Huge deviation from optimal strategy

[InTheDark]

I'm still bumping around in the dark in my regular game, $2-5 NL with a fixed $100 buy in. I'm trying to find the sweet spot in a mostly short stacked game and to date I believe very tight is best early, a few speculative limps late and a lot of big pre-flop plays with hands such as AK, AQs, TT. It works for me, ~6 big blinds/hour over the last 3 months (400 hours).

I've recently observed the play of a new (pro) player that is contrary to my theory in most every way. He plays 85% of all limp pots and will almost always make the 3rd overcall of modest pre-flop raises. He's very active. He's also stunningly successful, maybe 20 BBs/hr over the 15 hours I've seen. His strength is player reads.

I know I'll get his chips on average, he's feeding on the fish, not me but I'm wondering how much of my short sample is variance and how much expert player reading can add to one's win rate?

[GeeBeeQED]

Wow, $100max? This forces you to play essentially a tourny style all the time. Consider the long term impact this frankenstien game is going to have on your game. If how you need to play in this game becomes a regular habit, when you find a real game your going to be in real trouble. I wouldn't play in this game "regularly" at all. I might buy in once or twice a year for the novelty and to stay welcome in the game (I presume it's private) but that's about it. This is a micro stack, It's not mostly short, it's completely short, almost nothing. Look for games where the buy in is 100X the BB. This is normal, anything less, anything at all is short and to be avoided.

Dave

[wtfsvi]

It's all variance. He's a fish.

[ev_slave]

if you play 40-50 hands/hour, you've only played 1600-2000 hands, over which ANYTHING could be happening. You could be a winning player, or you could be a losing player running well. There's simply no real way to know.

But I'm confused about your post. Are you calling your strategy optimal and so his is not? Is his optimal and yours is not? I'm not really certain what you're after with your post, but it's worthwhile to remember that profitable is not the same as optimal.

At any rate, it sounds like you're playing essentially Ed Miller's Short Stack Strategy from Getting Started in Hold 'em. If you're not, I'd get that book and read that section. He discusses precisely why you would want to play like that, acknowledges disadvantages, etc.

[JustCuz]

First, I am assuming that all are permitted to reload that $100 buy-in as many times as they like. Otherwise, this would be more of a tourney than a cash game. But, if reloads are permitted (as they should be in a cash game), then it's short-stack poker for sure.

That said, I don't mean to oversimply an analysis of your query, but it seems to be that the new player is simply running over the table. The rest of the players, whom I assume are regulars at the game, may have settled into niches in their styles based on the collective play of a bunch of people they sit down with night after night. If this is the case, then the new maniac comes in and disrupts that comfortable collective; he's adopted a loose aggressive style to take scared money. If he's a pro, $100 is nothing to him to bluff off, especially if the rest of you guys are letting him get away with it. $100 bets are quite common in many of the $1/$2 games I frequent, so this "pro" likely willing to move all in every hand plays.

[Gonso]

There's no way a guy limping in 85% of pots in a 20bb max BI game is going to win long term, against pretty much anyone. I mean preflop 3-bets are probably all-ins more often than not, and the players after him should be raping his little limps. Everything is shortstack strategy here.

I imagine reading the Miller GSIHE book will make you a decent winner in this game long-term.