|
|
#21
01-22-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: edges and information
thanx tsearcher. I heard a lot of good things about Millers shortstack strategy, I'll look it up.
I am talking about a two to three full table freeze out live tournament. First three places get 20%, 30%, 50%. Situation as described is on a full table at any moment of the tournament. As said, 10 big blinds, when the average stack is between 100 and 400 big blinds depending on the speed of the tournament and the point in time. I'll go look up Miller's strategy now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Thanx 
|
|
#22
01-23-2007, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: edges and information
[ QUOTE ]
I heard a lot of good things about Millers shortstack strategy, I'll look it up. [/ QUOTE ] You obviously haven't been corrupted by the uSNL or SSNL forums yet. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] http://poker.wikia.com/wiki/Short_stack - especially the crude link under "The pedagogical issue".
|
|
#23
01-23-2007, 06:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: edges and information
No I haven't [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Looked it up.... I agree it might not be the best way to start learning, but I've been playing for about two years. I've read a couple of books now; 'supersystem', 'small stakes holdem', 'the theory of poker' and 'no limit holdem, theory and practise' and a bit of the great but oh so boring HOH. This is why I feel comfortable trying out new things, even if they might be simplistic systems meant for beginners. Playing the shortstack well is one of the things that is falling behind in my progress. So all and any ideas are welcome. The good things I've heard about Millers book were not about the strategy, but the results (that's what it's all about, isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).
|
|
#24
01-23-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: edges and information
Just to be clear, I think Miller's approach is great for learning NLHE gradually. He's by no means saying that you should ever learn to play deep-stack NLHE.
But his view is very much a minority view among the low-stakes NL community here. People get frustrated that real donks (not smart beginners) buy in for 20BBL when they want to take 100BBL from them. Instead of looking at it as a challenge for themselves, the experienced deep-stack players, to brush up on correct short-stack play they'd rather gripe. The sense of entitlement among poker players in general bugs me. It's not the fish's responsibility to line up to hand me his money; it's my responsibility to adapt and play the games the fish wants to play. If that means short-stacked, so be it.
|
|
#25
01-24-2007, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: edges and information
That being said, I think I can even simplify this:
Experienced deep stack players are not as experienced playing against short stacks. And they feel that playing shortstack is a 'lower' thing to do than deepstack. This, while the entire point of the game is to win each others money. As long as you act within the rules there's no shame at all in using any strategy, as long as it gives you the best results. To get really good you should be playing different strategies that you don't excel in. This will mostly be deep stack strategies, because they are far more complex. Some experienced deep stack players might find some shortstack players despicable, just because they think the shortstack players should be losing to them while learning deep stack play instead of taking their money using short stack strategy. It's really kind of sad if you ask me.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
