NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
I know at least 10 people buy-in 20BB and play 8 tables sametime. If it's not winning then why they do this???

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say you couldn't win money short stacking? It will be crap compared to what you'd earn full stacking, but require a whole lot less skill and that's a good thing for some players.

[Oberonn]

Short stack buyin play in and of itself is not the problem.

In live play there are rules in place to prevent ratholing which is taking winnings off the table to protect them.

Since you can play multiple tables online, and come and go at will, it is not easy for online sites to enforce a ban on ratholing.

When a short stack buyin player chooses to become a ratholer then the integrity of the game is compromised.

[JLaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack buyin play in and of itself is not the problem.

In live play there are rules in place to prevent ratholing which is taking winnings off the table to protect them.

Since you can play multiple tables online, and come and go at will, it is not easy for online sites to enforce a ban on ratholing.

When a short stack buyin player chooses to become a ratholer then the integrity of the game is compromised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree (as both a short and deep stack player).

Most sites have an anti-rathole rule which prevents players from coming back to a table after leaving unless they buy in for the same amount when they left (or more). They could lengthen the time, restrict multi-tabling or require larger buy-ins. They don't, so there's nothing unethical about the player who gets a hit, then leaves to find another game.

The same situation exists live -- you get up and find another table if you want to continue to play short after a big hit. THe only difference is that instead of seconds to find another table it might take a few minutes.

Jeff

[SteelWheel]

Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

[Oberonn]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet! I never want to be known as mainstream.

[Oberonn]

[ QUOTE ]
I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one day soon there will be additional table types online with an absolute buyin and not a min/max range.

These would allow players to avoid the short stack buyin players that use ratholing tactics (if they prefer to not play with such vermin).

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
These would allow players to avoid the short stack buyin players that use ratholing tactics (if they prefer to not play with such vermin).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. "Vermin"?

Considering the fact that poker is a game in which an optimal play when you have crap is to sometimes misrepresent the strength of your hand and mislead others into thinking one thing so that they fold to you and you can take the money and run, I think that's a bit rich.

Personally, I will sometimes play shortstacked if there are a bunch of maniacs at the table or if I'm just coming in to the game.

[NWCougar]

I've never ran into a short-stacker who knows what they're doing. It's morons who are playing scared and they should burn in hell. They ruin the game and by buyin in short, they are tellin the table, "I don't belong here, I have no idea what I'm doing, I won a $5 SnG once so I must not be that bad."

[terrellk11]

[ QUOTE ]
Short buy-in strategy is the optimal approach for playing online, IMHO. The reason is that all online NLHE or PLO games have a MAX buy-in of 100BB, regardless of the blind structure--even a 10/20 blind game has a maximum buy-in of $2000. Take a look at the same game structure, played live at the Bellagio, or any other poker room--the minimum buy-in is something like $800 or $1000, with no max. I typically sit in those games with around $4000, and am prepared to reload if necessary--and I'm usually far from being the smallest stack. Playing these kinds of stack sizes rewards skillful play on all streets.

For me personally, I find that online NL, capped at 100 BB's, has the effect of hampering my play--it is often difficult to structure my bets in such a way that I can maximize value, or put an opponent to the test with that huge uber-bet on the river, since too much of my (or my opponent's) money has gone in on prior rounds.

I have constantly whined at all the online sites, asking for at least some NL games with no-max buy-ins...to no avail. So I too have become a short buy-in, hit and run artist. It's not my preferred style of play, by any means. I'm just responding to the game conditions as they are.

I would be thrilled to find an online site that was willing to spread a NLHE with both a higher minimum buy-in and a "no max buy-in" policy..but it just isn't out there, sadly. The guiding principle appears to be "we need to have a max buy-in to protect the game". I don't agree with this philosophy, although I can understand why it might be in use at lower limits. Once you get to 5/10 and higher though, I see no reason NOT to allow players to buy in for as much as they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute tables are 200bb max if that helps.

[terrellk11]

My problem with players using the short buyin is two-fold:

1. It has the effect of tightening up the whole table. A good shortstacker is only playing 5% (give or take a few percent) of the hands dealt. Every single time I'm at a table and a short-stacker buys in, you can see the average players per flop number drop steadily by 10 percent or more as the whole table dynamic changes. Wild and loose games become rock gardens or just break altogether.

2. It chases off the fish. The fish play the game to see a lot of flops and have a good time. It isn't fun for the fish to have someone sitting at the table that plays one hand every 3 rounds, pushes all in preflop, and then leaves the table with the fish's money when he wins.

In the short-term, it may be a profitable approach to the game. However, by tightening up the games and chasing away the fish, the strategy actually destroys the conditions that make it effective.