FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Hi guys

I originally posted this in the Full Ring forum a few weeks back, but figured you guys looking to transition but who don't read the FR forum would find it of interest. Lots of things said here apply to 6-max too.

I will add one note right at the top: the smaller the effective stack size, the more it's about having the goods/hitting the flop than stuff like implied odds. To this end, a 20-40BB effective stack plays a lot more similar to a Limit Holdem game than a 60BB+ effective stack hand.

Anyway, enjoy.


=================

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.

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).

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Oh and guys, anything you don't understand or don't get just ask. There's no such thing as a bad question. Well, usually.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Awesome post. Thanks Diebitter.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Interesting - I've been playing 60BB because I did not like being short stacked YET - did not like having the possibility to lose 100BB.

SO - I've been playing implied odds as a 100BB player YET playing trying to act like a 30BB player.

No wonder I was getting mess up lol

I like the idea of being short stacked as it is more of a "limit" style but hate the fact that I ONLY HAVE 30 chips! LOL

Also the fact that I play two sites - one with 55% flops and the other at 30% flops!

100 it is!

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Issues - You say that a person should play with 100BB for best results - yet you also say that 100BB "allows good LAGS to really play hard at a table, winning lots of small pots . . . . . ."

But most people HERE are coming from limit and are TAGs. are you saying limit players that are ingrained TAGS should become LAGS?

[ QUOTE ]
Deceptive play becomes much more profitable here

[/ QUOTE ] Again - most limit players are not into deception, at least NL style deception.

Granted - I have seen LAGs and what they can do to a table and how it effects MY play but they are beaten by good cards.

SO - at what level should new players start at. 20BB and play basically a Limit style game or 100BB, live and learn LAG style game pushing people off for small victories and waiting for the spec hands to hit.

I assume you need some guide for folding along with betting if you are playing 100BB.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

[ QUOTE ]

SO - at what level should new players start at.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's totally up to you. Play what style you feel more comfortable at. You won't be at a tactical disadvantage for reasons you stated earlier.

Disclaimer: if you intend on playing NL for a long time, eventually you will probably desire to buyin with the maximum amount (usually 100bb) every time you play. This is because buying in full allows you to maximize your profits against weaker opponents. If you're going to be buying in full most of the time over the course of your career, it would follow that you should get as much practice playing with a full stack as you can. That's why most people here recommend buying in with a full stack.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Webster

it's pretty easy to put up with lags. Eitehr move tables or tighten up in pots they are in, and wait for the big cards to get them. If you don't see the lag putting in big money without something, they're a good lag, so best avoided altogether for playing against. Great to study though.


Also TAG play at 100BB remains steadily profitable, so it's by no means bad, it's just never going to be as profitable as a good lag gets.

In addition, once you've established a good tag image, you can play back at the lags and take all their small ball play and fire it back at them and extract more from them than they're extracting from you (whilst they continue to show profit, cos they're extracting from the rest of the table). But that's for when you have more experience.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting this. In many games, 30-50 BB is something of a sweet spot strategy, where you make money off the LAGs by playing tight with big cards (ie aiming for tptk and your looser opponents will never quite have the right odds for their pps/ scs) - but 35 BB still leaves enough betting room to isolate weaker players and rob them with steals and c-bets etc.

But I'm interested - with say 40 BB, if you are say 2 or 3 off the button, would you open raise with 22-66? Or is KT > 44 with these stacks?

With 30-50 BB position does seem to really matter, not so much when you hit the flop because you're not folding tptk without very good reason. But being oop with stuff like AQ and missing the flop gets awkward. c-betting can sometimes commit you to the pot with nothing more than overs. Basically sizing 3 bets and c-bets with these stacks is quite an art form, but obv profitable if you get it right.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

[ QUOTE ]

But I'm interested - with say 40 BB, if you are say 2 or 3 off the button, would you open raise with 22-66? Or is KT > 44 with these stacks?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd usually fold 22-66 IP with these stacks, unless fold equity is very good (those left to play are more likely to fold than call/raise).

Is KT>44 with these stacks? No I wouldn't say that, neither are much good at these stacks, even in late. 44 is better if you're on the button/SB and there's several limpers, as you can play for set value.

[ QUOTE ]

With 30-50 BB position does seem to really matter, not so much when you hit the flop because you're not folding tptk without very good reason. But being oop with stuff like AQ and missing the flop gets awkward. c-betting can sometimes commit you to the pot with nothing more than overs. Basically sizing 3 bets and c-bets with these stacks is quite an art form, but obv profitable if you get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find if you size the preflop bet right, you set yourself up better. For example, at 25BB, you can open-raise 3xBB with AQ, and if you don't hit and the flop isn't scary, you can c-bet into a HU, predictable player no problem. You can also easily check-fold against a tricky guy (not every time of course).

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Interesting article in Card Player by Miller about Short Stacks and how they have an advantage over large stacks and the common fallacy that large stacks are the best way to make money in big bet poker!

Just information - not passing judgment.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

You're passing the wrong information. They CAN have an advantage over large stacks. If the large stacks are playing too LAGgy, you will have an inherent advantage over them.

The statement: small stacks have an advantage over large stacks is false. No stack size has a theoretical advantage over another stack size due to the table stakes rule.

If you are less skilled post flop than your opponents then shortstacking is the best way for you to make money.

If by best way to make money, you mean make the most money, you are wrong again. The best shortstacker will have a smaller winrate than the best full stacker. Shortstackers cannot push their edges as hard, therefore their expectation is not as large.

I KNOW miller wouldn't have said these things, so you are passing on his information incorrectly. This post may seem a little harsh but you should be more careful when you are passing on someone else's information.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'd usually fold 22-66 IP with these stacks, unless fold equity is very good (those left to play are more likely to fold than call/raise).


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks diebitter. I agree. I've been experimenting with different stack size strategies (from 30 BB to 70 BB).

With 40-50 BB (which I like), it can be a struggle knowing how to play 88-TT in many spots.

For instance, a reasonable TAG 3 off the button opens 3.5xBB, and we have 99 IP. It's too good to fold, not quite good enough to want to get ai, and there aren't set odds just to call. I've generally been calling, but just looked in Poker Tracker, and I'm making a loss with both TT and 99 in these spots. But JJ (which i would always 3 bet) seems very profitable.

Maybe with 40BB it's worth turning TT/ 99 into a bluff and 3 betting?

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

OK from the article.

The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack then everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you enjoy the advantage when you are playing opponents with much deeper stacks.
------------
With THAT said - he explains that of you buy in short - you have the advantage if the rest of the table is deep. If you buy in short and the rest are also all short you lose that advantage.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

HOWEVER - in Sklansky/Millers book the goes on to say that Good Deep stacked players will make far more money when they go AGAINST Poor and mediocre deep stacked players they they could playing short stacked even thought there is an intrinsic advantage to playing short stacked.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Well I was waiting for a reply from miller, but he's taking awhile to respond, so I guess I'll respond now.

Sorry about accusing you of misquoting Miller. I didn't think he would say those things.

I'm still not convinced that you guarantee yourself an advantage by buying in short. In most cases, yes I agree you will have forced an advantage for yourself.

However, if I know that you have entered the pot or are still to act, and I tighten up my range to the point that I am not exploitable by your short stack, you cannot have an advantage over me.

I'm not saying that playing this way maximizes your EV. It might, but my intuition is that the correct thing to do would be to tighten your range up to somewhere between the optimal range against short stacks and the optimal range against deep stacks. A short stack would have a tiny advantage in this case.

The point I'm trying to make is that playing with a short stack does not guarantee you an advantage against deeper stacks. It goes against intuition, and I think I've proven it to be false.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

Well, Ed responded and said he thinks I'm right. Look for a post on his website soon.

Re: FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them
 

A few months ago I tried the Miller shortstack strategy at NL50 when I had to play more tables than I was comfortable with.
It is indeed much easier to play (I had 10/8 stats over a few thousand hands, so it's pretty easy to play a bunch of FR tables even if you're not used to playing a lot of tables), and is probably +EV if you keep the discipline to leave a table when you double up, so that you never really need to adapt your play.
It IS definitely high variance though -- you get into a lot of coinflippy situations for stacks where you have small equity advantages. At least I did.