Bankroll for Shortstack Play

[schusch]

when i watch you on FTP,i always see you buyin in for 40BB aswell, or not?

[Bavid Denyamine]

I'm Bavid, not David.

[Sodom]

In every game from 1-2c up to 200-400usd blinds, you will se people play full stacks and short stacks. It's part of the game like many other factors. Good players search for edge. Some good players prefer full stacks, other short stacks. They adjust depending on opponents, how many tables they play, promotional circumstances, bankroll managements and so on.

In poker it's nothing un-ethical to improve your best edge within the game rules. In fact, if you do not try to search for your best advantage within the rules, you will be un-professional which in fact is to break the poker ethos.

This is not charity. There are no friends in this world. People who pray for full stacks and complain that short stackers ruin the game, do it simple because they think they have a better edge if every player play full stacks. Try to develop for me why short stacking would ruin a game? In fact, it might change the game but games always changes. If people play tight and an very aggro player steps in, the game change. When a big stack try to bully the game, and I play back, he might change his game. What is destructive in that? I say nothing. In poker you adjust or you are out. I would also like to say, why not learn to play short stack? Short stack game is in many ways the same as play in a cap-game, which also is a common practice especially when it come to very high stakes game.

When it come to ethics, I would be happy if online poker could get rid of technical tools like poker tracker (If it would be possible.). This tools I regards as very dubious. I have never self used them. Maybe it should gain to my advantage. Maybe not. I will not say that they are un-ethical, because if they are within the rules, well use them then. I just say that every technical tools which reduce the human factor in poker will in the long run be the end of online poker. When the computers take over, well, why should I as a human play anymore?

[Bavid Denyamine]

[ QUOTE ]
Try to develop for me why short stacking would ruin a game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stacking effectively eliminates any element of post-flop play. If a short stack 3-bets preflop, all the chips are going in on the flop almost 100% of the time. It reduces the subtle complexities of the game and turns it into a push/fold game.

[iggymcfly]

I don't like short-stacking in general and it definitely bastardizes the game, but I think people are being a little extreme here. OP was asking a pretty basic question and it didn't deserve to be met with open hostility.

In fact, while good players will make most of their money playing full, I think every good player should try playing a short stack at higher stakes than they're comfortable buying in full at least a few times so that they can understand the short-stackers' mentality a little better.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try to develop for me why short stacking would ruin a game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stacking effectively eliminates any element of post-flop play. If a short stack 3-bets preflop, all the chips are going in on the flop almost 100% of the time. It reduces the subtle complexities of the game and turns it into a push/fold game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's the same as playing NLHE tourneys, shortstacking makes the game one dimensional.

[Sodom]

I do not think this statements are true. What’s happen is that big stacks bully’s have to watch up for another dimension, namely short stack players who might destroy there game plan, and that is not necessary bad.

It actually ad a dimension. If a big stackers could raise preflop before with there speculative big potential hands, and hope to hit for big rewards, they now have to consider also the dimension that this plan might be cracked by a short stackers who effectively will destroy there implied odds. And I will not have any problem to be that player who destroy your odds. That is what poker are all about.

So when I limp UTG as a shortstacker, the bully have to be in doubt what I have. The bully want to raise, but it is dangerous. He might also limp, which of course can be to my disadvantage, or maybe also advantage. So of course, the postflop play will still be an opportunity, it is mainly up to the big stack. If he raise, then it might be a push after him. If he really wants to play postflop, he have the choice to also limp. So the argument regarding post-flop play is not especially valid. The big difference is as I said, that the big bully can’t any longer be sure he can continue as before. New dimension is added.

Of course you don't like that if you are the kind of player who by routine raise preflop with a lot of hands. But it will sharpen your ability to correct evaluate different situations. What it is all about, is the money. Your dream is of course to have lot of bad players with big stacks, and then take them postflop. But poker is not that easy. Just accept that you have to face tougher opponents with both short and big stacks. If you really want to play against only other big stacks, well, then you should have tables for that, but I am not sure you get the fishes you want there.

[Troll_Inc]

Wow, you just gave away the whole shortstack farm!

[baztalkspoker]

This post was originally just a simple question on what a shortstack bankroll strategy should be, some people so clearly hate short stacking that it has turned into a 'heated' debate about short stacking.

I reiterate I'm not a regular short-stacker, these days I'm not even a regular Omaha player. My understanding of poker has been like Sodom's that it's not charity, that players will seek out any edge any way they can and it is fine to do so unless that edge involves cheating. Personally I actually think I'm way better off playing with a full stack as it suits the way I play the game a lot better and I was running well in the $2-$4 plo on Partypoker doing so before I got ahead of myself and taking shots at the $10-$20, some of those shots were with a full stack btw.

However I do understand the guys who are dead set against shortstacking also as I have said it's not conducive to a good game of Omaha.

The question is then, do we as players have some sort of moral duty to not shortstack even in situations where it is clearly advantageous to do so, i.e. sitting to the right of an Ultra Lag? And if you think yes you still shouldn't play with a shortstack, what happens when you lose a big pot and are left with a shortstack, will you immediately reload so you are no longer a shortstack?

My own feeling on it is that you should not be allowed to buy into a game for less than 50 BBs, I would be quite happy if the poker sites implemented this. The alternative for people who hate playing against short stackers, is play shorthand, the blinds coming quickly around does not suit the short stack play.

On whether shortstacking is simply wrong to do even when the option is available, well so many people seem to think so, if it was just the obnoxious respondees who thought it I would totally ignore their opinions but when some more normal level headed responders think so it's definitely given me food for thought.

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[/ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

all you need is a chip and a chair