Bankroll for shortstacking?

[eule]

i agree, that the win rate of a good bigstack will definitly be higher, as he can gain a lot more from his skill. Slotboom agrees too in his book, but he states (imo correctly) that a shortstacker can play way more tables cuz its just very easy to do.
The main advantage is imo that u can play higher levels with the same bankroll.
Also, especially for beginners who wont have some insane high BB/100 rate at the micros its probably best to shortstack at higher stakes, as u cant really do many things wrong with it.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
standard deviation for shortstackers is low, but winrate is too, so bankroll requirements turn out to be pretty similar to full-stackers. also, ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

winrate does not have to be low.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply not true, and though I don't care what he thinks, I doubt slotboom would claim otherwise. i've seen the data, and no shortstacker beats any game online for more than 2-3 ptbb for any sustained period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotbloom explicitly states that shortstacking will no win as much.

And the Slotbloom shortstacking is for full tables I believe.

There are certainly situations when buying in short is the optimal strategy.

[Flip-Flop]

I haven`t read Slotboom`s book and I have no statistics to show but I have a general impression of Slotboom`s play.

About 5 years ago I was playing LHE and PLO off and on in Amsterdam for a period of few years.
At that time there was 1 single PLO table available.
It was 20/40 with min buy-in of 500.
Marcel Luske and Rolf Slotboom were PLO regulars and although I`ve only played PLO against Marcel few times and never against Rolf I used to watch them both play a lot.

Marcel was usually buying in for 5k which it probably was max and I must say this was the time when Marcel became my poker hero.
The way he was dominating and crushing the game was a pleasure to watch.
Always deep stacked and always in command of everything.

Rolf on the other hand would buy-in for 500 and do his short stack thing.
He looked like a nice guy, thinking player that knows what he`s doing and I do have respect for him but I seriously never saw him win a lot of cash.
When I think Rolf Slotboom only 1 image comes to mind.
Him sitting at a 20/40 PLO table in Amsterdam with chips worth 500 euro stacked in a shape of some kind of small tower with a pack of tic-tac on top of it, folding most of the time and the "tower" never getting any bigger.

I`m aware that my "watching" sample is insignificant and I`m sure that he was wining money doing his thing but I wanted to share this lil story never-the-less.

[RoundTower]

3ptbb/100 is, and should be, exceptionally good for anyone playing 20-50ptBB

[RoundTower]

online

[sc000t]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven`t read Slotboom`s book and I have no statistics to show but I have a general impression of Slotboom`s play.

About 5 years ago I was playing LHE and PLO off and on in Amsterdam for a period of few years.
At that time there was 1 single PLO table available.
It was 20/40 with min buy-in of 500.
Marcel Luske and Rolf Slotboom were PLO regulars and although I`ve only played PLO against Marcel few times and never against Rolf I used to watch them both play a lot.

Marcel was usually buying in for 5k which it probably was max and I must say this was the time when Marcel became my poker hero.
The way he was dominating and crushing the game was a pleasure to watch.
Always deep stacked and always in command of everything.

Rolf on the other hand would buy-in for 500 and do his short stack thing.
He looked like a nice guy, thinking player that knows what he`s doing and I do have respect for him but I seriously never saw him win a lot of cash.
When I think Rolf Slotboom only 1 image comes to mind.
Him sitting at a 20/40 PLO table in Amsterdam with chips worth 500 euro stacked in a shape of some kind of small tower with a pack of tic-tac on top of it, folding most of the time and the "tower" never getting any bigger.

I`m aware that my "watching" sample is insignificant and I`m sure that he was wining money doing his thing but I wanted to share this lil story never-the-less.

[/ QUOTE ]


This story is awesome in more than one way.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven`t read Slotboom`s book and I have no statistics to show but I have a general impression of Slotboom`s play.

About 5 years ago I was playing LHE and PLO off and on in Amsterdam for a period of few years.
At that time there was 1 single PLO table available.
It was 20/40 with min buy-in of 500.
Marcel Luske and Rolf Slotboom were PLO regulars and although I`ve only played PLO against Marcel few times and never against Rolf I used to watch them both play a lot.

Marcel was usually buying in for 5k which it probably was max and I must say this was the time when Marcel became my poker hero.
The way he was dominating and crushing the game was a pleasure to watch.
Always deep stacked and always in command of everything.

Rolf on the other hand would buy-in for 500 and do his short stack thing.
He looked like a nice guy, thinking player that knows what he`s doing and I do have respect for him but I seriously never saw him win a lot of cash.
When I think Rolf Slotboom only 1 image comes to mind.
Him sitting at a 20/40 PLO table in Amsterdam with chips worth 500 euro stacked in a shape of some kind of small tower with a pack of tic-tac on top of it, folding most of the time and the "tower" never getting any bigger.

I`m aware that my "watching" sample is insignificant and I`m sure that he was wining money doing his thing but I wanted to share this lil story never-the-less.

[/ QUOTE ]


You should go to a book store and read the first two chapters of Slotbloom's book. In these chapters, he discusses his PLO experience in Amsterdam and Vienna. Actually, don't... I don't want too many people using this strategy.

Assuming Slotbloom isn't lieing, he claims to have been one of the big winners in the PLO games simply because no one properly defended against shortstacking (which is not easy to do). Later, he made adjustments to his game to attack fish with big stacks.

If you limp and an aggressive (this is key) player raises, there are a couple callers, then you shove with AAXX/KKXX/AKQJ/etc... it is totally +EV. I don't think that a lot of players out there know how to shortstack properly.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
standard deviation for shortstackers is low, but winrate is too, so bankroll requirements turn out to be pretty similar to full-stackers. also, ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

winrate does not have to be low.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply not true, and though I don't care what he thinks, I doubt slotboom would claim otherwise. i've seen the data, and no shortstacker beats any game online for more than 2-3 ptbb for any sustained period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Slotbloom explicitly says that good big-stackers will have a higher BB/100 than good short-stackers... I NEVER said otherwise despite what other posters may have thought. In the long run, a player is better off learning how to play a big stack rather than a small stack.

I would guess that most short-stackers have no idea what they are doing and are just trying to limit their losses. You'll see a lot of players buy-in for 30BB and call off 7BB preflop with a hand like JJT3, which is terrible spew. This is why they have such terrible stats. In my experience at Stars, I have only seen one or two good short stackers at PLO200.

3BB/100 is low if you are playing shortstack strategy.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
merge with the threads asking "bankroll for cap games"

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Playing short stack strategy at a table of full-stackers is not the same as a cap game where everyone has the same amount of chips. The fact that there are full-stackers worried about other full-stackers (and not a short-stacker) makes it easy for short-stackers to fly in under the radar and pounce with good hands.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
standard deviation for shortstackers is low, but winrate is too, so bankroll requirements turn out to be pretty similar to full-stackers. also, ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

winrate does not have to be low.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply not true, and though I don't care what he thinks, I doubt slotboom would claim otherwise. i've seen the data, and no shortstacker beats any game online for more than 2-3 ptbb for any sustained period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotbloom explicitly states that shortstacking will no win as much.

And the Slotbloom shortstacking is for full tables I believe.

There are certainly situations when buying in short is the optimal strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point troll... I am talking about full-ring shortstacking. Shortstacking at 6-max tables is very difficult since there is a lot more blind pressure (and other considerations). It is a strategy for full-ring games.