NL short stack strategy from GSinHM by ED MIller question

[Mahdrek]

ok i tried applying what i learned from Ed MIllers's book : Getting started in Hold'em; the part where in No Limit cash games for beginners its better to play the short stack (25xBig blind or less) therefore u r basically only playing 2 round poker.
tested in micro .10-.20 no limit game
i had pocket AA in BB
middle player limps, sb folds, i raise $1.20, limper calls
flop: 489
i check to slowplay , he raises to $1.25 i raise all-in
anyways ends up he caught trips on flop with his pocket 88
So was this just bad luck where in the long run i would normally win with higher pair then on flop...book never mentioned bad luck of opponent catching trips
ps this was on prima skin so hand convertor was not compatable
thank you for any responses, i realize u should get as much money in with AA as u can preflop, but im just wondering if i made a mistake on the flop or if in the long run i would come out a winner

[lucky_mf]

Because you were shortstacked he did not have the implied odds to play his 88 for set value. He is basically calling $1.10 for a chance at winning an additional $3.90 giving him implied odds of about 1-3.5. He needs implied odds of 1-7 to play his hand for set value. You will make money in the LR from his play.

Lucky

[ottsville]

The short stack strategy is great to learn with in the right situations. I would suggest just buying in full at the nano limits($5nl) and learning how to play deep stack. This has been discussed lots here and in the micro nl forum - a search will give you more info. My general thoughts are to play short when you are one of the weaker players at the table.

As for your hand, slowplaying your aces here is bad. What do you expect your opponent to do since you were the PF aggressor? If he hit the flop, he's going to bet, and if he doesn't he will probably check. Say he checks and the turn is a blank...now what do you do? If you are playing short stack strategy so that "u r basically only playing 2 round poker" then slowplaying is wrong. Do you see why?

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
The short stack strategy is great to learn with in the right situations. I would suggest just buying in full at the nano limits($5nl) and learning how to play deep stack. This has been discussed lots here and in the micro nl forum - a search will give you more info. My general thoughts are to play short when you are one of the weaker players at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its a great strategy in a loose aggresive game with lots of big stacks. Ideally if you are going to use this approach you find a seat to the right aggro players. Then when you get a big hand you can limp it, counting on someone to raise behind you and other players to call. When it comes back to you can can just move in (with what is likely the best hand). You either have an excellent chance of tripling up of picking up the pf jack or tripling up (assuming some dead money and one get a caller). Rolf Slotbloom wrote a entire book about using this approach in pot limit omaha games.

Lucky

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
So was this just bad luck where in the long run i would normally win with higher pair then on flop...book never mentioned bad luck of opponent catching trips

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. At short stacks, it's virtually impossible to make a mistake by putting the money in with AA. The only mistake would be, on a coordinated board with a multi-way field, to slowplay AA until you lose.

Ed didn't mention every single way you could get unlucky. He didn't say, "You might get AA but lose to a straight," and, "You might get AA but lose to a flopped flush," and, "You might get AA and get all the money in against top pair but lose to two pair on the river."

But he did mention that just playing short stacks right doesn't mean you'll win every hand. Specifically, the book says that sometimes you'll have QQ, get all the money in, and your opponent will have AA. That's not all that different than this case, because on the flop you have no way to know your opponent flopped a set. You're way ahead of your opponent's range, so just put the money in and hope for the best. You have to take solace in the fact that, those times when you get unlucky, you're playing good hands that on balance will be way ahead of your opponents.

In the long run, you'll do well.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
He needs implied odds of 1-7 to play his hand for set value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be pedantic, he needs better odds. Sometimes you make an overset (either flopped or by the river), and sometimes you end up with a straight or flush.

Also, this doesn't really matter so much short-stacked, but there's a possibility you might flop a set and no one else has anything they like. With 33 vs. AQ, you may think you're playing for implied odds, but you're really leading on a KT7 flop, and won't make much on a KT3 flop.

But your point is correct. Over time, getting the money in short-stacked with AA vs. 88 will be a huge money winner for you.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
The short stack strategy is great to learn with in the right situations. I would suggest just buying in full at the nano limits($5nl) and learning how to play deep stack. This has been discussed lots here and in the micro nl forum - a search will give you more info. My general thoughts are to play short when you are one of the weaker players at the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

Discussed ad nauseum on this thread. Please read the whole thing to see the whole range of opinion. Frankly the tendency of people to accept one respected poster's opinion as Gospel is frightening, if profitable for your opponents.

I would expect a starting NL player, even one who's read a book, to be a weak postflop player. A lot of players with little theoretical knowledge can still read hands well. If you don't, you'll be dog meat.

I'm a strong proponent of simplifying the game (i.e. preflop and flop only), learning that well, and then moving on. Others are strong proponents of trying to learn everything at once. I think their opinions are wrong, but I respect the depth of experience on which they're basing their conclusions.

[Mahdrek]

ty all for replies, and ty AKQJ10 for providing the link, i was having a hard time finding it with search.

[Mahdrek]

yes i see why....NOW.....lol [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]