A Stack-Management Strategy Specifically for OL NL Games

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hooray for ratholing

[/ QUOTE ]

"ratholing?" Pray explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortstacking, winning a big pot or two, and quickly leaving the table, like a rat running back into it's hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

while the majority of ratholing occurs from shortstackers, its not a shortstack exclusive move

its simply taking money off the table

[brianmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree-it would be nice if there was a more considered, thoughtful discussion, rather than the preponderance of simplistic responses I am getting.

[brianmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hooray for ratholing

[/ QUOTE ]

"ratholing?" Pray explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortstacking, winning a big pot or two, and quickly leaving the table, like a rat running back into it's hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

while the majority of ratholing occurs from shortstackers, its not a shortstack exclusive move

its simply taking money off the table

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'm not ratholing. I'm simply changing tables. Any problems with that?

[mmctrab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if I'm an diot so are Sklanksy and Miller, who debunk the automatic "big-stack" argument in NLHE: Theory and Practice. I highly recommend it, as you might learn something that reduces your personal idiot factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't tell you to always play with a shortstack. They explain the benefits of it, and remark that when you move up in limits or you start playing at a new table you could use the strategy until you are used to playing at those limits or at that particular table.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit there are "benefits" under certain conditions. So how exactly does this make me an idiot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you were an idiot, nor that there weren't some benefits to shortstacking. Obviously you have me confused with someone else.

[brianmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And if I'm an diot so are Sklanksy and Miller, who debunk the automatic "big-stack" argument in NLHE: Theory and Practice. I highly recommend it, as you might learn something that reduces your personal idiot factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't tell you to always play with a shortstack. They explain the benefits of it, and remark that when you move up in limits or you start playing at a new table you could use the strategy until you are used to playing at those limits or at that particular table.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit there are "benefits" under certain conditions. So how exactly does this make me an idiot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you were an idiot, nor that there weren't some benefits to shortstacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops! Sorry, pal! There was another very similar conve I was having where someone flamed me for even suggesting that short stacks might have a strategic benefit.

[coordi]

big stacks are goot. you want big stacks so you can stack other big stacks. stacking other big stacks is goot. If your scared money, then move down.

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has fulfilled its potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexB182]

Come on brianmarc, you are the guy that makes it difficult to discuss here as we all seem to be idiots to you.
Listen, I understand your approach, but me and most of the guys here simply think that it is not a very good one, except you regard yourself as a worse player than the other big stacks at your table. In this case, I see your point in leaving when doubled up or made some bucks. And yes, this is ratholing: your changing tables, but you extract money from the original table by leaving this one. Per definition, this is ratholing, but its not forbidden, so never mind.
In contrast to you (honestly, no offend here, I'm just stating) I do not regard myself as a worse player than the other players, rather the opposite. For this reason, getting a big as possible stack and using it is definetely a better approach to make moneys for me than leaving when my stack has grown. Ok?

[coordi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread fulfilled its potential many times before in other places.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[brianmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on brianmarc, you are the guy that makes it difficult to discuss here as we all seem to be idiots to you.
Listen, I understand your approach, but me and most of the guys here simply think that it is not a very good one, except you regard yourself as a worse player than the other big stacks at your table. In this case, I see your point in leaving when doubled up or made some bucks. And yes, this is ratholing: your changing tables, but you extract money from the original table by leaving this one. Per definition, this is ratholing, but its not forbidden, so never mind.
In contrast to you (honestly, no offend here, I'm just stating) I do not regard myself as a worse player than the other players, rather the opposite. For this reason, getting a big as possible stack and using it is definitely a better approach to make moneys for me than leaving when my stack has grown. Ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. And, no, I don't think all the posters are idiots; but I do think manyof them are shallow thinkers and do not add much (anything?) to the conversation.

Re your second point: I am playing NLHE for the first time after 6 years of LHE. After reading Sklanksy/Miller, Gordon and Brunson I realized how little I understand this game. However, playing micro limits was both boring and did not offer opportunities to observe and play against better players. However, playing against better players was getting extremely expensive until I hit upon the table-switching strategy. I had never heard the term "ratholing" before, and find it offensive in the context I am describing. I prefer the more simple and entirely accurate "table switching".

Two more points: In LHE it is often a good investment to play game that you know you are unlikely to win in, as that is likely the best way to learn. But you have much less danger of catastrophic losses there, so this is not an issue. In fact I have has some of my most enjoyable games at 30/60 and 50/100 LHE, even though it has cost me over the longer term. Once I got back to my 20/40 bread-and-butter I more than made up for it.

Finally, you say you consider yourself one of the best players in your game. No problem with that (I fully expect to say that about myself in a year or so when I have put the work in to master NLHE), but how about if you were to step up one, two or more levels? Could you say the same thing? if not, would you not consider a cheap buy-in and then table-switching if you built a big stack, instead of playing scared against superior players?