Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

Lots of recent talk about the shortstackers...Does anyone have any hard data from either their own play or others/datamining etc on exactly how profitable the short stack strategy is?

And how it compares to the profitability of good big stack play?

Intuitively, it would seem like a good semi-loose player playing say 30/12 (VPIP/PFR) with decent postflop skills should have a higher winrate albeit with higher variance than the shortstack player, but that the shortstacker with good discipline playing something like 16/10 should also be clearly profitable. but thats just a guess -- anyone with any data/experience on this?

-g

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

Yes. My data suggests that the best short-stackers are making 3-6 BB/100. This is definitely less than the best LAG/TAG players, but enough to kill your profit if you're a LAG and a bunch of them are at your table (assuming you don't adjust).

I think the variance is probably higher for the shortstackers, though.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the variance is probably higher for the shortstackers, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that they play with smaller stacks significantly reduces their variance because variance his very sensitive to your biggest wins and losses.

Since shortstackers have smaller big wins and smaller big losses, their varaince (in terms of BB) should be smaller. However, in terms of $ it's probably significantly higher than it would be if they bought in for the max at lower stakes.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the variance is probably higher for the shortstackers, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that they play with smaller stacks significantly reduces their variance because variance his very sensitive to your biggest wins and losses.

Since shortstackers have smaller big wins and smaller big losses, their varaince (in terms of BB) should be smaller. However, in terms of $ it's probably significantly higher than it would be if they bought in for the max at lower stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I think it does increase variance if you are TAG you may get sucked out and have to keep buying in. LAG players the variance would be less because you can play more pots with the chance of doubling up.
I consider my self TAG and buy in about 15 at a 25 max and have found I can make more with $15 than $25. I can't afford a poker tracker to get stats but I do believe that is what happens.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think the variance is probably higher for the shortstackers, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, the average for the 4-6 shortstack artists i've seen at stars is consistent an averages maybe half of what the regular big stack players have.

-g

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, I think it does increase variance if you are TAG you may get sucked out and have to keep buying in.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember that short stackers buy in for 5 times less. This puts an upper limit on both their positive and negative variance. If you look at the math behind how variance is calculated you'll see that this is extremely important.

You also mention win rates with a 60% vs. a 100% buyin. This is irrelevant when we talk about variance.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

You are talking about standard deviation, right?

It makes sense, they aren't playing those 100-200BB hands than can send your variance through the roof.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are talking about standard deviation, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is simply standard deviation squared.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the variance is probably higher for the shortstackers, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that they play with smaller stacks significantly reduces their variance because variance his very sensitive to your biggest wins and losses.

Since shortstackers have smaller big wins and smaller big losses, their varaince (in terms of BB) should be smaller. However, in terms of $ it's probably significantly higher than it would be if they bought in for the max at lower stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean variance relative to winrate.

Re: Quantifying the profitability of the short-stack strategy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are talking about standard deviation, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is simply standard deviation squared.

[/ QUOTE ]

and a lower winrate means a larger standard deviation right?

so they have more variance.