FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

These are sort of obvious, but I hope they prove useful to some, and get some deeper conversation on this going.


Cliff Notes: The smaller the stacks, the more the winning game is about playing big cards and dumping cards that benefit from implied odds - and playing ABC. Conversely, the bigger the stacks, the more then winning game is about cards with implied odds' value, not top pair value - and more deceptive play becomes significant. Also, the bigger the stacks, the greater importance position plays.

You should adjust to this when considering effective stacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------

20BB shortstack: This requires you play an effective shortstack strategy. This can be as tight as jamming preflop w/AA-QQ, AK or a little more like Miller's guidelines on loosening this range depending on position, and using standard raises preflop to potbuild with the knowledge you usually will have the best of it. It can be even more refined, like spotting table looseys who love stealing, and jamming with any PP if they raise, knowing you most likely are a little ahead in a race if he calls. Or, for example, there's ranges of hands you can always profitably push against a lone player if you're 20BB or less that are mathematically impossible to beat long-term: some good SSers would know this range (I do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

Position doesn't really matter that much. And most of the play if preflop and flop, so it's usually a 2 street game.

30-50BB stacks: Here, big cards are still what it's about, but here you can start using SPR theory, as it's very easy to hit a target SPR (say 4 against your average player) at this size stack, with the intention of getting it in by the end when you have TP or overpair. You can also limp PP late, and maybe even other speculative hands if the table is loose-passive. You can't profitably take any preflop heat with these though. Position is more important, but still not THAT important, card strength is still the more significant issue in the main (IMO). These are usually 3 or 4-street games.


50-70BB: This is the size I find most tricky. You can still hit SPR's okay if the table is loose and takes stiffer raises, but it can also mean standard raises get you intomultiways, which makes your big cards suffer from reverse implied odds. Also if you're playing speculative cards like SC and Axs, you're not gonna profit by a full stack if you hit. This is compensated somewhat by people being more willing to get it in when it's not that deep, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh what you're potentially leaving at the table. Position becomes way more significant here. Most often 4 street games.

100BB: Well, play big cards early, speculative late is the usual TAG mantra, but this standard buyin allows good LAGS to really play hard at a table, winning lots of small pots and setting up an image that allows a TAG to get stacked against the 'maniac'. AA is still solid, but must be played with some care. Deceptive play becomes much more profitable here, both in pushing people off, wrong-footing people, or scaring them early (say at the flop) and making them (consciously or subconsciously) play ABC in the later rounds. Position is significant, but decent lags are way less worried about it than TAGs, and usually have enough in their arsenal to counteract this somewhat (frequent use of checkraise, using minraise etc).

Also, this level works against big pairs somewhat OOP because of SPRs and triskadekaphobia (read PNL if this makes no sense to you), so that is a consideration.

150BB+: Aces are no longer the fantastic hands they appear, but still reasonable.


200BB+: Bad news for big cards - you're playing them for set value mostly, and won't get action back the times you hit your set unless someone is drawing to a set-beating hand. Almost, ATC can be called profitably here by good postflop players, as they got odds to flop 2 pair or trips, never mind about the assorted straight and flush draws you can get with any two reasonably wired cards. And frankly, out of position == out of the action for most good players here (but not for REALLY good players, it should be noted).

One final note. The only really good hand at all levels is AKs. AA is pretty good most of the time though.

Like I say, these are somewhat random thoughts, wondered if you guys have any comments?

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

[ QUOTE ]

50-70BB: This is the size I find most tricky... This is compensated somewhat by people being more willing to get it in when it's not that deep, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh what you're potentially leaving at the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol I stackoff to these guys a lot. I think "One pair's good for 55BBs" but I don't think I've ever gotten in against one of these assh0les without them flipping a set. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

100% agree on 200bb+. i think any good player can play ATC at a crazy profit 200+ effective. (if all else fails...get tangled with a nit and just pot/pot/push, and they fold everything but nuts and second nuts).

i think 150bb+ becomes any 2 suited cards that can make a str8 (95ss has a buttload of value).

obvi think position is more important than ur cards. most good players shud b able to destroy at 150+ in position, reguardless of their cards.

at 10-30bb its all about big cards with direct value, rather than implied value (cuz AT>>>>>76, cuz no implied value in drawwin and hittin with no stack to draw and hit on). i think pf becomes the most important street against these ppl, and a leak against these ppl, will cripple ur WR (i think it comes out to about 2-3.5bb/100)

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

Nice post DB

Am I right in thinking that position goes waaaay up in value the deeper the stacks are?

Say you have AA or KK, with 200bb effective stacks, on the button you can opt for pot control when you prefer. When you hit a set you have more leverage to build that big pot.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Yeah, as soon as Split Suit mentioned position I thought - holy crap I didn't even mention position!

I went back and did some additions about position, so your post and Split Suit's post will look a bit weird now - sorry guys.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

always some1 tryyin to make me look bad =)

(nice post tho...)

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Also, you obv need to revert to the appopriate strategy when the effective stacks are in these ranges. You can be a 1000BB deep, but if you're playing HU with a guy who is 40BB postflop, then your first consideration should be it's now a n ABC game with a focus on SPR considerations.


To this end, I think a player who really wants to develop a good game sould fit in his schedule sessions playing 20BB and 40BB deep and 60BB deep.

(Likewise 6-max and even HU ring games now and again are worth trying.)

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

i think this is a quality post and appreciate the thought put into it dieb

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

I like to think of position in terms of the value of the button. The button is always the most valuable position on the table. Seat values have more or less a hockey stick shape. Pretty flat until the hijack and rising sharply from there. The values of those seats is also strongly influenced by effective stack sizes. Small stacks, the value of the button is more or less the value of your hand, but you get to see what the other guys do, so some value. The value increases exponentially from there. Once you pass 250BB, it should be a difficult decision to fold the button in all but the most obvious of cases. The value of the CO and hijack increase also, but not nearly as much unless there is a weak player on the button. Deep stacked, the quality of the player and the quality of the position start to outweigh the values of the actual cards.

So, short stacked the hockey stick is laying on it's side. Deep stacked the hockey stick is blade down and ready to play.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

The 70BB type players are interesting to me.

Often they are trying to reduce the profitability of set mining, due to the smaller rewards of a successful catch. As a result these players are very willing to stack off with JJ+ as overpairs. In my opinion the attempt to simplify the game by saying I can now take this action 100% of the time makes them quite vulnerable.

Ie the prize is only 7/10ths the size, but the likelihood of getting it is large enough to offset this. Against these players cold calling AA, KK in late position to an EP raise can be a very profitable strategy.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
200BB+: Bad news for big cards - you're playing them for set value mostly, and won't get action back the times you hit your set unless someone is drawing to a set-beating hand. Almost, ATC can be called profitably here by good postflop players, as they got odds to flop 2 pair or trips

[/ QUOTE ]


so everytime you flop trips/2pair and there is an A, K, Q on the board you c/f? the times you put in a ton when basically no equity really hurt

and well you don't flop 2pr+ that often

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Can anyone suggest good books or articles I can read on this topic?

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
200BB+: Bad news for big cards - you're playing them for set value mostly, and won't get action back the times you hit your set unless someone is drawing to a set-beating hand. Almost, ATC can be called profitably here by good postflop players, as they got odds to flop 2 pair or trips

[/ QUOTE ]


so everytime you flop trips/2pair and there is an A, K, Q on the board you c/f? the times you put in a ton when basically no equity really hurt

and well you don't flop 2pr+ that often

[/ QUOTE ]



I'm thinking, because the 'bigness' of the cards is somewhat diminished but the 'pairedness' holds up, it makes sense for deep players to raise any pair early when everyone's deep (along with other hands). So the flop becomes trickier for everyone.

I'd love someone who has played a lot of 200BB+ hands to chime in here.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone suggest good books or articles I can read on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

i might suggest reading this thread, and asking any questions u have =)

tell u the truth, im not sure there are books that rly talk about anything but 100bb+ (other than HoH, because he talks about MTTs where stack sizes are always varying, and that can kind of translate).

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Ed Miller's 'Getting Started in Holdem' covers 20BB shortstack play.


Professioal No Limit Holdem discusses buying at less than the standard 100BB and how this benefits SPR planning.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

I'd search around in the high stakes area and look for live 10/20 and 20/40 hands. Those tend to play pretty deep. That's a great resource.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

nice post d.

Effective stacks. Effective stacks. Effective stacks.

You target one villain and the shortie in the blinds pops the pot. Villain one folds and you now have a COMPLETELY different set of hand dynamics.

Effective stacks. Effective stacks. Effective stacks.

Your playing a tad short and follow several limpers in with 33. You could raise, but you decide to limp. Someone behind raises. Normally you look to call for set value, but you forgot to push the Get Chips button. Three callers to you and you decide to call also. (Harrington moment here) Quick, what is the likely hand of the callers? small to medium pockets and SCs (Axs too sometimes).... but mainly small pockets. Alot of times from here out, when you get action on 953 flop, you are already toast.

Effective stacks. Effective stacks. Effective stacks.

I think that after position, effective stack management is the most needed online poker skill set I would like to master.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

off-topic,

I've been thinking of an experiment
great shortstackers pretty much uniformly claim how unique and valuable their information is. Thus, they haven't posted any of it. I know about 80% of it from quite a bit of success shortstacking myself. One could apply themselves and in a month have a 5 figure per month income working 35 hour weeks. However, this might destroy the poker games that regular full-stackies depend on.

I'm thinking about just posting guidelines, charts, hand histories and everything I have on shortstacking to see if the info really is that valuable.

If it is that valuable, I expect someone to buy me off before I post it all.

</delusionsofgrandeur>

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

[ QUOTE ]
off-topic,

I've been thinking of an experiment
great shortstackers pretty much uniformly claim how unique and valuable their information is. Thus, they haven't posted any of it. I know about 80% of it from quite a bit of success shortstacking myself. One could apply themselves and in a month have a 5 figure per month income working 35 hour weeks. However, this might destroy the poker games that regular full-stackies depend on.

I'm thinking about just posting guidelines, charts, hand histories and everything I have on shortstacking to see if the info really is that valuable.

If it is that valuable, I expect someone to buy me off before I post it all.

</delusionsofgrandeur>

[/ QUOTE ]

in all seriousness, dont post it. and dont respond to any of the PMs ur about to get flooded with. srsly

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing them
 

[ QUOTE ]
off-topic,

I've been thinking of an experiment
great shortstackers pretty much uniformly claim how unique and valuable their information is. Thus, they haven't posted any of it. I know about 80% of it from quite a bit of success shortstacking myself. One could apply themselves and in a month have a 5 figure per month income working 35 hour weeks. However, this might destroy the poker games that regular full-stackies depend on.

I'm thinking about just posting guidelines, charts, hand histories and everything I have on shortstacking to see if the info really is that valuable.

If it is that valuable, I expect someone to buy me off before I post it all.

</delusionsofgrandeur>

[/ QUOTE ]

is it against 2p2 T&C to offer for sale a "shortstacking playbook" in BBV?

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
off-topic,

I've been thinking of an experiment
great shortstackers pretty much uniformly claim how unique and valuable their information is. Thus, they haven't posted any of it. I know about 80% of it from quite a bit of success shortstacking myself. One could apply themselves and in a month have a 5 figure per month income working 35 hour weeks. However, this might destroy the poker games that regular full-stackies depend on.

I'm thinking about just posting guidelines, charts, hand histories and everything I have on shortstacking to see if the info really is that valuable.

If it is that valuable, I expect someone to buy me off before I post it all.

</delusionsofgrandeur>

[/ QUOTE ]

lol why would anyone pay you off? There are dozens of others who could post the same thing. Hell, anyone making 2+ ptbb/100 shortstacking could probably do the same.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

yes, I have thought of that


anyway, posed the question in about the forums

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
200BB+: Bad news for big cards - you're playing them for set value mostly, and won't get action back the times you hit your set unless someone is drawing to a set-beating hand. Almost, ATC can be called profitably here by good postflop players, as they got odds to flop 2 pair or trips

[/ QUOTE ]


so everytime you flop trips/2pair and there is an A, K, Q on the board you c/f? the times you put in a ton when basically no equity really hurt

and well you don't flop 2pr+ that often

[/ QUOTE ]



I'm thinking, because the 'bigness' of the cards is somewhat diminished but the 'pairedness' holds up, it makes sense for deep players to raise any pair early when everyone's deep (along with other hands). So the flop becomes trickier for everyone.

I'd love someone who has played a lot of 200BB+ hands to chime in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

the main point I was trying to get at is, that AA is always the strongest hand in NLHE no matter the stacksizes

if you take JT, on all boards with JTxxx AA is only 68.5/31.5 underdog, and JT is a huge dog to flop 2pair

you probably won't consistently get 200bb in on a JJx board, you hit 50/1 longshot boards and are only 6/1 favorites, while the vast majority of boards you are under 30% equity

33 on all 3xxxx boards possible is a 81/19fav but again its 7.5/1 against on getting a set or better

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

"To this end, I think a player who really wants to develop a good game sould fit in his schedule sessions playing 20BB and 40BB deep and 60BB deep."


For my last 70k hands I have been buying in for the 40bb default at FT. If I drop to 20bb then I rebuy to 40bb and if I get 150bb+ or whatever I stay and play that stack. So when I'm running good and my opponents are stuck I will be playing a more "complicated" game. And when every CB gets called or raised when I have nothing then my stack will dwindle to the 20-30bb range where I will be playing a less "complicated" game. Then it's just about cards, so if some LAG tries to push me around at that point he will be doomed.

And right out the gate I am playing a pretty easy stack size which is good since I don't immediately have a feel for the table.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Yes, I've tried buying in at 40bb too, but when I double up, to 70 or 80, I feel like I'm playing the equivalent of a 100bb game but leaving money on the table, so I usually buy in the rest to be happier about it.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

I've played 20bb, 40bb, 60bb, and 100bb stacks.

I think playing the various sizes have helped my game quite a bit.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've played 20bb, 40bb, 60bb, and 100bb stacks.

I think playing the various sizes have helped my game quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Please add anything about the different levels that you think I missed or misrepresented.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or, for example, there's ranges of hands you can always profitably push against a lone player if you're 20BB or less that are mathematically impossible to beat long-term: some good SSers would know this range

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this...couldn't the opponents only play against you when there range was smaller than yours. Since you are committed on most flops, they would get paid off alot.

Say you raise 5BB pf and then the small stack basically has to shove on the flop don't they? The pot is 10bb and the small stack only has 15BB left.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

He's referring to the Sklansky/Chubakov numbers, I believe. They're in NLHETAP.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, for example, there's ranges of hands you can always profitably push against a lone player if you're 20BB or less that are mathematically impossible to beat long-term: some good SSers would know this range

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this...couldn't the opponents only play against you when there range was smaller than yours. Since you are committed on most flops, they would get paid off alot.

Say you raise 5BB pf and then the small stack basically has to shove on the flop don't they? The pot is 10bb and the small stack only has 15BB left.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm nit sure what you are saying exactly, but shortstacking well is +EV no matter what you do.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

If I get this right, there is this secretive club called shortstackers who have this secret information, and only few outsiders know this Holy Grail. If one gains access to this information, serious cheddar is guaranteed?

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm nit sure what you are saying exactly, but shortstacking well is +EV no matter what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right.

But the short stacks I've played against are pretty easy to exploit. You just tighten up against them and only play hands that are much better than there range.

If I get a flop I like (overpair/tptk) it's pretty easy to get all the money in the pot and I usually win cuz I started with the better hand.

Short stacks can't get away from any flops they don't like because they are so quickly pot committed.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the short stacks I've played against are pretty easy to exploit. You just tighten up against them and only play hands that are much better than there range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, except for the other 7 people at the table who you're offering excelent implied odds to play their SCs & small PPs.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But the short stacks I've played against are pretty easy to exploit. You just tighten up against them and only play hands that are much better than there range.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, except for the other 7 people at the table who you're offering excelent implied odds to play their SCs & small PPs.



[/ QUOTE ]

But they can't play those hands because the short stack doesn't give them the odds, so they have to fold...so the short stack is preventing the hands I fear from playing along.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm nit sure what you are saying exactly, but shortstacking well is +EV no matter what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right.

But the short stacks I've played against are pretty easy to exploit. You just tighten up against them and only play hands that are much better than there range.

If I get a flop I like (overpair/tptk) it's pretty easy to get all the money in the pot and I usually win cuz I started with the better hand.

Short stacks can't get away from any flops they don't like because they are so quickly pot committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't play against good shortstacks

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I get this right, there is this secretive club called shortstackers who have this secret information, and only few outsiders know this Holy Grail. If one gains access to this information, serious cheddar is guaranteed?

[/ QUOTE ]


there is a secretive *club*
the info on how to do it isn't that secretive


the dataminers show they are making serious chedder....among the biggest winners

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

MT2R

stop derailing this thread with the shortstacker illuminati stuff. I've broken out one of your posts about it to create a new thread, so just post it there.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12894382


db

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

I've experimented with 60bb stacks, mainly at NL100 and have found it takes away alot of the difficult decisions I faced with around 100bb stacks. It just made it easier to play.

Now I primarily buy in for 60bb, unless there are uber donk buddies with more then I'll play 100.

Personally I hate playing around 100bb, 200+ is fine as is around 60-70 and lower. I just find 100 very akward, don't know if I am alone in this or not.

Nice post diebitter, some interesting things to think about.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

Hi Phytopath

I'd love to hear what you think are the benefits of 60BB then, and the reasoning behind it. And your experiences in playing 60BB too.


My take: I personally play it much like I'd play 100BB, and whilst it makes some decisions more obvious (ie it's more obvious to fold the worst of your raising hands - say 66 in mp2 - to a stiff 3-bet at 60BB than 100BB), these are not that hard decisions to come to at 100BB (imo) given plenty of experience/thinking. And I feel not playing 100BB leaves money on the table. However, I really do think people will more readily take the worst of it when they are against a 60BBer than a 100BBer.

Re: FR Theory: Random thoughts on different stack sizes and playing th
 

When I first moved up to the $50 I played a 60bb stack. I found that I lost value on big hands but I also found that people (even regs) paid off lighter because it didn't cost a full stack. When I got up to 100bbs I always stayed because for some reason people still gave me no respect and kept paying me off and chasing their losses from me.