[LA_Price]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much just not true. Shortstackers are parasites that take advantage of a structural element of the game. The only way to "counter" them is to pretend that you are also a short stack and never raise/reraise light, etc. But then congratulations the annoying short stackers wouldn't have any edge on you, but you'd get run over by the other players. The only way to truly "counter" them is to actually play a short stack yourself. If stacks are deep and everyone plays optimally, short stackers will still make a small profit. This is why I think there's a strong argument for raising the minimum buy-in, b/c allowing people to short stack hit-n-run actually does give them an unfair advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are in fact right, I wrote the sentence quickly and didn't properly formulate what I wanted to say. I was thinking more along the lines of a 6-max game as thats what I play 70% of the time. That is some of the short stackers only reraise you when they have AAxx or KKxx, which is enough for a full table. If they are doing this then when playing 6-max you can raise more often than you would at a full table and usually fold if they come over the top(I measn you can obviouly call if you have JT98 ds and other such hands). The blind pressure will eat them up if they don't adjust by reraising you more often and they don't get action from the other players on their good hands. If they do adjust then like you said you are forced to play their stack size instead of yours you say never raise or reraise lightly. I think an optimal shortstacking 6-max strategy wouldn't be that hard to come up with. It's just not written in book that these guys can buy.

I don't actually think it's unethical to short stack because you can buy-in for the same amount they do. You choose to buyin for the amount that you do. The thing i hate hearing most is that something is detrimental to the "game". The game is a collection of self-interests colliding. What people really mean when they say something is bad for the game is that it is bad for themselves and the strategy they wish to employ.

They're sort of a response to a weakness as well in that there are alot of omaha players who can play well after the flop but play horrendously before the flop. They don't know how to click the "fold" button once they've put any money in the pot until the flop has come.