Bankroll for Shortstack Play

[baztalkspoker]

If you buy-in short i.e. 20 big blinds to a full ring game, how big would your bankroll need to be?

Since you will be all-in a lot more often than when you buy-in full, the amount of those shortstack buy-ins will need to be higher.

My own feeling is that it's about 2.5 to 3 times the amount of buy-ins you would need if you were buying in full, note this is still a lower roll than you would need if you were buying in full.

So say you determined that you required 50 buy-ins when buying in full to a $10-$20 game i.e a bankroll of $100K, perhaps you would need 150 shortstack buyins at that same level = $60K.

Anyway this is just pure guess work on my part and I could be very wrong. I've never seen this discussed before, anyone have anything more concrete than my undoubtedly erroneous guessing.

[sc000t]

I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[baztalkspoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[/ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

You basically are asking a question on how to be an a-hole and ruin PLO.

So any response that is an "a-hole" response is therefore acceptable.

You taking umbridge at such responses is rather funny.

[baztalkspoker]

First of all cheers to SilentA and Sodom for your helpful replies.

[ QUOTE ]

You basically are asking a question on how to be an a-hole and ruin PLO.

So any response that is an "a-hole" response is therefore acceptable.

You taking umbridge at such responses is rather funny.

[/ QUOTE ]


The post was clearly an obnoxious and unnecessary reply, I will never understand nor do I want to understand the mentality of someone who can make a post like that to someone they don't even know or know anything about and I don't think much of someone either who thinks it is ok to do so.

His post assumed lots of things about me, for one I'm not a regular short-stack player. If I play $2-$4 PLO I nearly always buy-in for the full amount. I only play shortstacked in the $10-$20 plo game when I fancy a gamble -which I know I shouldn't do since I don't currently have the bankroll for that game.

I agree that buying in short is not conducive to creating a good pot limit omaha game, but that is really a matter for the poker sites to sort out. Poker players will always seek out an edge in a game and buying in a full ring short stacked in plo can be a winning strategy, taking umbrage at poker players who choose to play a short stacked strategy then is also rather funny imo, just as making a-hole comments and supporting a-hole comments is rather low imo.

My main reason for asking the question was out of curiosity as it was something I hadn't seen discussed before. I have a background in mathematics and statistics and was just genuinely curious how playing a shortstack strategy impacted on what someones bankroll should be.

Anyway I'm not a regular 2+2 poster but am clearly getting the impression that shortstackers(of which I'm not most of the time) are not welcome, it's difficult enough to avoid getting the odd a-hole reply to non objectionable questions here so guess I shouldn't have been surprised that one that brought up short stack would bring out the a-hole respondees types who can see it as an excuse to act the a-hole.

[jomatty]

baz,

your right that talking about shortstack play can make some posters act like a-holes. dont let this stop you from asking the question you want as these players just need to learn to adjust against the short stacks and quit complaining about something that always has, and always will be a part of poker. some players prefer to buy-in short and this is not going to change. there are plenty of players who are quite good that prefer to buy-in short (barry greenstein for instance) and instead of whining and being rude to legitimate questions a better use of these posters time would be to learn how to play versus short stacks.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that buying in short is not conducive to creating a good pot limit omaha game, but that is really a matter for the poker sites to sort out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you do something that you know f's up PLO games, but you do it anyway. Congrats on being an a=hole.

And we'll see about whether or not this is just for the poker sites to sort out.

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[/ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

all you need is a chip and a chair

[wazz]

Everyone railing against the shorstackers clearly have no idea what adjustments they need to make to beat them. And I say beat, because there's not a single shortstacker at any level of any site that is up against me. They're not difficult to play. They DON'T reduce the complexity of the game, in fact they bring a lot more complexity to the game when you're up against one shorty on your left and one deep-stacked target on your right.

Let's recap: there's nothing ethically wrong with shortstacking; it can be very profitable; it's not especially difficult to counter their strategies. I say again: THERE'S NOTHING ETHICALLY WRONG WITH SHORTSTACKING.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's recap: there's nothing ethically wrong with shortstacking; it can be very profitable; it's not especially difficult to counter their strategies. I say again: THERE'S NOTHING ETHICALLY WRONG WITH SHORTSTACKING.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is ethically wrong. But it makes the game not fun.

You are playing 6 max PLO, do you want to play vs 5 players at 200-300 bb? or 5 players at 20-30 bb?

Case closed.

Next thread.