live NL game w/ only 50x BB buy-in cap

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]

The deception might matter in some online small-stakes or live higher-stakes games. But if you're playing in a $1-2 game where you need to raise 87s for cover, you're in the wrong damn $1-2 game.

Small pairs can be raised for value in a very tight game in position. If you have 33, you don't want to give the J7 big blind a free flop with six outs to beat you. But again, if this matters in your live $1-2 game, you have the single worst table selection of all of Two Plus Two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I lived near casinos where this was true. Sadly, some amount of cover play seems somewhat necessary in order to get the big postflop payoffs in the specific games I'm posting about. Obviously not always, but on an "average" day. I have consistently observed the tight players not getting paid off. This may be allowing them to do a little more CB bluffing, but I'm pretty sure I'm winning more as a home run hitter. Time will tell I suppose.

[BigStack650]

in a $1/2 game capped at say 200 and most ppl only buy in/have 100 in front of them, would you buy in for 100 and play short or would it be better to buy in full?

[AKQJ10]

It depends on whether you expect to have a postflop advantage over the deep stacks (either those buying in deep or those that develop by doubling up).

In general, if you're a reasonably competent, somewhat experienced, and adequately bankrolled NLHE player, you should have an advantage over 90% of your opponents and should buy in deep stacked.

You lose very little by buying in short, assessing the state of play, and then adding on up to the the maximum if you believe that you have the edge.

[NL Rounder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line IMHO is that this structure simply results in crapshoot poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

A good player will still beat this game very soundly and fairly consistently. (I played under these conditions at Foxwoods for a year or more until they recently lifted the max. and I moved from the Northeast.) A crapshoot would imply that it's really just a game of chance with no room for skill.

Like any short-stacked NLHE, it's going to involve less skill, and specifically much less postflop skill, because there simply isn't the money behind to make for play on the turn and river. But that's not making it a total crapshoot, just a bit more of one. (Short-stacked NLHE has much less variance than LHE, for example, and no one disputes that LHE is beatable over the long term.)

It's higher-variance than deeper stacked, certainly, but IMO you dramatically overdramatize the impact, implying that perhaps you need more practice varying your play to stack size. You'll have short-stacked situations in deep-stack NLHE, unless you only play cash games and pick up from the table each time someone falls well below their original buy-in. That's silly, so it's far better to learn these concepts than to put them down as not part of real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say crapshoot, you say less-skilled/higher-variance...I say tomato, you say...

Short-stack situations in a deep-stacked game are not a valid comparison by any means. What was debated here are stacks (all of them) that are short by design with respect to the blind structure. BTW, picking up from the table as you imply sounds like rat-holing (unless you meant leaving the table) and is clearly illegal in any and every poker room that I've played in. That doesn't stop fools from trying though...hope you're not one of them.

Dramatically overdramatize???...you sound a bit more like the Drama Queen in this instance.

[Iwineverypot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line IMHO is that this structure simply results in crapshoot poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

A good player will still beat this game very soundly and fairly consistently. (I played under these conditions at Foxwoods for a year or more until they recently lifted the max. and I moved from the Northeast.) A crapshoot would imply that it's really just a game of chance with no room for skill.

Like any short-stacked NLHE, it's going to involve less skill, and specifically much less postflop skill, because there simply isn't the money behind to make for play on the turn and river. But that's not making it a total crapshoot, just a bit more of one. (Short-stacked NLHE has much less variance than LHE, for example, and no one disputes that LHE is beatable over the long term.)

It's higher-variance than deeper stacked, certainly, but IMO you dramatically overdramatize the impact, implying that perhaps you need more practice varying your play to stack size. You'll have short-stacked situations in deep-stack NLHE, unless you only play cash games and pick up from the table each time someone falls well below their original buy-in. That's silly, so it's far better to learn these concepts than to put them down as not part of real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say crapshoot, you say less-skilled/higher-variance...I say tomato, you say...

Short-stack situations in a deep-stacked game are not a valid comparison by any means. What was debated here are stacks (all of them) that are short by design with respect to the blind structure. BTW, picking up from the table as you imply sounds like rat-holing (unless you meant leaving the table) and is clearly illegal in any and every poker room that I've played in. That doesn't stop fools from trying though...hope you're not one of them.

Dramatically overdramatize???...you sound a bit more like the Drama Queen in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why turn it into something personal. His response was constructive, informative, and for all intents and purposes, correct. Your response made it personal and you didn't really make any valid points. Then you accuse him of rat-holing which was directed toward a completely obvious hyberbole / exaggeration he made. Also, playing vs 1 opponent that is shortstacked at a normal 100bb table is a very valid comparison. Aside from the obvious differences,(it's only 1 player as opposed to the entire table) you could pretty much apply the same concepts against this player and against any single player at the 50bb table. Of course your PF strategy would be different at the 50bb table because every single person including yourself is shortstacked as opposed to 1 player, but cmon, if you can't see how the comparison is a very good comparison barring the very slight obvious differences, I don't know what to tell you.
One last thing, his statement about over-dramatization was correct. You're trying to say it's a complete crapshoot when it in fact is nowhere near that. Again, he's not making any personal attacks or trying to throw his ego around, he made an informative correct post and kindly corrected your misadvice for anyone reading this thread that might actually take what you said to heart. So how bout you stop creating drama, and get a brain, k?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, picking up from the table as you imply sounds like rat-holing (unless you meant leaving the table) and is clearly illegal in any and every poker room that I've played in. That doesn't stop fools from trying though...hope you're not one of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant leaving the table. If you think playing short effective stacks is beneath you, you can't risk the possibility that your raise might be reraised by the 30 BBL stack at the table, so you'd better leave the game and find another one where every single stack is as big as you like to play at. Why would you rathole if the point was to avoid playing short-stack NLHE?

Unfortunately you show no interest in continuing the discussion in good faith, so we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[NL Rounder]

Actually Iwin, I found AKQJ10s response to be a bit duplicitous, presumptuous and condescending.

While there seems to be some over-sensitivity to the word crapshoot, (and I stated crapshoot poker, not total nor complete crapshoot, which the two of you have used against me) he agrees that the structure results in less skill and more variance and/or luck. He just states it differently and dramatically uses more words. That's a bit duplicitous.

He pretentiously assumes that I have difficulty playing against short stacks in a deep stack game and rather condescendingly suggests that I both learn how and that I (falsely) referred to the situation as not being real poker. In truth, I don't mind having one to perhaps three short stacks in a deeper structured full ring game. They're not to be disrespected, but I do consider them to be less of a threat and have absolutely no problem in playing against them.

Once again though, I will state that there is no valid comparison between the short-stack for all players designed game in question to a deep-stacked game with one, two or three short-stacks in it. The games will play completely differently simply due to the presence of the other deeper stacks in the latter game and the absolute lack (initially anyway) of deep stacks in the former. These are not very slight obvious differences Iwin and if you can't grasp that, I would suggest that you get a brain.

Oh, and I didn't accuse AKQJ10 of rat-holing brainiac, his condescending comment read as if he was suggesting that I rat-hole, which I hoped wasn't accurate.

Now in conclusion AKQJ10, I would like to continue the original discussion (Pov's) in good faith. One rather obvious good tip that hasn't been mentioned is knowing your opponents. Pov alluded to the fact that these games do have some good players in them. I would suggest being very careful in just who is paying off TPTK or an overpair royally in these games.

[headtrauma]

The $1/2 NL game at the casino closest to me is $100 min/max buy in. I'm working on building up a bankroll to play this game, how much should I adjust my target from the usual suggestion of 20X buyin to compensate for it being a forced short buy?

I work 4pm to 1am, so sometimes when I arrive at the casino the majority of people at the table are deepstacked ($200ish to over $600). I played badly last trip and I've been trying to think through where to adjust my play. I was definitely playing too many hands preflop, and continuation betting too many hands. The second problem with my cbets was that I was betting too much of my stack without being willing to commit my stack when raised.
What are some other adjustments I can make to be more successful at this game? oppenents are a mixture of loose agressive and a handful of good players.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
The $1/2 NL game at the casino closest to me is $100 min/max buy in. I'm working on building up a bankroll to play this game, how much should I adjust my target from the usual suggestion of 20X buyin to compensate for it being a forced short buy?

I work 4pm to 1am, so sometimes when I arrive at the casino the majority of people at the table are deepstacked ($200ish to over $600). I played badly last trip and I've been trying to think through where to adjust my play. I was definitely playing too many hands preflop, and continuation betting too many hands. The second problem with my cbets was that I was betting too much of my stack without being willing to commit my stack when raised.
What are some other adjustments I can make to be more successful at this game? oppenents are a mixture of loose agressive and a handful of good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you can still play quite a few hands if they are cheap before the flop, but you need to be very aware of pot control. What I mean by that is that you need to avoid your second problem. If you raise a hand like KJs, flop a king and then cbet, you've probably just put in a third of your stack. That's not where you want to be with a hand like top pair, decent kicker if you meet resistance. I've become much more apt (in this game structure) to limp this type of hand and then play poker on the flop. Now the flop is small enough I don't mind folding when I'm unsure of where I stand and I still seem to be able to get a big chunk or a whole stack when I flop big with two pair or manage to draw and hit a big straight or flush. The biggest problem seems to be that by not raising, you allow lots of weaker hands into the pot and they can be difficult to read.

Now with a stronger hand like AKs, I go ahead and raise and then go to war when I hit a king and risk a big chunk of my stack unless I really have a reason to believe I've been beaten. In a deeper game it's a big leak to get stacked with TPTK, but in this structure I don't think this is true anymore provided you raised enough preflop to deny your opponents the implied odds to come after you.

Reflecting on my profits, though, I'd say the major contributor has been getting to the flop with a pair either with a limp or by calling a small raise with a few other callers, hitting a set and stacking someone who hit top or two pair. The shallow structure makes it incredibly difficult for players to escape this, particularly when most of these players would have some difficulty escaping even with a full buy-in.

Of course you should realize the things I've just said are somewhat contradictory and that's what lead me to start this thread. By playing the hands like KJs more cheaply, I'm letting the small pair come after me so I seem to be leaving myself open to exactly what I am planning to do to my opponents. So far the spidey-sense and self control seems to be what lets me win on both sides of the equation . . . or I've been lucky. I'm hoping someone can provide a more confident answer.