NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[ericp42]

Wow, shortstackers must be powerful to piss off so many people.

[Push_Fold]

Biggest winners out there for sure.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Short stacking sends your variance through the roof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PLEASE TELL ME TODAY IS OPPOSITE DAY

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're short stacking you're usually going to be getting the money in as about 60/40 on average. When you play regularly stacked, you're often pretty far ahead when all the money goes in. And the blinds will have a much larger impact on the shortstack's bottom line with each rotation taking about 7% of your buyin - running cold hurts. It's perfectly reasonable to play normal stacked with 20 buyins, but you'd be completely insane to play short stacked with only 20 short buyins.

[MicroBob]

no, you would play short-stacked with 20 full buyins and have plenty of room for the variance.

So if you are buying in for $20 on an NL100 table then you would want $2000.
This 20 full buyins...or 100 short buyins.

I suspect you could easily get away with only 10-15 full buyins when your initial buyin is $20 on an NL100 table.
But I really can't say for certain.

Regardless, if you are a tightish, nitty short-stacker I can't imagine your variance would be very bad at all.


Some players on here have cranked out a few zillion hands of short-stacking making somewhere around 2-3BB/100 and could give better estimates on the variance involved.

[imposter]

Let's look at it another way. What if the table limits were 50BB - 500BB. Would you still always buy-in with the maximum? Anyone working off a 20 - 30 buy-in bankroll would be playing way lower! At what stage are the stacks deep enough that more money makes no sense? If there was no upper limit what would you buy-in for assuming you had no idea what the others had on the table? and even then assume someone had 1 million on a 1/2 table how much would you buy-in for?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
no, you would play short-stacked with 20 full buyins and have plenty of room for the variance.

So if you are buying in for $20 on an NL100 table then you would want $2000.
This 20 full buyins...or 100 short buyins.

I suspect you could easily get away with only 10-15 full buyins when your initial buyin is $20 on an NL100 table.
But I really can't say for certain.

Regardless, if you are a tightish, nitty short-stacker I can't imagine your variance would be very bad at all.


Some players on here have cranked out a few zillion hands of short-stacking making somewhere around 2-3BB/100 and could give better estimates on the variance involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you need that 80-100 buyin roll is because of the massive variance.

But something else stands out here even more.. you plan on playing with a bankroll that is comparable to a normal roll, in hopes of mimicking the extraordinarily succesful upper echelon of shortstackers that somehow manage to make a breath taking 2-3BB/100? When you could just buy in normal, where an average/decent player will make around 5BB/100?

I think you've lost me in your logic somewhere.

[MicroBob]

this isn't hard guys.

if you are new to NL or just want to play more tables where you don't have to think or don't want to make reads and just want to click buttons and grind hands mostly then it's pretty easy to short-stack.

Less variance, easier to win without even having to think.


Calling them 80-100 buyins doesn't really tell the story.
To think you could 12 table NL100 for a $20 buyin on each table with only a $400 roll would be ridiculous.

People just use the term 'buyin' because it's easier.
But for the shortstackers one should really consider that they are just starting with 20% of a buyin and not a full one.

Or, you can look at total number of BB's. 20 full buyins at NL100 is really a 1000BB roll (using PT BB's of doubling the big-blind amount).
Whatever.


The tone and insults in this thread are kind of annoying so I'm not sure I feel like discussing this any further with those who just want to scream "scumbag-this and scumbag-that".

I'm not trying to convert anyone or say that playing shortstack is somehow better. If you don't want to then that's fine.

I'm just surprised at how many have such a completely hateful attitude to players who are buying in for an amount that is perfectly acceptable (otherwise the site wouldn't let you buyin for that amount in the first place).

I'm also surprised at how many not only hate such players but also think it is somehow a big problem.

[E.Z.]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at it another way. What if the table limits were 50BB - 500BB. Would you still always buy-in with the maximum? Anyone working off a 20 - 30 buy-in bankroll would be playing way lower! At what stage are the stacks deep enough that more money makes no sense? If there was no upper limit what would you buy-in for assuming you had no idea what the others had on the table? and even then assume someone had 1 million on a 1/2 table how much would you buy-in for?

[/ QUOTE ]


good question Sir. i think some of these 100 BB guys would think twice about putting there entire bankroll vs this guy. mr. million may even give them some sh*t in the chat box about it.

i dont use pokertracker but i know i win a greater% and keep the odds in my favor as a shorty when i have kk or AA. but when big stacked i can sit and real in the pots when i hit low sets vs donks.

i think the bottom line is the big stack that plays somewhat tight doesn't like shorties cause it takes away from the payday on sets.

[testaaja]

Short stacks irritate me but I still think that they are very, very profitable. DO NOT push the buy in minimum upper, fish will go bust way too quick.
edit:
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the poker sites raising the min buy-in would kill online poker. The SS'ers could move down a level if they don't want ot risk the new min buy-in. At least get rid of the 20bb'ers. They are the most scummy people and where my hate for the SS is coming from.


[/ QUOTE ]
They want to play SHORT, in terms of bbs not cash. They want to gambool it up. It doesn't work like that.

[Aceshigh7]

I'd just like to say that Barry Greenstein, who is probably the best cash game player in the world, has said that he usually buys in for the minimum.