Short Stacking vs Full Buy-Ins

[redbeard]

Just wanted to say this is a great idea for a forum. It is nice to see some of the old names who's ideas and thoughts I trust. It is hard to know who to trust and who is full of it without seeing many posts over a long period of time. I had a pretty good idea in the limit forums after nearly three years over there. Anyway, on to my reason for posting this:

I moved over to NL in July and of course immediately got the Professional No Limit Hold'em book by Flynn, Mehta, and Miller. They had some very unique concepts that I hadn't heard discussed in my other forms of training for NL. Basically, the authors advocate short stacking to help make top pair type hands easier to play post flop. I've instituted the change to short stacking and had slightly better results. This may be due to a natural learning curve and could have occured by staying at full stack buy-ins too for all I know. One thing for sure though is that short stacking reduces variance. I imagine it also reduces your win rate some as well. What I would like to get comments on is what everyone here thinks of the idea of short stacking. Is the reduced variance worth the reduced earnings? Would it allow me to move up to the next level at a lower bankroll requirement? I realize it might be difficult to speculate on that without exact numbers as to my win rate, but I also don't think my sample size is quite relavant just yet. In two months I've played close to 75K hands -- at limit this wouldn't be a large enough sample size to discuss so I'll exclude it here, hoping for a more generic discussion of short stacking vs the traditional full buy-in.

Here is a link to the discussion of the ideas in the book and many responses from the authors themselves. My post in that thread is on 7/27/2007 at 3:13am. Matt Flynn replied to my question that same day at 12:49pm.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

Let me know what you guys think.

[WordWhiz]

As much as I hate short stackers, if it's working for you, go for it. It's mathematically unexploitable in many respects, so you should be able to win rather handily. Another plus is that you don't have to table select at all. But keep in mind you are sacrificing profit to do it. I always play deep, but have toyed with the idea of shorting the bigger games.

[redbeard]

thanks for the reply WordWhiz.

[diebitter]

Shortstacking is not a low-variance activity. It is unexploitably profitable if adhered to though.

EDIT: I answered this with min buyins in mind (20BB).

I realised you may have meant buying in at 40BB-60BB, in which case yes it is indeed good for top pair type hands but sucks a bit for drawing hands if you're raised. I should imagine this combined with TAG play (where you fold down SCs and Axs except from good position and in cheap) is pretty solid.

100BB would be better for more experienced players, especially lags.

[nomdeplume]

diebitter,

I read the advice in PNLHV1 for beginners to play with 40-60 big blinds, and only play top pair type hands unless you can get in for one bet in late position with good implied odds. But I'm not sure what they mean by 'top pair hands', particularly when applied to six max games.

For example, if you apply the short stack starting hands in GSIH but assume the first four positions have folded, then you'd be playing as follows:

UTG/MP: 99+, AQ+
CO/Btn: 77+, AT+, KQ
(Also play any pair, any suited broadway and any Axs after a couple of deep limpers in CO or Btn).

I assume in the blinds you'd play as for UTG/MP?

However, this seems to me to be WAY too tight for most six max games, and probably exploitable by good players.

I'm just wondering what kind of hands will be profitable to play with a 40-60 big blind stack in a typical online 6 max game? Should I still be stealing with anything on the button/isolating weak limpers with anything reasonable/restealing from TAGs?

From what I understand about short stacking I probably shouldn't, but then I'm unsure 'how low to go' in terms of top pair hands. Is playing this nitty really likely to be profitable in six max games, given that I'm folding my blinds most of the time?

Any advice? Thanks

[diebitter]

Sorry, I don't think I can help you, I'm an FR player. Off the top of my head though, I'd imagine any cards Ten and above are good from the button.

[redbeard]

according to what i got from the thread i linked in my earlier post, the authors definately advocated stealing from the button and co. my 6 max stats are 17% vpip, 13% pfr, 28% ats, and 26% went to sd. i buy in at 40 big blinds and then do pretty much what you said regarding your starting hands. as for stealing to give you an idea i steal on button with: 22+, Ax, Kxs, K9o, Q8s, QTo, J7s, J9o, T9s-43s, T9o, 98o, T8s-53s.

so you can see that is a pretty wide stealing range. in fact, i seem to remember the authors saying that stealing equity superseeds everything else and if you are confident it is a profitable play to steal then do that before considering stack-to-pot ratios. the nice thing about it though is that say for instance you are in a 1/2 game with a $80 stack, your standard raise for most people in the game will be $6 to $8. this fits perfectly for top pair hands to generate a stack-to-pot ratio of 4 if you get only one caller and less if you get multiple callers. top pair hands love this. when you steal you can still make this standard raise and no opponent will be able to exploit it as your hand is played just as a top pair hand would.

[nomdeplume]

redbeard, thanks for the clarification.

So what you're saying is that if you perceive your steal equity to be signficant, then steal despite your short stack size? Ok, that sounds very reasonable to me.

But I'm still confused as to how your VPIP is 17% if you're playing so tightly off the button? You're only playing about 5% of your hands in the first two positions, and about double that on in the CO. Also you're only reraising (if you're following Ed Miller's advice) with TT+ and AK, so the actual percentage of hands you'll play will be smaller.

Are you also isolating weak limpers with a wide range/restealing with a wide range? Or are you opening lighter than the above guidelines I mentioned?

Also, what if it's folded to you in the small blind? With larger stacks I'd often raise a tight player's BB with anything I'd raise on the button, and sometimes even more than that. Are you doing this also? Similarly if you're in the BB and the SB open limps, are you stealing here? If this is the case then maybe that's what bumps up your VPIP and PFR%?

Thinking it through, I certainly make a good deal of profit in low limit 100BB games from cbetting nitty opponents. I kind of always assumed that with a smaller stack they wouldn't show me as much respect, but maybe I'm wrong about this. I wonder how well this would work in bigger games?

[redbeard]

Hey nom I think my vpip is higher b/c i open raise more w/my pp in early position. Maybe that is wrong. But I raise 55+ UTG and in MP. Then I raise any pair any pair in co and button. I pretty much steal with the same hands in sb as I use on the button and I defend vigerously in bb vs a sb open steal (i.e. I reraise alot of hands in bb vs a sb open raise such as Ax, KTo+, 22+). I also limp with more than one limper before me with any A2s-A9s, K9s+, any suited zero gap connectors and pp 22-88.

Please don't take my starting hands as the gospel for short stackers. I'm a novice to this and got my starting hand strategy from a very good high limit full stack player so maybe I need to amend my strategy is some places. Please let me know if you think so. I'd actually like to find or start a good discussion of preflop play for short stacking so if anyone wants to continue it in this thread or start another one please do I'll put forth my 2 cents worth and would love to hear others.

[nomdeplume]

Thanks rb, I think I'm beginning to understand now. Believe me I'm no expert on shortstacking either, and like you I'd be very interested to hear an experienced shortstacker's thoughts on this.

I'm beginning to think that shortstacking, although obviously easier in some respects than playing with a deeper stack, is not actually quite as simple as it's sometimes painted. If this is the case I wonder if the payoff is worthwhile? Maybe it's just better to take a little more time to learn how to play the game 'properly'?

It may be a good idea to begin a new post about this and direct it towards the authors of the book.

Cheers