M2TR shortstacker illuminati thread

[MadMike]

uh... so many players out there at NL100 and below suck so bad, and clearly have taken no time to learn the game it's hard for me to believe that the fish would just go out of their way to learn how to short stack.

I mean is a 32/4/1.25 really going to suddenly say 'hey, i've been playing poker on the internet for three months without a clue or reading even the most basic strategy- but i'm going to take a huge amount of energy to learn an unexploitable SS strategy similar to the most mindnumbing aspects of SNG poker'

Alternatively, will a bunch of shortstacks really be more of a buzzkill to the fish than the now 24-tabling nitswarm on pokerstars now?

Or is it more likely that some will read a SS strategy thread, and missapply it badly and exploitably?

And BTW- GOOD short stack poker is hard to learn. I think endgame SNG strategy is the closest thing to it in terms of math and precision needed to turn a profit against players with a clue.

[HonestRyan]

[ QUOTE ]
GOOD short stack poker is hard to learn. I think endgame SNG strategy is the closest thing to it in terms of math and precision needed to turn a profit against players with a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

SS poker is easy to play, and I lol'd at the person wondering if proper SS play can profit, 2+/100. I played a 10K hand session at 2/4nl on stars and was easily greater than 2+/100 and ran bad during the time. I could write the strategy on the back of a business card but only a decent player could utilize it. I beg of MT2R. please go no further with this, But I would have no problem with him coaching people privately for a typical coaching rate. It would def make the games less profitable if more people were "Correctly" shortstacking. I have no problem with the mass of idiots that attempt to SS now and are unsuccessful.

I will take bets for any amount that I can profitably SS the 2/4 NL games on stars for any where between 10K-100K hands. and be greater than 2BB/100

[inverted]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I wouldn't mind if a table was all short stackers bar me, you could just run them over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laugh Out Loud. Seriously.

This biggest no-limit hold 'em myth: big stacks can "bully" the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice, I thought you left the forums never to post again? When I say that I wouldn't mind playing all short stacks is because I think I am +ev vs their strat, after seeing how they play and reading posts here. You aren't as such bullying them but I would steal ruthlessly from them and limit their FE.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and MT2R posting information will destroy the game, but the game will eventually evolve anyway. A short stacker replacing a rock really doesnt make much difference in the greater scheme of things.

[holdem2000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I wouldn't mind if a table was all short stackers bar me, you could just run them over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laugh Out Loud. Seriously.

This biggest no-limit hold 'em myth: big stacks can "bully" the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice, I thought you left the forums never to post again? When I say that I wouldn't mind playing all short stacks is because I think I am +ev vs their strat, after seeing how they play and reading posts here. You aren't as such bullying them but I would steal ruthlessly from them and limit their FE.

I don't know maybe I'm wrong and MT2R posting information will destroy the game, but the game will eventually evolve anyway. A short stacker replacing a rock really doesnt make much difference in the greater scheme of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basically just claiming that you play better short stack poker than any other possible short stack strategy. That just isn't possible - best case against a bunch of short stackers playing near optimally is you can play the same as strategy.

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't as such bullying them but I would steal ruthlessly from them and limit their FE.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you steal ruthlessly you're going to be raising lots of marginal (or worse) hands. To limit their Fold Equity, you're going to be calling shoves with these marginal hands? You can't do both.

If you play great shortstack strategy against 8 other great shortstacks, you're all going to lose rather substantially to the rake.

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
I will take bets for any amount that I can profitably SS the 2/4 NL games on stars for any where between 10K-100K hands. and be greater than 2BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt you could do it over 100K hands, but not strongly enough to bet on it. If you did, it would be because you're better at deep stacking than your opponents, though.

[inverted]

ok, I guess I'm probably a tad over confident with dealing with short stacks as I probably haven't played any great ones, limp folding is not smart. But what your saying also proves my point, if this thread has as much impact as some people are worried that it will, it will end up with SSing being non viable. Pokers dynamic is always changing and as one strategy becomes popular a counter strategy will be more profitable. The people that are worried about change should embrace it, it gives you a chance to learn more about the game and to exploit strategies.

@Pokerboy, sorry I reread my post and it sounded a bit harsh, you were one of the first posters that I read when I originally joined these forums. So yea I wasn't trying to piss you off or anything but I was actually wondering what happened to you (:

[deepdowntruth]

The reason that shortstackers are so secretive is that the strategy relies on a limited set of calculations for a relatively narrow set of situations, and lends itself to fairly mechanical play. The calculations are simple but non-obvious enough to the typical player that their exposure lends the strategy to easy implementation and exploitation. For shortstacking, once you learn to play it or counter, there's really not a lot you can do wrong.

Compare this to strategy discussion about full stack NLH, of which there is an overabundance available to any player who chooses to seek it. The situations and factors in NLH are so diverse and nebulous that exposure of 'secrets' is relatively safe since most players do not have the intelligence, judgement, or discipline to apply what they learn, if they bother to learn it all.

There's really no big "secret" to shortstacking that someone with the willingness to dink around with pokerstove and make a few empirical generalizations about ranges and betting patterns couldn't figure out with a week or two of work.

I've been shortstacking since before the Ed Miller book came out, though I started in live games. I realized early that as a novice I simply was not versed or experienced enough to play in a game where mistakes can be so devestating. I had to do a lot of work to determine how to balance not offering implied odds on the one hand, with playing enough to not lose money to the rake and blinds. I did fairly well and still do.

I come from a background in the humanities and was not a math guy at all when I started to figure all this out. Doing so though has made my knowledge of the math of poker much more sophisiticated and has helped me to hone my deepstack cash and tournaments skills, which I used to make a living, full and part-time, in Las Vegas and online for four years. So it's not true that a shortstacker has to be a bad player or one-dimensional.

It's certainly true that if you stop at shortstacking, you are stunting your growth as a player, but if you take it seriously and follow the math, it will lead you to conclusions about poker in general which lead you to a better all around game.

I am pretty much focused on shortstacking currently, because it allows me to multitable virtually without table limit, eke out a small profit, rake in tons of FPPs, all while watching TV, and certainly not working a hump job.

[HonestRyan]

[ QUOTE ]
It's certainly true that if you stop at shortstacking, you are stunting your growth as a player, but if you take it seriously and follow the math, it will lead you to conclusions about poker in general which lead you to a better all around game.I am pretty much focused on shortstacking currently, because it allows me to multitable virtually without table limit, eke out a small profit, rake in tons of FPPs, all while watching TV, and certainly not working a hump job.

[/ QUOTE ]

your name says it all. But here is some more deep down truth. If you truly understand all that you type here, you could be making much more playing a fullstack if your BR is not an issue.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's certainly true that if you stop at shortstacking, you are stunting your growth as a player, but if you take it seriously and follow the math, it will lead you to conclusions about poker in general which lead you to a better all around game.I am pretty much focused on shortstacking currently, because it allows me to multitable virtually without table limit, eke out a small profit, rake in tons of FPPs, all while watching TV, and certainly not working a hump job.

[/ QUOTE ]

your name says it all. But here is some more deep down truth. If you truly understand all that you type here, you could be making much more playing a fullstack if your BR is not an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highlighted the part you seemed to miss.

If he's playing 10 tables at a time, then he's seeing 300 hands an hour. Doesn't take long to make Super Nova that way if poker is his full time job. And he's probably playing more than 10 tables at a time.

In all probability rake back & bonuses make up the majority of his income. The 2bb/hr just maintains his BR.

Oh, did I just give away one of the Illuminati's major "secrets?" [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]