Pooh-Bah - Crushing Short Stacks

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]


However, if venting and cursing at short stackers all over the forum is so important that regs are going to up and leave in a huff when they're asked to tone it down, well, we'll just have to deal with the loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true.

This sounds like I am pointing this at pokerboy but this isn't directly specifically at him. It is just my personal opinion...

If people are going to do this then I don't really consider it a loss.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't want the games to be filled with Romanian sweatshops of shortstackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about American sweatshops? Is 2+2 on the verge of some kind of "MIT Blackjack Team" that can take down Stars & Full Tilt?

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there's any actual strat discussion left to be had here, but in the event there is I'm not locking this thread. I suspect a lock is exactly what some people are hoping for.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, sticky is what we're hoping for.

This is so weird. In the Beginner forum I add content to threads on how to short stack, and in the FR forum I'm bumping a thread on how to crush shorties.

Settin' 'em up an' knockin' 'em down! That's how Bottom Feeders work! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[DCJ311]

One big problem with calling 'correctly' (more loosely) against shortstackers ranges is that you leave yourself vulnerable to people behind you making moves or having a big hand. You can't just call in spots where you have a small edge vs the shortstacker, because of the negative equity of having hands after you.

Your post is nice but not many people are smart enough to take the concepts and accurately put them to work on the table. Fortunately for most full stackers, a lot of shortstackers are so bad that you almost would rather have them on the table. I'm a shortstacker and LOVE playing against other shortstackers. With that said this is a pretty good start to beating most SSers.

[phydaux]

MT2R,

Thank you for posting on this thread. Particularly since, so it seems, you are regular and successful short stacker.

I enjoyed your comments, but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You said:

"It's that there is an inherent flaw in trying to beat a 100BB game when some players have 20BB stacks."

This is well known, and I don't think we need to rehash hand ranges, speculative hands, implied odds and the denial thereof.

Later you said:

"For those that do know poker and can play that strat for more profit, they would be better off playing full anyway."

This is also commonly accepted. Once a player is solid, then they are costing themselves EV by playing short. This, of course, assumes that the shorties are playing on tables where they are fully capable of outplaying their opponents after the flop.

This, then, opens the door to the common question, "If I'm currently beating 100NL by shorting, will I make more money by playing 100NL with a full stack or by shorting at 200NL?" And this in itself may be what I'm "missing" when I say you seem to be contradicting yourself - That when you refer to "pro shorties" you are referring to people regularly short stacking the nosebleed stakes.

Because you also said:

"I know quite a bit about ssing, but still don't know it all as they are very, VERY secretive about everything."

You follow that up with:

"FYI-everytime one of these threads gets started, I get a handful of PMs and AIM messages asking for info. To this point, I haven't shared with anyone."

These comments seem to imply that there is some sort of cabal of short stackers, you being one of them, that possess some sort of "hidden, inner mysteries" of short stacking. This would seem to imply that someone who has access to these hidden mysteries (you being the only one on 2+2 that does) would be able to make more money by playing short than by playing deep.

This seems to run contrary to the conventional wisdom held by every other NL player here. And contradict that second quote of yours.

Please help clear up this apparent contradiction. Provided, of course, you deem it safe to give such an answer on a "very public forum with lots of lurkers."

Thanks,

phy

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post is nice but not many people are smart enough to take the concepts and accurately put them to work on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bloody well hope so!

That's the beauty of forums like 2+2. Genuinely awesome players & posters like Cry & pokey freely share their knowledge and experience. They know full well that forum readers, even if they're just lurkers and aren't interested in "giving anything back," represent just a small precentage of poker players world wide.

And they know that, honestly, only a small percentage of regular readers will put forth the effort to study and apply the insights they share.

So no matter how much they post, there's no real risk to themselves of "killing the fish that pays the golden rake."

[MyTurn2Raise]

phydaux

I can answer that

the 2ptbb/100 winrate was the optimal for those that follow the Ed Miller (and public 2p2 shortstacking strategy posts) school of shortstacking

the 'best' shortstackers would be unrecognizable from that perspective -- there are plenty of them that are active and wellknown 2p2 members (nearly 10 by my count--I'm far from the only one and, quite likely, the worst of the group at shorting)


there have only been the briefest of public mentions on what these guys do


it all stems from playing a 20BB game while the opponents are fixated on a 100BB one


just keep chewing on that and the rest falls into place




NOTE: avoidance of the last issue you bring up, which should speak volumes

[phydaux]

You're still speaking rather cryptically, MT2R.

You said:

"the 'best' shortstackers would be unrecognizable from that perspective" (emphasis mine)

"that" perspective... What perspective? The Rule of Pronoun Antecedents would suggest "that" refers to "the 2ptbb/100 winrate" of the "common" short stackers.

So these 10 or so Initiates of the Hidden Mysteries, you being one of them, differ from the common short stackers in their win rate.

Well, the ways for good players to increase their win rate are both many and commonly understood. They usually include using position and aggression to isolate weak players, play them head's up after the flop and get them to fold.

Now you speak of avoiding one of the points I brought up, and how it should speak volumes. One point I brought up that you didn't comment on is shorties growing their roll so they can short the nosebleed stakes.

So if a shortie is sitting at a high stakes table filled with good deep stack players, he can more or less count on these "good" players "correctly" folding to his pre-flop & flop bets because of the lack of implied odds he is offering. Are you saying this will lead the Initiate of the Hidden Mysteries to a greater than 2ptbb/100 win rate?

Again, your logic seems to be skewed.

If the strategy is based on the inherent flaw in trying to beat a 100BB game when some players have 20BB stacks, then after a while, thanks to his greater than 2ptbb/100 win rate, the enlightened shortie will eventually no longer have a short stack.

So then what does he do?

In the fish ponds the shortie can rathole. In the Beginner's Forum I recommend ratholing all the time to players wanting to play the SSS. Because it pisses some players off so much, the shortie has tilt equity once the regulars and multi-tablers get to know who he is. Got to love Tilt Equity.

But at the nosebleeds there aren't enough tables for a multi-tabling shortie to rathole. So his only option is to stay at the table and adjust his strategy for medium stack play.

And the only way this is some sort of hidden, inner mystery to a 2+2 forum regular, lurker or otherwise, is if he's never read a thread on short stacking started by pokey.

Frankly MT2R, I haven't had to parse sentences like this since Bill Clinton asked America what the definition of "is" is. I think I'm older in years than most of the 2+2 regulars, and in my experience there are only kinds of people who play the "I know something you don't know" game:

1) People who know they're full of crap and are selling something

and

2) People who honestly don't know they're full of crap and are profoundly committed to self-delusion.

So what one is it for you?

[Cry Me A River]

Here's the thing...

Yeah, the whole "We have hidden knowledge that we're not gonna share. But you can guess if you like! You're getting warmer, warmer, oooh colder, colder, ah! warmer, warmer" was pretty annoying the first time, let alone the fifth.

If it was just one poster claiming that the best short stacks have been working on a more sophisticated playbook of tactics I'd be inclined to dismiss it as leveling as well - "Woo! Don't play back at the good short stacks, they'll pwn you!" Thus allowing short stacks to steal and push intimidated big stacks off hands with near impunity.

However, we've heard the same thing from multiple sources, most of them generally credible. So, as I stated in my previous post, I'm inclined to give it some credit even though due to stack size short stacks seem largely limited to squeezes and stop&go's and derivatives thereof.

Regardless, I think that my other point remains the most important. There are only a handful of these expert short stackers. They're essentially a non-issue at $100NL and below. And even at higher limits they seem to be much more of a concern at 6max where having 2 or 3 short stackers at a table is going to be a much bigger deal.

The vast majority of short stackers are terrible and very exploitable.

[wako]

[ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of short stackers are terrible and very exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm SSing for the obvious reason, it's a beginners strategy or intro to NL so of course most are poor players but a reasonable approach to learn with the least amount of risk. Not to mention a tool for bonus chasing at higher levels than your skill set. I have no long term plans to SS just to learn. It would think SSing to be the easiest Hold'em to bot.