NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just surprised at how many have such a completely hateful attitude to players who are buying in for an amount that is perfectly acceptable (otherwise the site wouldn't let you buyin for that amount in the first place).

[/ QUOTE ]

MB-

I haven't read this whole thread, so I assume some of what I say here might have been covered.

The reason deep stack players don't like short-stack players is because they completely change the dynamics of the table.

I honestly don't mind the casual fish who wants to buy-in cheap and splash around a bit. The reason is not because I make money from these players, but moreso because I don't have to change my strategy because of them.

One aspect of deep-stack no-limit is start building a pot before the flop with hands that extract well after the flop, such as small pairs and suited connectors. But when there are several short-stackers at the table, we obviously can't do this anymore because this is the portion of the strategy they are exploting. The implied odds are gone, and the fact that a shortie is gonna push with a wider range of hands than they usually would causes the loose players to tighten up.

Do you see what is happening here? Essentially the short-stackers are ruining the games because they make a tight preflop strategy right and then we have a nit-fest.

I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with raising the min buy-in to 35-40BB or so. If someone wants to splash around with 20 bucks, let him do so at .25/.50.

No-limit is a game of implied odds. The increasing number of ratholers is hurting the game.

[jack frost]

Post deleted by jack frost

[jack frost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to say that Barry Greenstein, who is probably the best cash game player in the world, has said that he usually buys in for the minimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buying in for 100k in a $300-$600 game is ALLOT differnt than buying in for 20$ in a 100 nl game

[/ QUOTE ]

[SlapPappy]

lol at people calling shortstackers scum. So if your mom or grandmom decided one day to play some NL holdem but didn't want to risk much and bought in for the minimum I guess they are scum also? What about your brother or best friend?

Add this namecalling into your arguements really helps negate anything useful in your responses.

[justscott]

[ QUOTE ]
lol at people calling shortstackers scum. So if your mom or grandmom decided one day to play some NL holdem but didn't want to risk much and bought in for the minimum I guess they are scum also? What about your brother or best friend?

Add this namecalling into your arguements really helps negate anything useful in your responses.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short stack = scum.

[flowerizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol at people calling shortstackers scum. So if your mom or grandmom decided one day to play some NL holdem but didn't want to risk much and bought in for the minimum I guess they are scum also? What about your brother or best friend?

Add this namecalling into your arguements really helps negate anything useful in your responses.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short stack = scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nsight7]

I think the point that everyone is missing is simply that most short-stackers really are cowardly players and that most big-stackers will re-re-raise with T8s because its "sooted".

What is the point? Most players, no matter what stack size they play, are losing players. The number of people playing good short-stack poker and/or good large-stack poker are few and far between. A fish is a fish is a fish. As such, I highly doubt that the very few number of players laying it down with a sound short-stack strategy are hurting anything. This big theoretical discussion is predicated upon the idea of universalizing the maxim with regard to good short-stacking strategy. Most short-stackers I have seen have no problem calling a 7 or 8 BB raise with something like A7s. Those guys hurt nothing. They donate.

[BillytheKidd]

Apparently I am missing out on one heck of a strategy here, guess I better do some searching for the optimim short stack strategy and start making my millions.

The reason I like to buy in short sometimes, is because I dont want to get mixed up in a game that is usually over my head. I admit it, all you deep stackers are better at poker than me. You use all your knowledge and skill to extract maximum profit from your advantage. I counter this by buying a minimum amount of money, which minimizes your opportunities to apply your advantage.

I do understand your frustration, I hate it when people exploit my weaknesses or minimize my advantage.

As for ruining the game, I think natural progression would solve any problem here. Kinda like TAG's used to take all the money, then LAG's starting making all the money and now, both make money depending on their ability to adjust to the competition/conditions at the table.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I like to buy in short sometimes, is because I dont want to get mixed up in a game that is usually over my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not just play some tournaments or SNGs?

[MyTurn2Raise]

well....I think I'll chime in my 2 cents here

I've played over 300k hands of shortstacking from 200NL to 2000NL. I was the scourge of OnGame. I had multiple accounts across the network (Pokerroom, holdempoker, eurobet, europoker, betonbet, hollywoodpoker, checknraise, newyorkpoker, pokerloco, alamopoker, americascardroom, perhaps another). This is acceptable by their T&Cs. I'd be logged onto multiple accounts at the same time and use it to circumvent the rathole rules, ie- I'd get over 33BBs and leave the table only to fill the empty seat with another one of my accounts. The network was retarded as it allowed a 10BB min buyin, meaning I could double up twice and 10BB is even easier to play than 20BB--DUCY?
OnGame also had frequent bonuses from 5X, 7X, 10X, and 12X player points. It worked based off the whole rake collected at a table. It averaged out to be about 125% rakeback when I played. Considering I was on 10+ tables, that is quite a bit of change for breaking even. Plus, I did better than break-even. I ran about 0.9PTBB/100. It was not taxing to do at all. It was monkey button clicking. I could watch tv and do it. I could put in 8-hour shifts without tiring like a normal multi-tabler does. I did it for the money. The money was good. The money was great.

However, the UIGEA made shortstacking much less profitable. For one, OnGame was gone. No more 10BB buyins. No more over 100% rakeback bonuses. 20BB makes it less profitable and more complex. Lack of bonus money really hurts. I was clearing $50/hr in just bonuses in my heyday.

Throughout this period, I still played limit, 6max limit, and fullring fullstack NL as well.

Today, I pretty much 12 table the 100NL fullstack on PStars and do quite well. I'm a bankroll nit or I'd be at 200NL already. I'll be there soon enough anyway.

I will say the shortstackers do ruin the games. Fish don't like tight tables. Those with a full stack leave. I have no trouble adjusting to shortstackers myself, I kind of know their ranges inside and out ffs. However, they make the rest of the table worse and they fill a spot at the table that another player could easily use.

Unlike live poker, there are no shortages of available games at numerous limits at PStars. Thus, there is no need for a small buyin to keep games going.

I understand shot-taking and whatnot.

I'm for raising the min buyin to 40BBs to balance the two issues.




Yes, I still do shortstack on occassion. Very infrequently as I make more 12-tabling fullstack right now. However, ImsaKidd has me thinking about shortstacking 6max and I've been dabbling here and there.


I will say there has been a HUGE increase in the number of 2p2ers shortstacking in the last few months. I hear of most as my frequent posts on this subject come up with anyone searching the forums.