1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.

[facepull]

there was a post i made earlier about whether or not i wanted to pit my bankroll against a 1-2 no-capped game. with some thinking and some practice with a 100bb stack versus some much bigger stacks i have been able to adjust my play. most of the things i was worried about were things i shoudnt really be worried about. plus if i chose i could stick to the perfect short stack strategy. beau rivage here i come.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I mostly enjoy poker because I like being good at it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I like having to make big decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're doomed to be disappointed one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you don't really understand what I'm talking about, or don't understand poker.

For example I consider hands like QTs or pocket 9s hands that require you to make some tough decisions, but are also very profitable for good players. These are hands that I am less likely to play (or at least play them very differently) when I'm against strong players.

[AKQJ10]

Oh, the way you punish the short stacks is by setting them all-in when they raise you. Because they're only playing short-stacked because they're pussies, so of course they'll fold to an all-in bet.

Or alternatively, when it turns out they know what they're doing and are delighted to call the push with something like tens or jacks (or better) and you turn over king-nine-suited, their punishment is having to stack those chips that the dealer keeps pushing them.

Like I said, nothing ever changes on this forum, no matter how much time passes.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, good to see that you're back. Nobody's posted a link to the poker wiki for a couple of months. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Not true, though. Ottsville linked it in the Beginners' FAQ. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I have a hard time managing my time on here. At times it's better to just not get involved here because then I get in the obsessive cycle of trying to read everything posted.

[facepull]

lucky for me i can play short or big stack. not many people have mentioned about what happens when you win a pot playing the short stack strategy and now are a medium stack . someone using perfect short stack strategy cant lose but how much could the player win? i prefer the nice number of 100bb to play. thats why i have to get a friggen copy of pro no-limit poker.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, the way you punish the short stacks is by setting them all-in when they raise you. Because they're only playing short-stacked because they're pussies, so of course they'll fold to an all-in bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can punish that way, you just don't need more chips than them to do it.

[Pov]

I think the bad players are more likely to call a big stack push precisely because it looks like bullying to them. If another $100 stack pushes all-in then ZOMG they must have a big hand to risk their whole stack!

Actually, I don't really believe that either. If a bad player is going to call a bet, they're going to call a bet. The size of the stack that made the bet is <5% of the decision if that. Bad players play their hand and stop thinking (if they ever started).

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
If a bad player is going to call a bet, they're going to call a bet. The size of the stack that made the bet is <5% of the decision if that. Bad players play their hand and stop thinking (if they ever started).

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been avoiding the whole silly argument, but this statement is so freaking true it bears repeating.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
if i chose to play short stack style i really really doubt you could punish me unless you get major lucky. you never really explained yet how you punish these short stacks yet. also you were the first to insult another poster. i guess you csant take down the same medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did explain it; please go back and read it.

I'm well aware of the advantages of a short stack, in the hands of a player who knows what he's doing (such as you, quite possibly). The point is that's not the majority of these players, and they play their short stacks like blackjack bets (flat calls, weak) or the wheel of fortune (hope for that lucky ace). Then they rebuy for another $50. It's not very hard to tell who is who. It's very easy to roll them as I described.

Also, the first insult came from jeff, in his first rude reply. A man knows an insult when he sees it. Be honest with yourself.

[Fishhead24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a $10-15 win rate(1/2NL 100

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, a slightly below average player will lose money (and quite a bit of it). [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, at $4 rake and 30 hands per hour, an average player is losing $12 an hour. A slightly below average player loses $15 an hour, not wins $15 an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I called myself "slightly below average" because that is the overall level of player I believe I am. I have very few doubts I can continue to make 10-15+ at 1/2 NL 100 max Live in South FL and as I improve perhaps more. I am a winning 25NL player(75k hands) and a losing 50NL player(5k hands)(on pokerstars 6max) also a loser at MTT's overall, this is where I base my opinion of my level of play. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
My stratagy is play pretty nitty, I limp alot on BTN and CO with hands like 79s 89os J7s, I try to limp with any pair 88 and under in most spots and look for a set. I bet big pairs heavy enough to not give any sets odds at all to the callers(while i'm at my 100 stack). I play AK, AQ, AJ suited or not, KQs 99 TT very carefully, I do not overplay these cards OOP. Once I stack up to 200+ I try to play a more TAG game, but forget stealing blinds 95% of the time, because they will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your a "slightly below average" player and you plan on making $15 an hour in Florida cash games????????????

First off, how many NO LIMIT holdem players in Florida do you believe are going to have produced a winning amount of over $10 an hour after 500+ hours of play? The percentage is going to be considerably low.