PNL Study Group Day 2: Stack Sizes

[Bauertson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a guide which card's is to play in which position with a 50BB-Stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure but it's so controversial. everyone has a different game or different ideas about their game.

here's the executive summary: if you won't be stealing say 20%+ of the time (that's aballpark), you should only play the first-tier commitment hands: pairs, AK, AQ and the margin hands AJ/KQ. once you have late position and stealing the blinds comes more into play (as well as c-betting your first-in raises), you now have "steal equity" and so can expand the range.

if you can take down the pot a lot stealing with c-bets, you can expand your positional range to include all sorts of hands. however, do NOT overdo it against thinking opponents. all they have to do is reraise you or checkraise bluff the flop and your "steal equity" goes down the tubes. so you should still play tight in late position, but you can add in suited connectors, suited one-gappers, connectors, a few extra big-card hands.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank's for the tips.
It's look like the starting hand's from Miller's book about shortstacking-play, added the small/middle-PP and SC in late Position, and play in EP and MP only AA-JJ, AK, AQ. I think this is a good plan for playing with a middle-Stack.

[pofigistka]

On the subject of shortstacking, am I correct in cthinking this only applies to fullring games, as opposed to 6 max? I also found shortstacking live PLO games to be profitable. Also, really enjoyed the book. Thanks.

[Lucere]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, say you have $100. If you play the $100 as a 50bb stack in a $1-$2 game, your variance will be higher than if you play the $100 as a 200bb stack in a $.25-$.50 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
However, playing a $100 stack in a $1-$2 game will still be lower variance than playing a larger stack in a $1-$2 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, this doesn't. Maybe I'm just thinking about this incorrectly, so if that's the case, someone help me get this.

It seems like if we're talking in terms of stack sizes relative to the blind sizes, and NOT in terms of absolute dollar amounts, that the more you increase your amount of BBs (e.g., 50BB to 100BB to 200BB, etc.) in your original buy in, that there will be less variance.

It is with this logic that $100 as a 50BB buy in in a 1/2 game has more variance than a $100 buy in as a 200BB buy in in a .25/.50 game.

So, using the same logic, why would playing a $100 (50BB) stack in a 1/2 game have less variance than say a $200 (100BB) stack in a 1/2 game?

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of shortstacking, am I correct in cthinking this only applies to fullring games, as opposed to 6 max? I also found shortstacking live PLO games to be profitable. Also, really enjoyed the book. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

shortstacking often works better in 6-max games b/c opponents tend to raise and call reraises with weaker holdings.

[Bauertson]

shortstacking often works better in 6-max games b/c opponents tend to raise and call reraises with weaker holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Matt

Are you sure, that shortstacking works better in 6-max games? I think you have right, that the player plays more aggressiv in 6-max. But I think too, that in fullring the player often limps or call with drawinghands like SC, small PP. Against this hands, the shortstack have a good play with high cards. In 6-max the player plays not so often drawingshand.
Is this correct? Than I think fullring is better then 6-max for shortstacking, or was I wrong?

[7lb12oz]

Hi Guys
Really good stuff this, thanks to all posters so far, really really good read Matt & Sunny.

Curious about the stack size since its pretty crucial to SPR concept. yesterday online I bought in .25/.50 game short (60bb) and built it up to 300 bb [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. It occurred to me maybe I should leave the table at some point and buy in shorter at a different table ?. I could still apply SPR when in pots with shorter stacked opponents ok. anyhow I'm rambling now. To summarise any thoughts on this topic.

[Dashir]

I think short stacking works better at a full table, because then you feel less pressure from the blinds. This lets you wait longer for premium hands.

Slotboom, in his book on PLO, says he spent a few years playing the short stack and he always tried to put the most aggressive player on his left so he would do his betting for him. More people would call the wild player, when they would have folded to Slotboom's more conservative image. He could also get his money in faster when he hit his hand by check raising.

[Kevroc]

[ QUOTE ]
when you have the biggest stack at the table, you have the advantage of being able to win anyone's stack on any hand. but you can also lose it too!

[/ QUOTE ]

?

[el_grande]

The main B&M game I play in is $2/$2 with $100 max buyin so I'm dealing with 50BB and lower all of the time. I'm sure there are a lot of other games like this out there.

Short stack discussion is quite useful because of this. I definitely need to stop limping in EP with tiny pairs and SCs. Speculating with junk should only be on the button or maybe CO.

Plus the commitment discussion in the book will be quite helpful since you find yourself betting off your whole stack with TP quite a bit in a 50BB game. While I already knew about pot control, the big takeaway from PNL is to consider whether I want to do that against the particular opponent(s) I'm seeing the flop with.

[stevematador]

I have bought in for 40BB the last 3 nights rather than my usual 100BB. The big thing I noticed is, not only is it easier to play the TPTK as stated in PNL, you get nice low SPR's with ease and you can reach your commitment on the flop by getting 1/3 of your stack in and not looking back. As the authors have stated, it's usually a mistake to fold once you get 1/3 of your stack into the pot. Of course this doesn't mean blindly put 1/3 of your stack in on the flop, but when you feel you are committed (willing to go all in) you can get your 1/3 in and not look back,

The other big thing I realized is when you flop trips, it seems easier to get all your chips in and get called. For example, I had one hand where I limped with 22 and flopped trips on a 9 high board. The villian led out with a pot sized bet and I raised 3x, he thought about it and after using most of his time bank pushed me "all in". I believe my short stack swayed his decision allowing me the profitable action I was seeking. He had A9 (TPTK) and I was able to double up with a dominating hand. If I was 100BB deep I don't even think the villian even calls my flop raise let alone push me "all in."

I know often times we talk about playing less hands for "set value" etc. when playing a short stack, but it is examples like this that I believe playing for set value with shorter stacks allows us to get all our chips in much easier vs. bigger stacks when your stack is less threatening. Players will clash against my short stack with inferior hands over and over because of the less threatening stack size, they don't have the same fear or concern going against me when I only have 40BB behind me.

Obv. where the short stack hurts is when you hit "the nuts" and only double up 40BB rather than 100BB. But I really think it's much easier to get players to commit against the shorter 40BB stack. I know with much more experience it will be more profitable to buy in deep, but if you're like me and struggle at times with difficult post flop decisions with TPTK and such, the shorter buy in can be beneficial not only to building your confidence but your bankroll as well!!!

Thanks so much Matt Flynn and Sunny Mehta, for making my NL game decisions less complex [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]