NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

Short-stacking certainly is a strategy though. It is a strategy that hinges on denying better players the ability to use their post-flop weapons and is very effective if you fail to adjust as a big-stack to their play. You said it yourself, you play poker to play pre-flop, flop, turn, and river. Your opponent knows this and actively denies your ability thus.

And even if you adjust, the short-stack still has people less aware wielding their stacks like indiscriminate mallets. It is something that, while not optimal, utilizes their pre-flop hand selection skills to their best and minimizes your edge.

Also, it plays well in a mixed format. I often play my primary site full-stacked and play tighter sites (i.e. Full Tilt) short-stacked so that I don't have to outplay them. I mix it up.

My wife though, she is not so good as I am. Her recent introduction to short-stack play is a good jumping point to stronger play.

And lastly, as many have already pointed out, 100BB isn't particularly deep (yeah, Absolute has 200BB max apparently, but I don't play there).

[questions]

I know players who do exactly that - play short on multiple NL200 tables. One in particular doesn't seem too successful. Which is why I seek out his tables. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting to read that my stack size, if small, ruins your games, your fun, and makes me an idiot. Guess I better stop playing for a living now - since I haven't had a job since Sept. '02 and must not know what I am doing./quote]

Short stacks make nl a one street game. The vast majority of people who do that intentionally suck at it. If you happen to be an exception then you don't suck at it but you still suck at life.

If you happen to get stuck with a short stack for a hand before you have a chance to fill up that's one thing.

If you intentionally play with a short stack you'd be better off learning how to play later streets where you can make more money.

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]
I know players who do exactly that - play short on multiple NL200 tables. One in particular doesn't seem too successful. Which is why I seek out his tables. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Now of course some guys that short-stack really are just cowards, hehe.

[Beavis68]

I find the assumptions that the haters make really funny.

I think one reason for the hate is that they have no understanding on how to do it themselves.

Now they actually have to think about calling calling raises or raising light because they are not going to automatically going to get implied odds.

Playing a short stack doesn't make the game an all preflop game. have a 25bb stack in an MTT is not all preflop either.

Adding table does much more for my hourly WR than adding chips

[ClubChamp04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

[/ QUOTE ]


IMO, real poker is about putting your opponents on a range of hands and forcing them to multiple decisions throughout the hand that could cost them a full stack +. Short stackers wet their pants at the thought of playing postflop with good players b/c they simply don't have the ability. It might be profitable for some players to SS but don't you guys feel disgusted in yourselves, like someone who couldn't hack it in the "real world"--->failures? I mean, instead of dropping down in levels and maybe playing with your caliber of player, you buy in for a worthless amount, play with players way over your head, ruin the games and piss me off.

[Nichomacheo]

I'd like to settle some of the issues being discussed here, but first, let me explain my background. After reading about short stackers in HSNL I decided to see how effective they were. So, I purchased 8 months of 200NL data from someone who datamines PokerStars. From there, I made a script that ran through and picked out all the short stackers and counted how many hands they had played as short stacks.

Something like 95% of the players did not play more than 400 hands of short stacking. Of the 5% that did do it for more than 400 hands, 95% of those players were long term losers. And the few that did win, the sample size was not large enough to say conclusively that they were winners. Don't get me wrong, it is possible to do it effectively, but it requires a patience and discipline that not many have. And, if you do have it, you're better off playing full stacked because you're going to be a good player.

Also, I should say that short stacking can be better the more aggressive the games. Some of the NL5000 shortstackers do very well, but thats only because the games are intensely aggressive. Even then though, if you can win doing that you're better off buying in full.

Here's the point:
- Most short stackers are losers
- The winners are better off playing full stacked
- If you raise the min buyin, you eliminate all those players that lose money from buying in short. If you truly want to kill online poker, all the poker sites have to do is raise the min buyin.

They may be more annoying to play against, but its just something you have to adapt to. Most are terrible, and telling them to [censored] off is bad for you in the long run.

Regards,
Nichomacheo

[ClubChamp04]

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.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are short stacking loose $200 games and have enough tables open, you could definitely make a living off of it. I don't see what is funny about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with that. I was laughing for other reasons.

1. Short stacking sends your variance through the roof.

2. Short stacking is a means of beating limits you are not otherwise sufficiently skilled (or bankrolled) to beat, without making an attempt to gain said skills to beat the limit. This should never be the case for a pro.

3. Short stacks can never compare to the earn rate of a full stack. Again, somebody who plays for a living would never intentionally retard their own earn rate.


You 'could' earn a living short stacking, but again.. lol if you decide to.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

[/ QUOTE ]


IMO, real poker is about putting your opponents on a range of hands and forcing them to multiple decisions throughout the hand that could cost them a full stack +. Short stackers wet their pants at the thought of playing postflop with good players b/c they simply don't have the ability. It might be profitable for some players to SS but don't you guys feel disgusted in yourselves, like someone who couldn't hack it in the "real world"--->failures? I mean, instead of dropping down in levels and maybe playing with your caliber of player, you buy in for a worthless amount, play with players way over your head, ruin the games and piss me off.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a seriously funny post. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Hint: There may be a reason why sser's turn chat off. They don't care what you think and aren't going to listen to your abuse. Meanwhile, they continue accepting the money you reluctantly give them.