Stars: A Day Without Shortstacking Ratholers

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis,

Have you ever written a computer program? They are incrediably complicated and tedious especially one that would have some artifical intelligence involved. It took my brother(who was probably one of the best programmers in his class) and entire year working in a team to write a program that could play connect 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've written a fair amount of code in my youth, and I think a motivated nerd could easily knock out something like this in a few days if they had the card-playing algorithm in hand already (and it only takes one, since I think most bot conspiracy theorists believe that all or most of the shortstackers are using the same program). Also, the program your brother worked on isn't at all analogous -- this pushbot algorithm is a million times easier to write than trying to program a computer to figure out how to play even a simple game like connect four by itself.

[Big Dave D]

If you were going to write a bot you would expect it to be only marginally profitable and so you would look to make the number up by volume, and of course rakeback. This is why the (anecdotal) evidence of bots is nearly all holdem and STT based. Why write a bot for plo when the volume in terms of both games and hands is so much less? And when any semi competent person could short stack the 4-6 games that are in action at anyone time anyway.

Also, and what these recreational programmers never factor in is any kind of robustness. Sure *anyone* can knock out some lines of code. But (a) it has to be discreet enough that the sites don't find it, or at leat doesnt embarrass them enough to finding it, and (b) is robust enough that it can handle massive volumes without crashing and close supervision. The difference between pottering around with a little bit of code and making something that is both accurate and robust is what turned the Internet into a Bubble.

I think in general the fear of bots is overstated; and if anyone was dumb enough to write a PLO bot I would personally want to give their forehead a slap.

cheers

Dave

[fnord_too]

Waxing philosophical...

Shortstacking is not an unfair advantage, it just exploits a legal aspect of the game. Calling it unfair is like saying someone who understands reverse implied odds has an unfair advantage or someone who plays within their bankroll has an unfair advantage.

Sklansky wrote a post about invisible antes a while back in hsnl and got widely criticized because people did not understand wtf he was saying. Well, shortstackers remove a lot of those invisible antes.

Another thing: our whole culture and economic philosophy is built on the idea that people finding better ways to exploit resources and situations is good. That is, that competition and open markets lead to more production. Poker is experiencing what every other market experiences. As the amount of money one can make at the game increases, better competitors are attracted to the arena. These competitors certainly don't care about what a bunch of reactionaries think about their (totally within the rules and ethical) exploitive strategies. The games drying up are not really a threat because if they cannot support the earn these guys require, they will just move on. Poker is a vicitm of it's own success, from the perspective of old school players.

People who whine about this stuff remind me of old school airlines (and lots of other old school companies in shifting markets). The old airlines lobbied and lobbied for deregulation because they all saw their competitors protected gravy routes with covetous eyes. Then when deregulation hit they continued to conduct their businesses as if they still had the protective shell regulation had provided them. Not many of those airlines are around, and the ones that are are all on the brink of bankruptcy and continually scrambling for some bail out or another, while newer airlines like Jet Blue are able to operate at a profit with no help. To the older airlines that are failing, tough luck. Adapt or die baby, that is the way of the world.

[LA_Price]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty much just not true. Shortstackers are parasites that take advantage of a structural element of the game. The only way to "counter" them is to pretend that you are also a short stack and never raise/reraise light, etc. But then congratulations the annoying short stackers wouldn't have any edge on you, but you'd get run over by the other players. The only way to truly "counter" them is to actually play a short stack yourself. If stacks are deep and everyone plays optimally, short stackers will still make a small profit. This is why I think there's a strong argument for raising the minimum buy-in, b/c allowing people to short stack hit-n-run actually does give them an unfair advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are in fact right, I wrote the sentence quickly and didn't properly formulate what I wanted to say. I was thinking more along the lines of a 6-max game as thats what I play 70% of the time. That is some of the short stackers only reraise you when they have AAxx or KKxx, which is enough for a full table. If they are doing this then when playing 6-max you can raise more often than you would at a full table and usually fold if they come over the top(I measn you can obviouly call if you have JT98 ds and other such hands). The blind pressure will eat them up if they don't adjust by reraising you more often and they don't get action from the other players on their good hands. If they do adjust then like you said you are forced to play their stack size instead of yours you say never raise or reraise lightly. I think an optimal shortstacking 6-max strategy wouldn't be that hard to come up with. It's just not written in book that these guys can buy.

I don't actually think it's unethical to short stack because you can buy-in for the same amount they do. You choose to buyin for the amount that you do. The thing i hate hearing most is that something is detrimental to the "game". The game is a collection of self-interests colliding. What people really mean when they say something is bad for the game is that it is bad for themselves and the strategy they wish to employ.

They're sort of a response to a weakness as well in that there are alot of omaha players who can play well after the flop but play horrendously before the flop. They don't know how to click the "fold" button once they've put any money in the pot until the flop has come.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Waxing philosophical...

Shortstacking is not an unfair advantage, it just exploits a legal aspect of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that something is within the rules is no defense against the unfairness of the rules.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Waxing philosophical...

Shortstacking is not an unfair advantage, it just exploits a legal aspect of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that something is within the rules is no defense against the unfairness of the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree (though I can see arguments against things like needling that are not related to the structure, not opining one way or the other but those sorts of things are inherantly more debatable). When you sit at a table that is operating by a codified set of rules, those are the rules you are agreeing to. If you don't think they are fair, you don't play. Unfairness of the rules is just an inane term because everyone enters the game by their own choice, knowing the rules before they sit. Saying "well, that is the only option if I want to play" is equally silly because no one is entitled in life to a poker game. Poker is a market driven enterprise.

Honestly, this is no different than any advantage one has at a poker table. Some people think that playing tight or checkraising goes against the spirit of the game and some are even quite vocal about it, but it does not make those things unfair. What is unfair is exploiting software glitches like the rebuy trick which DOES violate the rules (though stars took sort of the microsoft attitude that glitches were undocumented features, so some may argue that one).

[Troll_Inc]

I haven't programmed anything since goto loops in Basic, but I've read some of the stuff on the Canadian group trying to come up with a holdem bot. From that wild leap, I don't think that it would be that easy for someone to write a shortstacker PLO bot.

1. I don't think they will get AAxx enough at 6 max to beat the rake with the edge they have with AAxx. (Perhaps only if there opponents play pairs against them.)
2. If they play more than AAxx then the rake is less of an issue, but the programmed bot needs to be much more complicated.


BTW, I've said this before, but I like to repeat myself (even if it's in the wrong thread)....when bots become commonplace at holdem...a full game of PLO will be a nice refuge since you'll need a much more complicated bot to play PLO.

[Big Dave D]

I guess you're not becoming a lawyer anymore?

gl

bdd

[Elrazor]

As a relative newcomer to Omaha, i think its up to each player to come up with their own counter strategy to the shortstack, or any other type of player you come across. one of the other posters made a good point that many players, especially in brick and morter casinos, see check-raising as wrong - well boohoo!

also another factor people fail to mention when they ask for the min buy in to be raised is the amount of peple who actually play Omaha. Its not like the internet is awash with games and players, and many new players you see come and go like to min buy in for bankroll and skill reasons - would you all like to shut all of their dead money out of the game too??

i think Poker like all successful games and sports is constantly evolving tactically, and like all of these games 'only those who adapt to change survive'

[davmcg]

I've also noticed that there are far less full ring games on the go. I don't whether this is the reason the short stackers aren't playing. There does appear to be a number of non short stack 1/2 and 2/4 full ring players also missing. Perhaps they all arranged a fight to the death somewhere.