|
|
#1
04-04-2007, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
why do they all buy in short? (low content)
Why do so many NL100 cash players buy in short? I see tons of players at that level buying in w 20-40 bbs.
I'm not complaining - I still play them, just using a short stack strategy. I'm just trying to find out what they think they gain vs playing NL50 with a full stack. (Or 200 vs 100, etc. pick your level) 
|
|
#3
04-05-2007, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why do they all buy in short? (low content)
yea i agree, its tough to beat them with the rake
this isnt really a strategy by them, u'll find that most who buy in short are real bad players who have lost alot and dont want to risk much, outplay--->profit, watch out for the hit n runs they do so often
|
|
#5
04-06-2007, 09:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why do they all buy in short? (low content)
Yeah, some of the people who buy in for 20 and donk it off in 3 hands I see playing .10/.25 later.
Do we really think that the rake is tough to beat in HU NL100? I would guess playing with $40 effective stacks and a decent (rakeless) edge would still show a win, which is much less of a condition than "full stacks and a serious edge". Anyone have some stats?
|
|
#6
04-09-2007, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why do they all buy in short? (low content)
I love playing guys who buy in short IF they're tilting and/or looking for action, but I've been playing some 100NL HU lately, and there are soooo many people buying in short AND being nits. I made the mistake of playing these guys a few times cause I knew I could bust them, but then by the time I do, the rake has eaten away sort of badly.
One guy I think I chipped up to like $150 from $40 at one point on a few sick hands, but he was playing extremely badly and I managed to bust him a short while later. I felt great cause I took $150 off of him in about 4 minutes, then I realized that post-rake I made $28 profit total haha, stupid.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
