NL: Why the hate on short buy-ins?

[jkoff]

It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is about winning money. Why should I change the way I am use to playing? Most of my play is at Los Angeles B&M card rooms. NL 100 is $2/$3 blinds. NL 200 is $3/$5 blinds. I have played many hours with these buy ins. I'm now going to play online with the same type of buy in to hone my B&M game.

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

Short-stacking certainly is a strategy though. It is a strategy that hinges on denying better players the ability to use their post-flop weapons and is very effective if you fail to adjust as a big-stack to their play. You said it yourself, you play poker to play pre-flop, flop, turn, and river. Your opponent knows this and actively denies your ability thus.

And even if you adjust, the short-stack still has people less aware wielding their stacks like indiscriminate mallets. It is something that, while not optimal, utilizes their pre-flop hand selection skills to their best and minimizes your edge.

Also, it plays well in a mixed format. I often play my primary site full-stacked and play tighter sites (i.e. Full Tilt) short-stacked so that I don't have to outplay them. I mix it up.

My wife though, she is not so good as I am. Her recent introduction to short-stack play is a good jumping point to stronger play.

And lastly, as many have already pointed out, 100BB isn't particularly deep (yeah, Absolute has 200BB max apparently, but I don't play there).

[ClubChamp04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

[/ QUOTE ]


IMO, real poker is about putting your opponents on a range of hands and forcing them to multiple decisions throughout the hand that could cost them a full stack +. Short stackers wet their pants at the thought of playing postflop with good players b/c they simply don't have the ability. It might be profitable for some players to SS but don't you guys feel disgusted in yourselves, like someone who couldn't hack it in the "real world"--->failures? I mean, instead of dropping down in levels and maybe playing with your caliber of player, you buy in for a worthless amount, play with players way over your head, ruin the games and piss me off.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not so much hate as disgust. Short buy ins are cowardly. They are an admission that the player is incapable of play before after the flop. Denying his opponents the odds to play beyond the flop, he essentially turns poker into a game of blackjack. It's annoying to play a short stack. I sit down to play poker, preflop, flop, turn and river. Johnny shortstack plays one street poker. And I adjust to him. But it's dull adjusting to him. And shortstack play is not a 'strategy'. It's strategy free poker. In closing, the hate probably comes in when a short stack doubles and leaves the table immediately after, afraid to play real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this whole comment is just silly. You say it is not skilled to offer your opponents bad odds to chase you down? How much sense does that make? And what do you mean by "real" poker? Poker where one lets people take advantage of them?

[/ QUOTE ]


IMO, real poker is about putting your opponents on a range of hands and forcing them to multiple decisions throughout the hand that could cost them a full stack +. Short stackers wet their pants at the thought of playing postflop with good players b/c they simply don't have the ability. It might be profitable for some players to SS but don't you guys feel disgusted in yourselves, like someone who couldn't hack it in the "real world"--->failures? I mean, instead of dropping down in levels and maybe playing with your caliber of player, you buy in for a worthless amount, play with players way over your head, ruin the games and piss me off.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a seriously funny post. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Hint: There may be a reason why sser's turn chat off. They don't care what you think and aren't going to listen to your abuse. Meanwhile, they continue accepting the money you reluctantly give them.

[dogmeat]

Interesting to read that my stack size, if small, ruins your games, your fun, and makes me an idiot. Guess I better stop playing for a living now - since I haven't had a job since Sept. '02 and must not know what I am doing.

Guess I'll sell my cars, and the house, [censored] - I really thought poker was about playing my hand/mood/table presence against the other players and their stacks, regardless of how much I or they have in front of them.

In tournaments, maybe they could make a rule that if you get down to half the average size stack, you have to quit.

Maybe in cash games they can make a rule that if you get to double the average buy-in you have to quit - because really, those guys that have big stacks and keep raising and stealing the small pots are ruining the game.

How about every game has a buy in of 50bb and whenever you get below that, you automatically rebuy to 50bb, and if you win a pot, your stack is automatically readjusted down to 50bb with the extra going to your online bankroll? Whould that make you happy,or would it make you realize how silly your argument is?

Or,

You could accept that every game, every person, every day, is different, and you have to adjust your play to win.

Lets see how many of you whinners are here in another year..............

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Dire]

lol.. making a living short stacking? That's the funniest [censored] I've read. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Nsight7]

If you are short stacking loose $200 games and have enough tables open, you could definitely make a living off of it. I don't see what is funny about it?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are short stacking loose $200 games and have enough tables open, you could definitely make a living off of it. I don't see what is funny about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with that. I was laughing for other reasons.

1. Short stacking sends your variance through the roof.

2. Short stacking is a means of beating limits you are not otherwise sufficiently skilled (or bankrolled) to beat, without making an attempt to gain said skills to beat the limit. This should never be the case for a pro.

3. Short stacks can never compare to the earn rate of a full stack. Again, somebody who plays for a living would never intentionally retard their own earn rate.


You 'could' earn a living short stacking, but again.. lol if you decide to.

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Short stacking sends your variance through the roof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PLEASE TELL ME TODAY IS OPPOSITE DAY