playing against ratholers

[GoldenIP]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't mind SSers as long as they're not redic short. If sponger chimed in, I reckon he'd agree particularly HU. I would MUCH MUCH rather play someone who buys in for 40-80BB without question.

I remember a discussion on this where Raptor said something like him and durrrr having very different beliefs about SSers. Raptor hates playing shorties and durrrr will play anyone regardless of the number of chips brought to the table.

I don't even think it's close regarding who I make most of my money off.

Sponger said in a July Gen. Discussion Thread something like "If the fish bought in for the max, I'd play them".

For me, profit is profit whether it comes in all-in 200BB spots or smaller increments of 80-160BB spots. I would put a lot of money on saying SSers, not the real >20BB RHers, provide a great deal of my winnings. I am sure that I encounter a tonne more 80-160BB pots and as long as I look at those situations positively, again...profit is profit.

Just like OP said, play them for what they are...play a solid strategy versus them and that'll be that.

Now don't shoot me down people lol. I just don't mind SSers largely.

Of course, the disclaimer is that people who SS bigger games usually know a little summit about poker so I'm sure they are more annoying...but, at the MSNL stake, well, read above.

[Barrin6]

This one is horrible right?

Full Tilt Poker - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $5/$10 Blinds - 5 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

SB: $1,410.00
BB: $199.00
UTG: $1,205.00
CO: $1,182.00
BTN: $979.25

Preflop: is dealt (5 Players)
3 folds, <font color="red">SB raises to $40.00</font>, <font color="red">BB raises all-in to $199.00</font>, SB calls $159.00

Flop: ($398) A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Turn: ($398) 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

River: ($398) 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Pot Size: $398.00 ($3 Rake)

BB had A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (a full house, Sevens full of Aces) and WON (+$196.00)
SB had 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (two pair, Sevens and Threes) and LOST (-$199.00)

[DerekJCEX]

[ QUOTE ]
We adjust to your adjustments. We don't play with any set charts or whatever. Any counters you are talking about are something we can adjust against.

oh.....CHOO CHOO

[/ QUOTE ]

doubt it

[jfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
el oh el. Good shortstackers are good poker players. You make an adjustment and they will make a counter-adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ]
el oh el

[/ QUOTE ]

this is esp funny because if ratholers were good at poker they wouldnt be ratholing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[DerekJCEX]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, on a serious note...

I have a real problem with people posting [censored] in this thread like "OK i think IMSAKIDD shoves this range against a button open"...etc.

I think talking about general shortstack strategy is fine. Picking apart a specific short stack's game is very unethical IMO. I recall last year a few posts in HSNL where people started talking strategy against specific players and it caused an uproar.

THe purpose of this forum is to talk general strategy and not create blueprints for picking apart a specific player's game. I know the line is kind of blurry here but please keep that in mind.

Carry on

[/ QUOTE ]

ratholers don't qualify as actual players. pick 'em apart

[ebarnet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
el oh el. Good shortstackers are good poker players. You make an adjustment and they will make a counter-adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ]
el oh el

[/ QUOTE ]

this is esp funny because if ratholers were good at poker they wouldnt be ratholing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very ignorant. A) I beat 3/6 for 6PTBB/100 100% of my play there is full stacked. B) I beat 10/20 for 6PTBB/100 and 100% of my play there is shortstacked. I do not have the 100k roll necessary to play 10/20. Two things that are happening are: I'm building up a roll to play higher, and I'm learning a lot by reading the HH's in the games I sit at. I certainly don't feel skilled enough to play 10/20 yet. I do think that I can beat 5/10 now full stacked. But since I'm relying solely on poker for income I want to have nearly 100k roll before I step into these games full time. I think that shortstacking it is more profitable for me however, so I will continue doing it.

It's very childish of many of the shortstack haters out there to make the statements they do. There are a variety of reasons: Barry Greenstein plays this way online, would you call him ratholing scum? Doubt it. The most important reason is that it's profit maximizing for me. I don't remember when poker went from being about money to being about respect for the deepstack 10/20 gods. I don't like shortstackers being at my 3/6 games, but I don't complain about it either. I have a [winning]strategy against them, and I have a strategy for the 600$ stacks and every other stacksize for that matter. If you can't adjust, it's a huge leak in your game. Don't blame anyone for exploiting your weaknesses but yourself.

/rant

[jfish]

haha

[GoldenIP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
el oh el. Good shortstackers are good poker players. You make an adjustment and they will make a counter-adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ]
el oh el

[/ QUOTE ]

this is esp funny because if ratholers were good at poker they wouldnt be ratholing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very ignorant. A) I beat 3/6 for 6PTBB/100 100% of my play there is full stacked. B) I beat 10/20 for 6PTBB/100 and 100% of my play there is shortstacked. I do not have the 100k roll necessary to play 10/20. Two things that are happening are: I'm building up a roll to play higher, and I'm learning a lot by reading the HH's in the games I sit at. I certainly don't feel skilled enough to play 10/20 yet. I do think that I can beat 5/10 now full stacked. But since I'm relying solely on poker for income I want to have nearly 100k roll before I step into these games full time. I think that shortstacking it is more profitable for me however, so I will continue doing it.

It's very childish of many of the shortstack haters out there to make the statements they do. There are a variety of reasons: Barry Greenstein plays this way online, would you call him ratholing scum? Doubt it. The most important reason is that it's profit maximizing for me. I don't remember when poker went from being about money to being about respect for the deepstack 10/20 gods. I don't like shortstackers being at my 3/6 games, but I don't complain about it either. I have a [winning]strategy against them, and I have a strategy for the 600$ stacks and every other stacksize for that matter. If you can't adjust, it's a huge leak in your game. Don't blame anyone for exploiting your weaknesses but yourself.

/rant

[/ QUOTE ]

There are reasons this post will get nailed to the cross by many but OP, stats aside, I think you put together a sound argument for the thinking SSing contingent.

[ebarnet]

thank you. I realize that I often come off sounding like an a$$hole, I truly don't mean to. I'm really just blunt.... mmmm.... blunt.... and bad at writing.

I hope that I haven't lost all the respect of the MSNL and HSNL regs. because I do value your help and I feel that my opinions/advice can be beneficial to you all as well.

[ski]

Oh my Gawd, I LOVE SHORTSTACKING.

Ya'all play so bad against me...

-Ski