Bankroll for shortstacking?

[chucky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressive players tend to dislike shortstackers because deep players (100 bb+) prefer to raise with a broad range of hands and have the freedom to play the flop, turn, and river a variety of ways. Shortstackers will counteract these players by reraising KKxx and AAxx mostly and try to deny deeper players the ability to play a wide range on hands past the flop. Shortstackers do cost themselves money in the long run because even if they double up in a hand, they have missed out on profit because they were not 100 bb deep. Additionally, some shortstackers are unable to transition to medium stack play. Some of these players will leave tables rather than continuing to play. Therefore, we have the term "ratholers".

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, my original post had nothing to do with the 'ethics' of hit-and-running, but rather what is a reasonable bankroll for such a strategy. I could care less of the 'ethics' of this strategy.

I understand that 'ratholing' is frustrating to 'proper' players who buy-in for the max (100BB), but this is a legit strategy. I hear players like Ribbo (in his videos) laughing at players for having ~30BB at a table, but he is completely missing the point. Short-stacking is an almost 100% unexploitable strategy (if done properly) that will allow players to build up a bankroll at small risk. Of course, many short-stackers have no idea how to properly use short-stack strategy. Personally, it has allowed me to move up limits MUCH faster than I would have otherwise.

If one plans to move up limits and become a 'great' player, it is crucial that he develops good deep-stack skills. But to say short-stacking threads should result in an insta-ban is completely laughable... it is embarrassing actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um please read my post again. "Ratholing" as I used it was the hit and run strategy where someone plays very shortstack and then leaves if they win their coin flip. I agree that it is very tough to defend against the very shortstack strategy, but in truth deepstackers really dont need to. Once a shortstacker gets to 60 bb or higher, they will lose money if they can not adapt. Additionally at 60 bb or even 80bb, the range of hands that can be played preflop is still hampered by the fact that play beyond the flop is very limited.

My suggestion to you is to take shots at higher levels, rather than shortstack at a level you don't have enough buyins at which to compete.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressive players tend to dislike shortstackers because deep players (100 bb+) prefer to raise with a broad range of hands and have the freedom to play the flop, turn, and river a variety of ways. Shortstackers will counteract these players by reraising KKxx and AAxx mostly and try to deny deeper players the ability to play a wide range on hands past the flop. Shortstackers do cost themselves money in the long run because even if they double up in a hand, they have missed out on profit because they were not 100 bb deep. Additionally, some shortstackers are unable to transition to medium stack play. Some of these players will leave tables rather than continuing to play. Therefore, we have the term "ratholers".

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, my original post had nothing to do with the 'ethics' of hit-and-running, but rather what is a reasonable bankroll for such a strategy. I could care less of the 'ethics' of this strategy.

I understand that 'ratholing' is frustrating to 'proper' players who buy-in for the max (100BB), but this is a legit strategy. I hear players like Ribbo (in his videos) laughing at players for having ~30BB at a table, but he is completely missing the point. Short-stacking is an almost 100% unexploitable strategy (if done properly) that will allow players to build up a bankroll at small risk. Of course, many short-stackers have no idea how to properly use short-stack strategy. Personally, it has allowed me to move up limits MUCH faster than I would have otherwise.

If one plans to move up limits and become a 'great' player, it is crucial that he develops good deep-stack skills. But to say short-stacking threads should result in an insta-ban is completely laughable... it is embarrassing actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um please read my post again. "Ratholing" as I used it was the hit and run strategy where someone plays very shortstack and then leaves if they win their coin flip. I agree that it is very tough to defend against the very shortstack strategy, but in truth deepstackers really dont need to. Once a shortstacker gets to 60 bb or higher, they will lose money if they can not adapt. Additionally at 60 bb or even 80bb, the range of hands that can be played preflop is still hampered by the fact that play beyond the flop is very limited.

My suggestion to you is to take shots at higher levels, rather than shortstack at a level you don't have enough buyins at which to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought we were equating ratholing with shortstacking because shortstackers will usually hit and run. We are talking about the same thing.

I usually play 6-max anyways, so I am not planning on short-stacking much. As I said in an earlier post, it is very difficult to short-stack successfully at 6-max due to the blind pressure.

Shortstacking at full-ring is also less fun for me because I don't get to see many flops.

One aspect of short-stacking that I think is overlooked is that it allows a player to get used to bigger pot sizes. Moving up from 25PLO and 50PLO was a big step for me... suddenly everything was doubled. Short-stacking a little while at full-ring PLO100 and PLO200 helped me get used to bigger pot sizes while putting little at risk. It also helped me get used to losing larger pots, which helps prevent going on tilt when I lose a "big" pot at 50PLO.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressive players tend to dislike shortstackers because deep players (100 bb+) prefer to raise with a broad range of hands and have the freedom to play the flop, turn, and river a variety of ways. Shortstackers will counteract these players by reraising KKxx and AAxx mostly and try to deny deeper players the ability to play a wide range on hands past the flop. Shortstackers do cost themselves money in the long run because even if they double up in a hand, they have missed out on profit because they were not 100 bb deep. Additionally, some shortstackers are unable to transition to medium stack play. Some of these players will leave tables rather than continuing to play. Therefore, we have the term "ratholers".

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, my original post had nothing to do with the 'ethics' of hit-and-running, but rather what is a reasonable bankroll for such a strategy. I could care less of the 'ethics' of this strategy.

I understand that 'ratholing' is frustrating to 'proper' players who buy-in for the max (100BB), but this is a legit strategy. I hear players like Ribbo (in his videos) laughing at players for having ~30BB at a table, but he is completely missing the point. Short-stacking is an almost 100% unexploitable strategy (if done properly) that will allow players to build up a bankroll at small risk. Of course, many short-stackers have no idea how to properly use short-stack strategy. Personally, it has allowed me to move up limits MUCH faster than I would have otherwise.

If one plans to move up limits and become a 'great' player, it is crucial that he develops good deep-stack skills. But to say short-stacking threads should result in an insta-ban is completely laughable... it is embarrassing actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um please read my post again. "Ratholing" as I used it was the hit and run strategy where someone plays very shortstack and then leaves if they win their coin flip. I agree that it is very tough to defend against the very shortstack strategy, but in truth deepstackers really dont need to. Once a shortstacker gets to 60 bb or higher, they will lose money if they can not adapt. Additionally at 60 bb or even 80bb, the range of hands that can be played preflop is still hampered by the fact that play beyond the flop is very limited.

My suggestion to you is to take shots at higher levels, rather than shortstack at a level you don't have enough buyins at which to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]


I thought we were equating ratholing with shortstacking because shortstackers will usually hit and run. We are talking about the same thing.

I usually play 6-max anyways, so I am not planning on short-stacking much. As I said in an earlier post, it is very difficult to short-stack successfully at 6-max due to the blind pressure.

Shortstacking at full-ring is also less fun for me because I don't get to see many flops.

One aspect of short-stacking that I think is overlooked is that it allows a player to get used to bigger pot sizes. Moving up from 25PLO and 50PLO was a big step for me... suddenly everything was doubled. Short-stacking a little while at full-ring PLO100 and PLO200 helped me get used to bigger pot sizes while putting little at risk. It also helped me get used to losing larger pots, which helps prevent going on tilt when I lose a "big" pot at 50PLO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This forum is unaccustomed to someone using so many words and saying so little.

[Flip-Flop]

Short stacking hit&run is pretty much an online phenomena because you are not going to last long as a regular doing it live.

It`s the hit&run part of the strategy that annoys people I guess.
I don`t think anyone has a problem with a good short-stacker that is not afraid to stay and play some poker after he doubles up.
Actually, I don`t mind the online hit&runners because I know what to expect of them and I know how to defend.
But I do look for a table full of deep stacks before I sit down, that`s a given.

[ZingyDNA]

I don't see the point of shortstacking in PLO. If you can identify the aggro players, adjust your range accordingly and manipulate big stacks for your favor, wouldn't you be much better off shortstacking NLHE? PLO players tend to be looser, but PLO hands value are much closer in winning percentages preflop, where most shortstack plays take place.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the point of shortstacking in PLO. If you can identify the aggro players, adjust your range accordingly and manipulate big stacks for your favor, wouldn't you be much better off shortstacking NLHE? PLO players tend to be looser, but PLO hands value are much closer in winning percentages preflop, where most shortstack plays take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slotbloom describes short-stacking in much greater detail than I will do here.

If you can get allin with AAXX preflop against two other players, you will usually have a ton of equity in the hand. If there is extra money in the pot from limpers who folded, you get even more overlay.

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac 9c Ad 5h 240707 48.14 259293 51.86 0 0.00 0.481
Kc Qd Jh Th 123914 24.78 375254 75.05 832 0.17 0.249
Ts 9s Td 8h 134547 26.91 364621 72.92 832 0.17 0.270

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]

This forum is unaccustomed to someone using so many words and saying so little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you just post a middle finger instead of the above statement? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Seriously though, I started out this thread by asking about bankroll requirements for short-stacking assuming one is a decent short-stacker. It somehow degenerated into a thread about why short-stackers suck/don't suck and this is just unproductive.

I really like the PLO forum and have already learned a lot by reading other posters and working through hand simulations... so let's just drop the whole thing.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

<font color="green">Sounds good to me. - Buzz</font>