Maniacs

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
It should be an insta-ban to advertise Slotboom's advice in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this.

[/ QUOTE ]Sc000t and Gordo (and others of a like mind set) - Here’s a quote from Mason Malmuth, used with his permission, on why he started these forums in the first place:
[ QUOTE ]
The idea was to have vigorous debate without insults, and to also have a little fun.

[/ QUOTE ]While I can understand how some of you feel about the short stack strategy, you are going to encounter it in actual play, and probably more and more. It is in your best interests to be able to cope with it.

This forum is a place for you to learn about short-stack strategy and perhaps learn or develop a successful counter strategy. You should appreciate ChuckyB (or anyone else) who politely disagrees with you here regarding strategy or tactics. It is to your benefit to read that opposing viewpoint.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're kidding or not - and then I have to treat your response, perhaps seemingly naively, as though you are serious.

Best Wishes

Buzz
Moderator, Omaha forum

[chucky]

They were semi-joking. There is real frustration when players who are not at the very beginning of learning the game want advice while short-stacking. Short-stacking to play a level than one is not rolled makes it harder not easier to learn how to play at the higher level because short stack hand selection and strategy is different that if one expects to play preflop, flop, and turn at least with hands. They tend to vent this frustration by teasing the posters. One solution is that they could avoid posting on threads that they believe involve shortstack play or tactic questions. I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked. It is generally not wise to ask a devout Catholic ob-gyn about abortion procedures or a devout muslim about his favorite alcoholic beverage. Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
They were semi-joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would probably be fine with someone getting banned for advocating short-stacking... which is a shame. I agree with Buzz that the time of anti-shortstackers would be better used developing counter-tactics to short-stackers (although they don't seem to think they any).


[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked. It is generally not wise to ask a devout Catholic ob-gyn about abortion procedures or a devout muslim about his favorite alcoholic beverage. Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... I get your point but this is a bit extreme. Also, this is the 'Omaha High' forum, not the '100BB+ Omaha High' forum. Until short-stacking is banned in the FAQ section I will be happy to discuss it.

[gordo16]

seriously? someone call the whaaaaambulance. I was pretty clearly joking; that was just my way of saying that I felt that Slotboom's book has entirely changed online full-ring PLO, IMO for the worst. also, Buzz, this isnt exactly a "short-stack" article. The topic of maniacs, IMO, rather inherently deals with players who are dangerous due exactly to the fact that they have a lot of chips in front of them.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
They tend to vent this frustration by teasing the posters.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Chucky – That’s what I thought too. A problem is teasing someone who is not a good friend can quickly get out of hand and is inappropriate behavior on this strategy and tactics forum.

[ QUOTE ]
One solution is that they could avoid posting on threads that they believe involve shortstack play or tactic questions.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but I don’t like that suggestion. I like counter strategy proposals better than avoiding the issue.

Gordo suggested playing tight and 3-betting with “hands in the range of AA-QQxx and any run-down 4567.” That seems good, solid advice. I appreciate it.

I also greatly appreciate Elrazor’s excellent suggestion “buy in full and sit to his left, then 3 bet any hand you feel is ahead of his range” and “this way you can work on getting his entire stack rather than just 10-20% of it.”

I’d rather have those posters offering their advice than sitting out the discussion once it involves short stack strategy.

<font color="green">Anyone member is entitled to ask or give advice about short stacking or any other strategy or tactic.

And any member is entitled (actually encouraged) to offer a constructive opposing or alternate point of view.</font>

In this particular thread, Waffleticket asked for advice on how to cope with maniacs. There's nothing wrong with that.

ChuckyB responded with excellent advice in a well worded, very intelligent post. Indeed, ChuckyB's post was an outstanding response to Waffleticket.

Read it again if you don't believe me. It's right on the money. ChuckyB's post suggested a way to cope with the maniac strategy. In it he suggested Slotboom's short stack strategy and also Greenspan's loosen up and raise strategy.

<font color="green">Agree with it or not, nobody gets to ridicule ChuckyB's point of view.

And nobody gets to ridicule it and say they are or were only joking. Joking and making fun of somebody's point of view is exactly how to go about ridiculing it.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly someone could ask a question that would be offensive, but Waffleticket merely asked for advice on coping with maniacs. That seems entirely reasonable and innocuous to me. It’s something we all confront at one time or another.

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="green">Constructively critical responses are fine. Responses that insult or ridicule the poster at whom they are aimed are not fine.

Posting about short stack strategy has to be fine. Asking for advice about short stack strategy has to be fine.

Please, anyone, if you disagree with a point of view, simply offer an opposing or alternate point of view if you can come up with one. Please, anyone, do not ridicule or insult any poster or suggest banishment.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Short-stacking to play a level than one is not rolled makes it harder not easier to learn how to play at the higher level because short stack hand selection and strategy is different that if one expects to play preflop, flop, and turn at least with hands.

[/ QUOTE ]Fine. That’s a constructively critical rebuttal. I like the part about learning to play the flop and turn – and I’d add river.

Buzz
<font color="green">stuff in green color is speaking as forum moderator

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ricky_Bobby]

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>, and play a strictly limp/re-raise style. And do your best to get it all in pre-flop when you have a better hand than the maniacs range (aces, kings, nice double-suited rundowns, suited broadways, etc.)

If you're going to buy in full, don't sit to his right. Find a seat a few spots downstream so you can take advantage and isolate him. Let him hang himself when he has good hands.

In "Ace on the River" Barry Greenstein says the common response to a maniac is to tighten up. Greenstein says the change you should make is to loosen up and re-raise more frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question: As part of this strategy do you stand up as soon as you reach a certain threshold of BB?

Do you then quit or do you seek out another table and reload with a short stack?

It seems this advice would lead one to either quit as soon as he made a small profit or rat-hole if he wished to continue.

[wazz]

SHAKENBAKE

[Ricky_Bobby]

I love it. It rhymes, they're both verbs...

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
Honest question: As part of this strategy do you stand up as soon as you reach a certain threshold of BB?

Do you then quit or do you seek out another table and reload with a short stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I started with this a couple of weeks ago, I would sit out when I ran my $20 (on .50/1.00) up to about $60. At the time I didn't feel comfortable in PLO with that much money on the table among bigger stacks. $60 was probably 25% of my online bankroll at the time (but a negligible portion of my total bankroll).

Now I'll usually keep going with a stack of $60-$70 even with three or four tables open. I have a handle on who I'm playing and I'm better equipped strategically to play that deep (though it's not really 'deep' at all).

When I'm uncomfortable with my stack, like a couple nights ago when I more-than-tripled up to $160+ on one table, I played until the blinds came around and I left. That's too much money, relative to my online roll (about 40%), to have on one table. And I know that I tend to lose focus after a big hand. So it's best that I don't risk a lot of money while in that mindset.

In those situations I'll keep playing on my other two tables, or find a new one to add.

Slotboom advises once you get to about 70 BBs there's no real short-stacking advantages left. So if you're going to stay, you should top-up to the max buy-in.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems this advice would lead one to either quit as soon as he made a small profit or rat-hole if he wished to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rat-hole" can be a pretty inflammatory phrase (if HSP and Freddy Deeb have taught us anything), but I know what you're saying.

Stars, for example, requires that you leave the table for at least 30 minutes to be allowed to buy-in for less.

In the time that I'm still at the table after making a big score, everyone has an equal shot at my stack. That's bitten me in the butt on a couple of occasions.

Slotboom's advice means you'd leave the table when you've made a significant profit, relative to your investment...100%, 200%, 700% something like that.


For me, short-stacking is about winning money, bankroll management and preparing for a future of making more money. And so far Slotboom's strategy, while not perfect for the games I've sat in, is effective. There are counters to it, but most people can't figure them out (because most don't care to, like we do here on 2+2).

The goal with Slotboom is to get your money in with the best of it and commit early in the hand so there are no tough decisions after the flop. It allows you to compete with more-skilled players and even the field.

Slotboom spends more than half the book talking about deep-stack strategy. I hope to be able to explore that more fully when the time is right. If I had $1500-$2000 online, I probably would. For now, it's just the times when I triple and quadruple up.

[Ricky_Bobby]

Thanks for the response. I certainly didn't mean to impugn anyone's character and probably should have used a different phrase.

Another serious question, wouldn't you have more fun and learn more (you almost certainly know more than I do btw) by playing 25PLO instead? Or do did you decide you could learn more by playing against better players in a bigger game even on a short stack?