Buy in short to protect your bankroll!

[Matt Ruff]

As long as we're beating a dead horse to death we may as well do a thorough job of it. And I'm actually curious about this:

Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.50/$1
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $182.55
UTG+1: $310.85
CO: $219.40
Button: $98.50
SB: $148.35
Hero (BB): $200

Reads: UTG+1 seems solid, CO is a dangerous LAG.

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero (BB) has T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, CO raises to $5, Button calls, SB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($20.5, 4 players)
Hero ?

I have to say this is not the flop I wanted. Yeah I've got two pair, but it's bottom two, and the board has Broadway cards, a flush draw, and straight possibilities. I'm first to act against three other people, including a preflop raiser who's perfectly capable of repping pocket kings, a hand against which I am essentially drawing dead. Given that I like money, what's my line?

[Vinetou]

Matt Ruff, I don't think it is a bad play if you just put all your stack at risk and let the cards fall as they do. If you like money too much, as you say, don't play poker.

However, I think that if you are playing shortstacked, mistakes don't cost you so much, so you don't remember them so much and this is one of the reasons you should play big stack. It will really stuck to your memory if you make a stupid all in call with bottom two pair on river.

[Rev. Good Will]

Hey pokey,

Well put together, very thought out and informative post as usual. I have a few rebuttals though:

[ QUOTE ]

Flaw #1: Short-stack strategy gives up your biggest poker advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody has said short staking was the end all optimal way to play. In GSIH, Miller repeated if you are new to the game, though you won't make as much money playing deeper; as you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

Flaw #2: Short-stack strategy stunts your growth as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to refer back to some of my points made previously, you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, so on, and so on. If you aren't practicing observation skills when you aren't involved with your hand, I don't think you'll be doing it in the first place if you were to buy in full.

In short, nobody ever said that Short Stack stratergy was the optimal way of playing. BUT if you are new to poker in general, or even just big bet poker, you might be better off playing a few hundred hands short staked so you can at least be a part of the game, observe your opponents, and learn to identify what are the most significant mistakes are.

[Pokey]

Wow, this thread seems to have gotten quite a bit of attention lately. Let me address some of these new replies.

GtrHtr said:

[ QUOTE ]

While I agree with this post and its well thought out arguments, there are reasons why playing shortstacked is a viable option.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I never said that buying in short was always wrong. There could certainly be times when buying in short was absolutely right. However, as a standard plan -- as your default buyin when playing poker -- I still believe what I said in my original post.

[ QUOTE ]

1. As a technique to help some players mentally when moving up in limits.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a viable exception. The "sticker shock" that comes with moving up can make it frightening to sit at the table for the first time with a particularly large pile of money in front of you. It took me nearly a year before I was able to make the distinction in my mind, so that now I have "money" and I have "bankroll" and the two have nothing to do with one another. I still think that some judicious railbirding can convince you that you are good enough to beat your opponents and give you the confidence to play for a full buyin if you are truly ready to move up, but if some people need a short-term crutch to help them make the adjustment, I see no problem with that, so long as they move beyond the crutch relatively quickly.

[ QUOTE ]

2. When you need to tighten up your game. Playing short often forces players to tighten up their game when they would otherwise spew money with a full stack because of tilt, a bad run or just plain lagitus.


[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't have to "trick" ourselves into playing smart poker. If you are playing too loose, then just tighten the <censored> up and be done with it. Incidentally, I have also known players who had the opposite problem: when their stack is large they respect the money enough to play their "A" game, but when they drop down to 20 BBs, they have an "aw, eff it" philosophy and push with all sorts of crap. Hence, buying in short is not a surefire guarantee of playing a tight game.

[ QUOTE ]

3. You often get called by crap when you finally shove AA with 40-50bbs against a standard player with 100bb's+.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and you often get called by crap when you finally shove AA with 100+ BBs against a standard player with 100+ BBs. That's not just true at the micro-stakes tables, either -- the other day I checked out of the BB with 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and three of us saw a flop: 874 with two spades. I'm first to act and lead for half the pot (1.5 BBs). Second to act calls. The third player raises to 7 BBs. I push for 108 BBs. Second to act folds and the third player calls...with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. The benefit of being deep-stacked is that players make all sorts of horrendous mistakes at the table, and there's no reason not to exploit them to the maximum. As long as there's one deep-stacked donator, you'd really like to have him covered, and if there's NOT one deep-stacked donator you should improve your table selection.

Vammakala said:

[ QUOTE ]

if you don't feel comfortable making decisions for deep stacks and that's the reason for buying in for 50 BB, move step down and buy in for 100 BB.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. Unless you are playing at the cheapest tables available, you can always drop down and buy in for full. Your winrate probably won't suffer and could even rise in absolute value; simultaneously, your skills will improve much faster as you make postflop decisions and gain experience at the game.

HoldEmNewby said:

[ QUOTE ]

In all honestly we are here to learn the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is my philosophy as well. The two ways to learn the game of poker are study and experience. Given that we're all 2+2 students, I'm assuming we've all put in some time studying. (If not, go read a book. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) However, experience is something you have to acquire at the tables, usually in the heat of the moment. A short-stacked player fails to gain the turn and river experience that can skyrocket his winrate, since it is only on the later streets that the big money decisions are made, and it is only by playing deep-stacked that we gain the experience and knowledge to fight well on those later streets.

Vinetou said:

[ QUOTE ]

I heard from people who play at full tilt that you can sometimes see Phil Ivey playing shortstacked. What do you think about that? Maybe he is drunk at the time or did he find some strategy to make it profitable?


[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I never said short-stacking isn't profitable. A good short-stacker can eke out a marginal winrate fairly consistently. However, I had an in-depth conversation with an SSNL player who has over a quarter of a MILLION short-stacked hands under his belt. His conclusions were that (a) your expected winrate is crappy -- something in the neighborhood of 2 or 2.5 PTBB/100, and (b) he learned virtually nothing about the game after the first 10k hands or so. In other words, playing short-stacked hurt his winrate and stunted his growth as a poker player.

As to Phil Ivey, remember that he's not primarily a cash player -- he's a tourney donk. As such, he's often working to improve his tournament skills. In a tournament you often find yourself short-stacked simply by the nature of the structures. I would speculate that Phil sometimes buys in short to practice short-stacked situations for future tournaments, rather than to maximize his winrate in the current game.

Matt Ruff said:

[ QUOTE ]

If I'm short at this table, I'm folding 9Ts to Pokey's raise. Then I get to watch UTG go broke, and hopefully the 9 on the river doesn't stop me from doing the math and realizing how much trouble I would have been in on the flop and the turn.

If I'm deep enough to call the preflop raise, on the other hand, I end up in first position with a third-best hand that, to my novice eyes, probably looks pretty decent. And whether I manage to get away from it on the flop or go all-in, the 9 on the river is probably more likely to color my conclusions than if I were a bystander.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that BB should have been able to escape from this hand preflop. As Grunch wrote in his famous PSA post, bad preflop decisions lead to difficult postflop decisions. Clearly, BB didn't understand the philosophy of a suited connector; deep-stacked he could have folded preflop or he could have called, realized he had a tenuous hand, and bet/folded the flop. In fact, if he had bet the flop and CO had been stupid enough to try a multi-street slowplay, BB could have legitimately doubled up when he rivered his miracle card. (That wouldn't have happened in this case, but it's certainly plausible against some opponents.)

AKQJ10 said:

[ QUOTE ]

No one advocates a short stack in games involving inferior deep-stacked opponents except for the other legitimate reasons cited (e.g., bankroll).


[/ QUOTE ]

If that were true, I wouldn't feel the need to write this kind of post. Unfortunately, I see 2+2ers who routinely buy in short (half stack or less) in their regular game, despite the fact that they are winning players. There are regulars who have 10k+ hands under their belts who STILL buy in for half a stack as their default. This is self-defeating, and it sounds like you agree with me on that point. Really, that was the whole purpose of my thread -- to get these people to realize that the sooner they throw away their crutches, the faster they'll learn to walk.

[ QUOTE ]

You'll see some hands posted here with bad postflop decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they buy in deep and practice, practice, practice, they'll never learn not to make those bad postflop decisions. Luckily, if you start buying in deep at the micro-stakes tables your opponents will be even WORSE at postflop decisions, and you'll be able to gain your experience and skills while your mistakes are relatively cheap. Also, if you have even one or two really bad opponents on a deep stack (which is QUITE common at micro-stakes levels), you'll improve your winrate by buying in deep even if you're not yet good at postflop decisions.

[ QUOTE ]

each of us has to determine how to allocate our scarce resources between donking off our training budget and building bankroll.


[/ QUOTE ]

You assume that a typical uNL 2+2er would lose money by buying in deep-stacked at a typical micro-stakes table, and I disagree. Yesterday I spent an hour at a $10NL table to help teach my dad (a limidonk) how to play no-limit. I knew $10NL was bad, but I had forgotten just how incredibly awful the opponents were: at a six-max table we had two players with VPIPs over 70% and one more in the 45% range. You don't have to be a pro to absolutely DESTROY that kind of table: play tight, play aggressively, always c-bet heads-up, and don't bluff. Oh, and the deeper you are, the more you'll make in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]

Likewise, if you want to learn piano, you could pick up a score for the Rach 3 and pluck it out, note by note. With practice you might get pretty good. But a trained piano teacher isn't going to teach you that way; instead you're going to learn the basics like scales (thanks NLHE:TAP!) and simple songs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think your analogy is a good one, but I see it as supporting my position! Imagine if you went to a piano teacher who told you: "Playing the piano is a very complicated process. This month, we're going to work exclusively on the pedals. When you get good at pressing the pedals, we'll then move up to using your right hand on the keys. In six months, you may even be ready to use BOTH hands!" This is not the approach that a piano teacher would advocate. Even in a basic Spanish class, you learn all the aspects of Spanish: verbs, nouns, sentence structure, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc. You learn all of it at its most basic levels, but you learn EVERYTHING, right off the bat. Piano teachers have you use both hands from very early on, and within a few lessons you're plunking out songs (basic songs, but whole songs nonetheless).

I would suggest that short-stacking is analogous to learning to play the piano by starting only with the pedals, or learning Spanish by spending the first three months on nothing but verbs. There is a minimum "complete set of knowledge" for any study, and while there is much extra meat to throw onto the bones, you need that minimum complete set before you can even begin your study. For poker, I suggest that the minimum complete set is preflop play, flop play, turn play, and river play. Now, I agree with you 100% that we should start slow, but I believe starting slow means buying in full-stacked at the smallest stakes available. That way you gain experience at all the relevant aspects of the game while facing a very light challenge. Full-stacked play at $2NL is the "Mary Had a Little Lamb" of poker: the simplest form of covering all the relevant aspects of the game. Eventually you move up as you gain skills, knowledge, and experience, but you have to build all your skills to really be learning things properly.

Again, I agree with you completely that we must learn to crawl before we can walk, and we must learn to walk before we can run. There is absolutely a proper progression to gaining a mastery over any course of study, including poker. However, I still think that they way to master the game is to start studying every aspect of the game at its most simple level and gradually move up as you are ready. Short-stacking just won't give you that holistic knowledge of the game.

[ QUOTE ]

For every full house-versus-straight or quads-versus-full house or straight flush-versus-quads you can pull out where you wish you were deep stacked, you could just as easily be on the losing end and pay off deep stacked. That's relevant only inasmuch as a good player would get away from those losing hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, and I also agree that good players usually can't get away from those hands either. However, for every hand where your flopped straight/set/flush/full house beats TPGK, there should NOT be an analagous loss. I'm even willing to say that at $10NL you might get stacked when your two pair goes down in flames, but when you've got KJo facing a three-bet all-in from a preflop raiser on a KQ7 board, a 2+2er should be able to find the fold whereas a standard donk often won't. We don't need to find EVERY fold for deep-stacked play to be profitable; we just need to find more folds than the idiots do. I don't see that as a stretch.

HitNRunPoster said:

[ QUOTE ]

If the fish buy for 60bb and the tags buy for 100, and I don't think I'm better than the tags, would you recommend buying for 60bb while i learn the game?


[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, we're talking about micro-stakes, here. If you've got a table with several deep-stacked frightening TAGs and no deep-stacked idiots, <font color="blue">change tables</font>. I'm all for learning through experience, but there's no reason why that has to be a death pact for your bankroll. There are TONS of tables at these stakes, and the opponents are horrifically bad; if you notice that your table has some tight and aggressive clever players with big stacks and no good targets, MOVE! Table selection is another basic skill in poker, and one that we have discussed occasionally in this forum (for instance, in this thread), but it's a topic that doesn't get enough press. I really think that you can boost your winrate noticeably by exercising good table selection. Give it a try.

Matt Ruff said:

[ QUOTE ]

&lt;Regarding the hand posted in my original message, from BB's perspective on the flop.&gt; I have to say this is not the flop I wanted. Yeah I've got two pair, but it's bottom two, and the board has Broadway cards, a flush draw, and straight possibilities. I'm first to act against three other people, including a preflop raiser who's perfectly capable of repping pocket kings, a hand against which I am essentially drawing dead. Given that I like money, what's my line?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you realize this wasn't a fantastic flop for you tells me that you're going to outplay most of your opponents at this level. Depending on the opponent, I like a bet/call (re-evaluate on the turn) line or a check-raise (fold to a push) line. You have to assume that AK is in villain's range and that he'll play it reasonably aggressively. You also have to assume that he's capable of folding a missed hand if he gets a good deal of pressure. Of course, a hand like KK/TT/99 would take you to the cleaners. You're OOP with a mediocre hand and your opponent is aggressive and dangerous -- this is the worst situation in poker. To my mind, the obvious solution is to fold preflop and avoid getting INTO such messy situations in the first place.

My basic approach with this hand as played would be to try and pick up the pot cheaply on the flop, and if that didn't work I'm prepared to pay off small bets but I'm also willing to swear and fold if Button gets incredibly frisky. In hindsight, this probably wasn't the best hand to prove my point, but it was the only one that came to mind when I was writing the post. However, I'm sure most of the forum could find a hand history example where some short-stacked player with AA got all-in preflop against some deep-stacked player with KK or AK or QQ. In that hand, shorty has stunted his winrate, pure and simple. Now, a bad player would also have a number of hands where he lost less by playing short, but we're 2+2 damn it! We're NOT going to be the worst players at the table. As such, when we play we take money FROM the worst players, and when we buy in deep we take MORE money from them.

Rev. Good Will said:

[ QUOTE ]

In GSIH, Miller repeated if you are new to the game, though you won't make as much money playing deeper; as you should buy in short to learn the mechanics of the game, and just kind of observe the action, practice hand reading, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reading GSIH and/or NLHTAP does not make you an expert poker player, but it DOES make you better than the typical micro-stakes player. Study and experience are the twin paths to success in poker, and most of the micro-stakes players have NEITHER. As to practicing hand reading, you don't have to buy in AT ALL to do that: pick up Phil Gordon's Little Blue Book, or Harrington on Hold'Em Volume III, or the Killer Poker Hold'Em Handbook, or any of the other workbook-type poker books on the market right now and you'll not only get a couple hundred hands to walk through, you'll also have an expert poker player standing over your shoulder and guiding your thought process throughout the hand. Alternatively, you can spend three days reading every hand history thread posted in uNL. Another alternative would be to railbird on the sidelines for a few hours and watch hands as they unfold, trying to put players on hands. In short, you don't have to play AT ALL in order to develop your hand-reading skills. Learning the mechanics of the game can be done by reading a book or two; getting a "feel" for the game and getting started in hand reading can be done by railbirding or study. Once you're actually in play, there's no reason not to practice ALL of your skills.

[ QUOTE ]

if you are new to poker in general, or even just big bet poker, you might be better off playing a few hundred hands short staked so you can at least be a part of the game, observe your opponents, and learn to identify what are the most significant mistakes are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I see nothing wrong with this as a crutch for the VERY NEWEST players (though I would still prefer buying in full at the smallest stakes available). The point of my post is that if you do choose to lean on those crutches, you should throw them away relatively quickly and get down to the business of improving your game and building your bankroll by competing in the full game of poker.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out the point of your posts. You seem to be simulataneously saying that the thread wasn't worth starting in the first place because it's a tired subject, while at the same time offering an opposing view. Hence, it's a topic worthy of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

But none of my arguments are really novel either. I'm just too lazy to dig them out. Plus I'd like one last crack at expressing my POV so I can paste the text into the February '07 short-stack thread, and the March '07 short-stack thread, and the April '07 short-stack thread....

Really, this was talked to death way way before November '06. I'm frustrated with myself, because I should have some easily-accessible boilerplate that says everything I've said so far in this thread, but I'm not that well-organized.

To say an argument is "beneath" someone means that it's not up to that person's typical high standards. That's hardly an ad hominem attack. That said, after having read Pokey's last reply I retract my statement that this thread is beneath him, because we're having a much more enlightening conversation here than the other times this topic has come up.

But I'm really less bothered by Pokey's OP than by the community's propensity to adopt certain views into the established consensus without sufficiently questioning them.

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Pokey. You make a lot of good points, and the NL10 games are quite likely may well be so bad that even a thoughtful beginner can tread water while learning. (Bankroll considerations make it a little different for B&amp;M, obviously, even though $1-2 is probably almost as beatable as NL10.)

I'll have to reflect more about your piano/Spanish points. We're advocating two different ways of looking at the issue of gradual learning.

[ QUOTE ]
However, for every hand where your flopped straight/set/flush/full house beats TPGK, there should NOT be an analagous loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% correct. But those aren't the hands people cite to say, "Look how much you're losing by buying in short."

Incidentally, not that it matters, the last couple of weeks I have been playing short a few times when I thought I wasn't psychologically prepared to play my best. But I'm generally too conservative with bankroll, which combined with playing too little really has slowed my progress.

I wish we'd had this conversation instead of the 50 previous times this has been discussed. Then I'd be less defensive on this topic. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Matt Ruff, I don't think it is a bad play if you just put all your stack at risk and let the cards fall as they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In practical terms, what does this mean? Are you suggesting Hero should open-push $195 into a $20 pot? Bet/reraise all-in? Check-raise all-in?

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think that if you are playing shortstacked, mistakes don't cost you so much, so you don't remember them so much and this is one of the reasons you should play big stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing a fundamental point about stack size.

If I've only got $25 in my stack, it's a mistake to call a $5 preflop raise with a suited connector. If I do make that call, though, and I'm lucky enough to flop two pair -- even bottom two -- it's a no-brainer to bet the rest of my money.

If I've got $200 in my stack, on the other hand, calling the preflop raise is a reasonable play (although I still might not want to do it out of position against a tough opponent). But betting the rest of my money on the flop is no longer a no-brainer -- it's a potentially huge error.

A play that is correct at one stack size may be incorrect at another. So increasing your stack size doesn't just make your mistakes more costly -- it makes them different.

[Vinetou]

Matt Ruff, it isn't important only how much you have, it is important how much your opponent has when you are calling with SC. And why would it be wrong put the rest of your money in when you are almost certainly ahead?

I didn't mean going all in instantly. This would be insane. Just bet a lot and if you end being all in, it is good. Checkraise is risky because you don't wanna give a free card. Depends on reads. If you have a special read that someone has you beat, you might make a tough laydown but you have to have VERY good reason.

[umdpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I'm sure most of the forum could find a hand history example where some short-stacked player with AA got all-in preflop against some deep-stacked player with KK or AK or QQ. In that hand, shorty has stunted his winrate, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

one of the advantages of shortstacking is that deepstackers sometimes can't adjust correctly to decent ones. (i am referring to 50bb shorties, not 10bber's) whereas most players won't go allin for their full stack with aq/jj, they see your short stack, and think "hell, its only half my stack, and this guy must be a donk because he buys in short. call." then they realize they are crushed. i have had some players i thought were decent call me with hands i know they wouldn't if i were full. sets almost always get paid off in limped pots by tpgk. if i had more behind me, i am certain my turn bet would be folded to much more often, because they fear the big river bet is coming too. basically, if you play under your opponent's pain threshold, they will pay. the key is to change your play once you double up. those who don't realize that you change strategy once you get to 100bbs then make more mistakes, thinking that you always play tptk for stacks. this makes them overvalue some hands, and not put me to the test as much, because they don't think i can fold strong but not great hand. it is very nice to have opponents misunderstand my play. i agree that you will make more with a deeper stack against bad players. that seems sort of common sense. however, buying on for 50 bbs isn't as bad as you think, simply because there aren't many 100bb pots anyways. i don't see how it is possible for the 20bb/less shorties to make any money, since they can't play postflop at all. they are also forced to take a lot of flips preflop(or the blinds take too much from stack between good hands), which basically feeds the rake.

[sisnarf]

I have heard that learning how to short stack can be more profitable. The decisions you have to make are generally straight forward and you end up getting the money in on the
flop. There are a few good reasons to become a good SS.

This can allow you to play more tables since decisions are easier. This leads to higher rake back.

You can play higher limits since your strategy is not as exploitable.

You don't make huge mistakes with a deep stack.

So maybe you will never be as good of a poker player as others but perhaps you can make more money than you would otherwise.