Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Poker > Omaha High

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-11-2007, 04:04 AM
ChuckyB ChuckyB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fox Soccer Report
Posts: 2,470
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotboom devised his short-stacking strategy playing in a 50 BB minimum buy-in game.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2007, 04:40 AM
pete fabrizio pete fabrizio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big-ass yard
Posts: 2,250
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotboom devised his short-stacking strategy playing in a 50 BB minimum buy-in game.

[/ QUOTE ]

so? i didn't say that playing 50bb in a deeper game wouldn't still give an advantage to the shortstacker, i just said that it wouldn't be nearly as big of a disadvantage for the player to his immediate left.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-11-2007, 06:46 AM
Sodom Sodom is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 23
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
is having them to your right while having a full stack to your left. does anyone think that a coherent argument could be made to the poker sites that allowing shortstackers makes the games less fair -- not because it creates an unfair advantage for the shortstackers, but because it arbitrarily creates unfair advantages between the remaining players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play fullstack often. It's easier to play shortstack (and I am not an elite player) especially when you multitabling and you create a form of cap-game, which for many reason is a decent professional move.

One thing I am quite convinced of, but can't prove because I do not collect any statistics from my own or other games, is that the problem at PLO is the medium stack. With a medium stack I mean 50-200BB against big stacks who often have much more. There you can talk of disadvantages - anyway is that my feeling when I play.

A big stack have to pay attention to shortstacks, but he just roll over the medium stacks (Of course every player can take advantage of shortstackers by the table if the player itself are good). So in my mind, you have to go for a very big stack or you should keep to short stack play. If your playing style is very laggy, then you go of course for the big stack advantage.

So my conclusion have nothing to do with position. If you want to forbid shortstackers (bit problematic I guess when they are all over the games in all form of poker - so it may hit the pokersites profit just to benefit the very minority of superior laggy big stack players), you should probably do it because you want to see another dynamic at the poker tables.

As medium stack you will always suffer under the massive pressure of a superior big stack player regardless where your position are. If the medium stack limp after I limp and the big stack raise after, and I re-raise, then you are in disadvantage. If I limp, the big stack raise and you call, and it's back to me and I re-raise, you are in disadvantage again. If you limp, I limp, the big stack raise, you call and I re-raise, you are in disadvantage. In all cases, not because of your position, just because of your stack size.

The bottom end is of course this. A good player will make profit regardless of the stacksize, but the medium stacks I am sure have not an easy task.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-11-2007, 07:01 AM
pete fabrizio pete fabrizio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big-ass yard
Posts: 2,250
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
is having them to your right while having a full stack to your left. does anyone think that a coherent argument could be made to the poker sites that allowing shortstackers makes the games less fair -- not because it creates an unfair advantage for the shortstackers, but because it arbitrarily creates unfair advantages between the remaining players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play fullstack often. It's easier to play shortstack (and I am not an elite player) especially when you multitabling and you create a form of cap-game, which for many reason is a decent professional move.

One thing I am quite convinced of, but can't prove because I do not collect any statistics from my own or other games, is that the problem at PLO is the medium stack. With a medium stack I mean 50-200BB against big stacks who often have much more. There you can talk of disadvantages - anyway is that my feeling when I play.

A big stack have to pay attention to shortstacks, but he just roll over the medium stacks (Of course every player can take advantage of shortstackers by the table if the player itself are good). So in my mind, you have to go for a very big stack or you should keep to short stack play. If your playing style is very laggy, then you go of course for the big stack advantage.

So my conclusion have nothing to do with position. If you want to forbid shortstackers (bit problematic I guess when they are all over the games in all form of poker - so it may hit the pokersites profit just to benefit the very minority of superior laggy big stack players), you should probably do it because you want to see another dynamic at the poker tables.

As medium stack you will always suffer under the massive pressure of a superior big stack player regardless where your position are. If the medium stack limp after I limp and the big stack raise after, and I re-raise, then you are in disadvantage. If I limp, the big stack raise and you call, and it's back to me and I re-raise, you are in disadvantage again. If you limp, I limp, the big stack raise, you call and I re-raise, you are in disadvantage. In all cases, not because of your position, just because of your stack size.

The bottom end is of course this. A good player will make profit regardless of the stacksize, but the medium stacks I am sure have not an easy task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I find playing a 50bb stack very interesting, and I think you can do a lot more with it than people think. There are some game conditions for which I think it would be ideal.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-11-2007, 07:04 AM
ChuckyB ChuckyB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fox Soccer Report
Posts: 2,470
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I am quite convinced of, but can't prove because I do not collect any statistics from my own or other games, is that the problem at PLO is the medium stack. With a medium stack I mean 50-200BB against big stacks who often have much more. There you can talk of disadvantages - anyway is that my feeling when I play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolf Slotboom advises when you play a medium stack that you min-raise any pot you're going to enter. It essentially doubles the blinds making a 40-120 BB stack play more like a 20-60 BB stack.

He also talks about exactly the problem you mention. In his section about his experiences moving to the 10-20 online game, he says if he bought in for the minimum ($400) once he got over $1,000 he found no benefit to playing that size stack. So he'd advise that you quit, or top up to the max buy-in.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-11-2007, 10:57 AM
Troll_Inc Troll_Inc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: FGHIJKLM STUVWXYZ
Posts: 2,566
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotboom devised his short-stacking strategy playing in a 50 BB minimum buy-in game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but he was playing in a live game that probably saw much larger BB pots preflop than the online game most of us play. Did the game have a straddle in it to?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-11-2007, 02:59 PM
iggymcfly iggymcfly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,784
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean when you have 100 BB, then sure it doesn't make much of a difference, but I think it's important to have position on the big stacks no matter where the stacks are relative to the blinds. For instance (not that this comes up much on Stars), if I have a 500 BB stack and the person to my left also has a 500 BB stack, I think that's a huge disadvantage if everyone else at the table is at 100 BB. I won't stay at the table in that situation unless the 500 BB stack is really bad.

Also, the whole thing about a medium stack being at a disadvantage against a big stack is just silly unless the medium stack is playing like a bitch. If they're trying to maximize their equity and don't care about dropping a couple buy-ins here and there, there's no difference at all. The only way you could make an argument like that is if you're saying that the advantage you as a skilled player have over the other big-stacks as a big stack is enough to counter the edge the short-stackers have over you, whereas you're smaller edge as a medium stack isn't enough to cover that edge + the rake.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-11-2007, 03:05 PM
ChuckyB ChuckyB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fox Soccer Report
Posts: 2,470
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotboom devised his short-stacking strategy playing in a 50 BB minimum buy-in game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but he was playing in a live game that probably saw much larger BB pots preflop than the online game most of us play. Did the game have a straddle in it to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually his regular game had a single $2 blind (in the $100 min game) and a single $5 blind (in the $200 min game). From how he describes there was a lot more pre-flop raising that I've found in most online PLO100 games. Not to say his games were overly aggressive. But I've seen few maniacs (or even semi-maniacs) in the Stars games.

Slotboom goes mention some 5-5-10 games. But apparently his main one was the single blind game.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-11-2007, 04:57 PM
pete fabrizio pete fabrizio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big-ass yard
Posts: 2,250
Default Re: the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean when you have 100 BB, then sure it doesn't make much of a difference, but I think it's important to have position on the big stacks no matter where the stacks are relative to the blinds. For instance (not that this comes up much on Stars), if I have a 500 BB stack and the person to my left also has a 500 BB stack, I think that's a huge disadvantage if everyone else at the table is at 100 BB. I won't stay at the table in that situation unless the 500 BB stack is really bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I usually don't play deep with the only other deep stack to my left either. But I would guess more people pick up in that kind of situation than when they're on a normal full stack and have (good) short-stacks to their right.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.