we would put so much money in the pot by cbetting that we cross the commitment threshold. This is a very common leak even among otherwise solid aggressive players.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost exactly the situation I was thinking about in my post. C-bet here and you'll get yourself in a sticky situation way too often.

Ret

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, I think the statement isn't complete without considering the exception that if you are playing against a weak player a pure bluff can be fine as they will often fold - which will be a huge mistake on their part.

It's situational, of course, but I think a lot will just fire the c-bet with disregard to the stack sizes and the mistake they may be making if this is a habit of folding with 1/3 of the stacks in.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

Hello everbody

After reading the great book I think the best stack for me is 50BB, I play on PP NL100-200. With the stack of 50BB I play high card's and PP. In the book I can read how much I would raise with high-PP, with high-Cards and with low-PP. But I don't now, which cards I play in Early, Middle and Late-Position. With the low-PP I'm looking for a set, so I want a huigh SPR, should I limp with the low-PP in Early-Position or should I play this low-PP only in Late Position after a few limper's.
Can you give me a guide which card's is to play in which position with a 50BB-Stack?

Thank you very much
Bauertson

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

SB: $61.30
Hero (BB): $68.85
UTG: $16.50
MP: $53.55
CO: $41.95
BTN: $20.00

Preflop: Hero is dealt 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (6 Players)
3 folds, <font color="red">BTN raises to $1.75</font>, SB folds, Hero folds

I assume it's $0.25/$0.50.
We as the big blind have to pay only $1.25 to win a possible 20.75$ (pot+his stack).
That looks a lot more than 10:1 we might need with our PP.
If he will always cbet like 2/3 of the pot we will get at least 0.25+0.50+1.75 + 2/3*(0.25+0.50+1.75+1.25) = $5 for our $1.25 when we hit our set (even if he stops betting after the flop and folds to any, even the smallest bet or raise on flop, turn and river).

Looks like a clear call to me.
Any other opinions?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

Triggerle your posts are awesome.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a guide which card's is to play in which position with a 50BB-Stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure but it's so controversial. everyone has a different game or different ideas about their game.

here's the executive summary: if you won't be stealing say 20%+ of the time (that's aballpark), you should only play the first-tier commitment hands: pairs, AK, AQ and the margin hands AJ/KQ. once you have late position and stealing the blinds comes more into play (as well as c-betting your first-in raises), you now have "steal equity" and so can expand the range.

if you can take down the pot a lot stealing with c-bets, you can expand your positional range to include all sorts of hands. however, do NOT overdo it against thinking opponents. all they have to do is reraise you or checkraise bluff the flop and your "steal equity" goes down the tubes. so you should still play tight in late position, but you can add in suited connectors, suited one-gappers, connectors, a few extra big-card hands.

matt

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
SB: $61.30
Hero (BB): $68.85
UTG: $16.50
MP: $53.55
CO: $41.95
BTN: $20.00

Preflop: Hero is dealt 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (6 Players)
3 folds, <font color="red">BTN raises to $1.75</font>, SB folds, Hero folds

I assume it's $0.25/$0.50.
We as the big blind have to pay only $1.25 to win a possible 20.75$ (pot+his stack).
That looks a lot more than 10:1 we might need with our PP.
If he will always cbet like 2/3 of the pot we will get at least 0.25+0.50+1.75 + 2/3*(0.25+0.50+1.75+1.25) = $5 for our $1.25 when we hit our set (even if he stops betting after the flop and folds to any, even the smallest bet or raise on flop, turn and river).

Looks like a clear call to me.
Any other opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]


if you won't be stealing and will check-fold most flops you don't have enough equity to call.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
SB: $61.30
Hero (BB): $68.85
UTG: $16.50
MP: $53.55
CO: $41.95
BTN: $20.00

Preflop: Hero is dealt 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (6 Players)
3 folds, <font color="red">BTN raises to $1.75</font>, SB folds, Hero folds

I assume it's $0.25/$0.50.
We as the big blind have to pay only $1.25 to win a possible 20.75$ (pot+his stack).
That looks a lot more than 10:1 we might need with our PP.
If he will always cbet like 2/3 of the pot we will get at least 0.25+0.50+1.75 + 2/3*(0.25+0.50+1.75+1.25) = $5 for our $1.25 when we hit our set (even if he stops betting after the flop and folds to any, even the smallest bet or raise on flop, turn and river).

Looks like a clear call to me.
Any other opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the math sounds good for a call, you have to keep in mind that you will typically need to flop a set when they flop at least TPTK in order to win their entire stack. Most of the time, you're going to win a lot less than their stack when you flop a set.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a guide which card's is to play in which position with a 50BB-Stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure but it's so controversial. everyone has a different game or different ideas about their game.

here's the executive summary: if you won't be stealing say 20%+ of the time (that's aballpark), you should only play the first-tier commitment hands: pairs, AK, AQ and the margin hands AJ/KQ. once you have late position and stealing the blinds comes more into play (as well as c-betting your first-in raises), you now have "steal equity" and so can expand the range.

if you can take down the pot a lot stealing with c-bets, you can expand your positional range to include all sorts of hands. however, do NOT overdo it against thinking opponents. all they have to do is reraise you or checkraise bluff the flop and your "steal equity" goes down the tubes. so you should still play tight in late position, but you can add in suited connectors, suited one-gappers, connectors, a few extra big-card hands.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank's for the tips.
It's look like the starting hand's from Miller's book about shortstacking-play, added the small/middle-PP and SC in late Position, and play in EP and MP only AA-JJ, AK, AQ. I think this is a good plan for playing with a middle-Stack.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

On the subject of shortstacking, am I correct in cthinking this only applies to fullring games, as opposed to 6 max? I also found shortstacking live PLO games to be profitable. Also, really enjoyed the book. Thanks.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, say you have $100. If you play the $100 as a 50bb stack in a $1-$2 game, your variance will be higher than if you play the $100 as a 200bb stack in a $.25-$.50 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
However, playing a $100 stack in a $1-$2 game will still be lower variance than playing a larger stack in a $1-$2 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, this doesn't. Maybe I'm just thinking about this incorrectly, so if that's the case, someone help me get this.

It seems like if we're talking in terms of stack sizes relative to the blind sizes, and NOT in terms of absolute dollar amounts, that the more you increase your amount of BBs (e.g., 50BB to 100BB to 200BB, etc.) in your original buy in, that there will be less variance.

It is with this logic that $100 as a 50BB buy in in a 1/2 game has more variance than a $100 buy in as a 200BB buy in in a .25/.50 game.

So, using the same logic, why would playing a $100 (50BB) stack in a 1/2 game have less variance than say a $200 (100BB) stack in a 1/2 game?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of shortstacking, am I correct in cthinking this only applies to fullring games, as opposed to 6 max? I also found shortstacking live PLO games to be profitable. Also, really enjoyed the book. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

shortstacking often works better in 6-max games b/c opponents tend to raise and call reraises with weaker holdings.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

shortstacking often works better in 6-max games b/c opponents tend to raise and call reraises with weaker holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Matt

Are you sure, that shortstacking works better in 6-max games? I think you have right, that the player plays more aggressiv in 6-max. But I think too, that in fullring the player often limps or call with drawinghands like SC, small PP. Against this hands, the shortstack have a good play with high cards. In 6-max the player plays not so often drawingshand.
Is this correct? Than I think fullring is better then 6-max for shortstacking, or was I wrong?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

Hi Guys
Really good stuff this, thanks to all posters so far, really really good read Matt &amp; Sunny.

Curious about the stack size since its pretty crucial to SPR concept. yesterday online I bought in .25/.50 game short (60bb) and built it up to 300 bb [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. It occurred to me maybe I should leave the table at some point and buy in shorter at a different table ?. I could still apply SPR when in pots with shorter stacked opponents ok. anyhow I'm rambling now. To summarise any thoughts on this topic.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

I think short stacking works better at a full table, because then you feel less pressure from the blinds. This lets you wait longer for premium hands.

Slotboom, in his book on PLO, says he spent a few years playing the short stack and he always tried to put the most aggressive player on his left so he would do his betting for him. More people would call the wild player, when they would have folded to Slotboom's more conservative image. He could also get his money in faster when he hit his hand by check raising.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

[ QUOTE ]
when you have the biggest stack at the table, you have the advantage of being able to win anyone's stack on any hand. but you can also lose it too!

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

The main B&amp;M game I play in is $2/$2 with $100 max buyin so I'm dealing with 50BB and lower all of the time. I'm sure there are a lot of other games like this out there.

Short stack discussion is quite useful because of this. I definitely need to stop limping in EP with tiny pairs and SCs. Speculating with junk should only be on the button or maybe CO.

Plus the commitment discussion in the book will be quite helpful since you find yourself betting off your whole stack with TP quite a bit in a 50BB game. While I already knew about pot control, the big takeaway from PNL is to consider whether I want to do that against the particular opponent(s) I'm seeing the flop with.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes
 

I have bought in for 40BB the last 3 nights rather than my usual 100BB. The big thing I noticed is, not only is it easier to play the TPTK as stated in PNL, you get nice low SPR's with ease and you can reach your commitment on the flop by getting 1/3 of your stack in and not looking back. As the authors have stated, it's usually a mistake to fold once you get 1/3 of your stack into the pot. Of course this doesn't mean blindly put 1/3 of your stack in on the flop, but when you feel you are committed (willing to go all in) you can get your 1/3 in and not look back,

The other big thing I realized is when you flop trips, it seems easier to get all your chips in and get called. For example, I had one hand where I limped with 22 and flopped trips on a 9 high board. The villian led out with a pot sized bet and I raised 3x, he thought about it and after using most of his time bank pushed me "all in". I believe my short stack swayed his decision allowing me the profitable action I was seeking. He had A9 (TPTK) and I was able to double up with a dominating hand. If I was 100BB deep I don't even think the villian even calls my flop raise let alone push me "all in."

I know often times we talk about playing less hands for "set value" etc. when playing a short stack, but it is examples like this that I believe playing for set value with shorter stacks allows us to get all our chips in much easier vs. bigger stacks when your stack is less threatening. Players will clash against my short stack with inferior hands over and over because of the less threatening stack size, they don't have the same fear or concern going against me when I only have 40BB behind me.

Obv. where the short stack hurts is when you hit "the nuts" and only double up 40BB rather than 100BB. But I really think it's much easier to get players to commit against the shorter 40BB stack. I know with much more experience it will be more profitable to buy in deep, but if you're like me and struggle at times with difficult post flop decisions with TPTK and such, the shorter buy in can be beneficial not only to building your confidence but your bankroll as well!!!

Thanks so much Matt Flynn and Sunny Mehta, for making my NL game decisions less complex [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]