NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[terrellk11]

My problem with players using the short buyin is two-fold:

1. It has the effect of tightening up the whole table. A good shortstacker is only playing 5% (give or take a few percent) of the hands dealt. Every single time I'm at a table and a short-stacker buys in, you can see the average players per flop number drop steadily by 10 percent or more as the whole table dynamic changes. Wild and loose games become rock gardens or just break altogether.

2. It chases off the fish. The fish play the game to see a lot of flops and have a good time. It isn't fun for the fish to have someone sitting at the table that plays one hand every 3 rounds, pushes all in preflop, and then leaves the table with the fish's money when he wins.

In the short-term, it may be a profitable approach to the game. However, by tightening up the games and chasing away the fish, the strategy actually destroys the conditions that make it effective.

[Dennisa]

I'm happy I have the option to play full or short stack. The reason is I live in Los Angeles. If I want to practice online for my b&M play, I buy in for 20 or 33 big blinds so I can simulate casino play.

The main reason the full stackers dont want the short stackers is that IT COMPLICATES THE FULL STACKERS GAME. Its may be a small advantage, but it is an advantage to play short stack in NL.

[[Phill]]

Ive yet to see a really good short stacker. By and large they are bad. The only negative they bring is a limit to what i can win, and an ability to kill side action by making big overbets.

You gotta love them some times though:

Ive cut out the suits and the other stacks, they dont make a difference. Its 5 handed here btw.

Seat 5: pablos48 ($45.65 in chips)
Seat 6: MisterDiceman ($443.60 in chips)

pablos48: Post SB $1.00
MisterDiceman: Post BB $2.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pablos48 [A A] him
Dealt to MisterDiceman [J J] me
Xaitra87: Call $2.00
paymefriday: Fold
PFish112: Call $2.00
pablos48: Call $1.00
MisterDiceman: Raise $10.00
Xaitra87: Fold
PFish112: Fold
pablos48: Allin $43.65
MisterDiceman: Call $33.65
*** FLOP *** [Q 6 Q]
*** TURN *** [8]
*** RIVER *** [5]

Lololol.

Fwiw, he hung around and gave me a chance to beat him:

Seat 5: pablos48 ($50.70 in chips) DEALER
Seat 6: MisterDiceman ($450.90 in chips)

MisterDiceman: Post SB $1.00
Mubbben: Post BB $2.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to MisterDiceman [K K]
Dealt to pablos48 [10 10]
paymefriday: Fold
PFish112: Fold
pablos48: Call $2.00
MisterDiceman: Raise $8.00
Mubbben: Call $7.00
pablos48: Call $7.00
*** FLOP *** [J 8 2]
MisterDiceman: Bet $20.00
Mubbben: Call $20.00
pablos48: Allin $41.70
MisterDiceman: Raise $86.80
Mubbben: Fold
*** TURN *** [10]
*** RIVER *** [J]

Way it goes i guess.

My point, he played badly twice (see hand 1, if i have rags, check and someone else holds a Q, he busts that stack) - he doesnt even get away from his pocket pair with an over there.

Its all just variance. I have a loads of records of shortstackers who come sit down, play a couple of orbits, get it in bad and then leave.

I always assume shortstackers = fish, because 99% of the time they simply are.

[Oberonn]

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason the full stackers dont want the short stackers is that IT COMPLICATES THE FULL STACKERS GAME.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is untrue. Short stack buyin players eliminate many of the advanced plays available which actually simplifies the game.

Better players want a game to be more complex so their skills can come into play.

As I said above, short stack buyin players are not necessarily bad. Too many at a tables does tend to tighten up the whole table but good players can adjust.

It is the ratholing short stack buyin players that give them all a bad reputation.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Steel,

Take a look at my California online poker initiative (link in the legislative forum). If you can get past the hate about no HUD and no multitabling, you might see something you like there. Look midway through it in the section detailing games to be offered.

There is an anti ratholing provision too.

Tuff
.

[El Diablo]

All,

Fanboys and haters alike are welcomed in the EDF.

A number of old-school NL players participate there, so perspectives are probably a little different than those of the majority of 2+2ers.

[questions]

The haters are also those who try to push out the short stacks by responding to a raise from them with an all-in/GTFO, only to be surprised when their A-2 offsuit fails to stand up to short stack's AK. LOL

[monkeyman]

in the long run, it is profitable to buy in short if you play it right. wait for premium hands, push all in pre flop and you will almost always get called by some rag hand from a large stack. as long as they keep calling with rags, i will keep buying in short.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
in the long run, it is profitable to buy in short if you play it right. wait for premium hands, push all in pre flop and you will almost always get called by some rag hand from a large stack. as long as they keep calling with rags, i will keep buying in short.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Happens all the time that way. They fail to adapt to a short stack's strategy, which is to play only premium hands. They can't use their deep stacks to bludgeon people out of the game. Different strategy. Just the way it goes.

[Better Than U]

It's just a bunch of internet tough guys that can't stand playing against shortstacks that can't stand not getting their way. They should all be shot.

ps: i read no replies, just answering the question, besides who the [censored] cares. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.