SSNL Who Hates to Play w/ Short Stacks?

[MrMxyztplk]

A lot of people in SSNL seem to hate playing at tables with more than 1 or 2 short stacks. (Let's say we're playing 6-handed.) I was wondering if people could give me arguments for and against playing in short stack-filled tables.

Personnally, I find them uber-profitable. Here's some of my reasoning (all these are applied to SSNL ONLY!):

-I find the size of the stack often dictates the strength of the opponent: those beyond or hovering around 1 buy-in are generally strong, and those below are often week, the reason being that strong players will reload to keep their stack as big as possible. Yes, occasionally a weak player will double up a few times sucessively and end up with 1.5-2 buy-ins, but it doesn't happen often enough IMO. So tables where everyone is nicely stacked tend to be tight and tougher, while short stacked tables are loose and easy.

-Although you can't make all that much swallowing a small stack, the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players. So while winning a 30BB stack from a short stack may not be very much, the effort you had to put into getting it is so low and risk free as to make it better. (And by risk-free, I mean stacking someone who is willing to push with QJ or even Q2 when he hits TP. It doesn't get much more risk-free than that in this game.)

There's much more to say on either side, of course, but I'll leave that to others...

[oyvindgee]

You make money off your opponents mistakes. It's really hard to make any big mistakes preflop with a short stack and with 30BBs, the only decisions are done preflop and on the flop. With 100BBs+ you get to play the turn and river as well which are harder streets to play and tends to yield more expensive mistakes.

In addition to that, playing with short stacks are boring cause I can't play stuff like 64s.

[MrMxyztplk]

[ QUOTE ]
With 100BBs+ you get to play the turn and river as well which are harder streets to play and tends to yield more expensive mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but in truth, since none of us generally dominates his/her respective level, we are almost as liable to make those late street mistakes as our opponents (since, as I said, deeper stacked opponents are rarely complete idiots).

[ QUOTE ]
It's really hard to make any big mistakes preflop with a short stack and with 30BBs, the only decisions are done preflop and on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against these short stack weakies, I totally disagree. They push with hands like KJ and 44. And I'm sure I don't have to tell you that Q7o is sometimes in their range. AQ is pretty much the nuts preflop to them (well, to those who aren't short stacks nits, anyway). These are fairly big preflop mistakes that yield pretty good expectations.
But, of course, not all the short stacks are that wild. For those that are more conservative PF, there is still profit to be made on the flop. In fact, I think they make even bigger flop mistakes: for example, they often push with any decent piece of a flop in a PF raised pot.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to that, playing with short stacks are boring cause I can't play stuff like 64s.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point.

[alanbrown]

Sklansky and Miller have a section on small stack play and how you have an edge at a large stack table. Boiling down the argument it goes that you are ignored by bigger stacks who keep banging on each other after you're all in. Often one of them is forced to fold and the folder sometimes has the best hand. In that case you are getting 2 peoples money while only having to beat the weaker of them.

As you point out, it's also easier to play.

[riverruss]

"the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players"

Ive played short stack $100 NL over 150,000 + hands at 5bb/100 hands,NICE TO KNOW I BELONG IN THE GUTTER!!

[oyvindgee]

[ QUOTE ]
"the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players"

Ive played short stack $100 NL over 150,000 + hands at 5bb/100 hands,NICE TO KNOW I BELONG IN THE GUTTER!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The you are probably okay, but you are still an idiot for ruining the games. And at NL100 5PTBB is far less than what can be achieved by actually playing poker.

[jmillerdls]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players"

Ive played short stack $100 NL over 150,000 + hands at 5bb/100 hands,NICE TO KNOW I BELONG IN THE GUTTER!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The you are probably okay, but you are still an idiot for ruining the games. And at NL100 5PTBB is far less than what can be achieved by actually playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, not if he isn't any good at playing deep stacked poker...or at least not better than the other NL100 players.

He isn't ruining the game. If you don't like them, that probably means they are doing something right. Playing with and against a short stack requires a change in strategy...those who ignore this, get punished. Those are also typically the people that hate short stacks.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I think they make even bigger flop mistakes: for example, they often push with any decent piece of a flop in a PF raised pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on the situation, that's not necessarily a mistake. Even the example cited earlier of pushing TPQ JK might not be a mistake.

[labrat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players"

Ive played short stack $100 NL over 150,000 + hands at 5bb/100 hands,NICE TO KNOW I BELONG IN THE GUTTER!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The you are probably okay, but you are still an idiot for ruining the games. And at NL100 5PTBB is far less than what can be achieved by actually playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, not if he isn't any good at playing deep stacked poker...or at least not better than the other NL100 players.

He isn't ruining the game. If you don't like them, that probably means they are doing something right. Playing with and against a short stack requires a change in strategy...those who ignore this, get punished. Those are also typically the people that hate short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont like short stacks because I dont like to play short stack poker, and they force me to.

If there were no 6max tables then Id have to play full ring, which I dont want to do either.

Personally, I dont see why they cant have have minimum buy in tables either, because it changes the game a whole lot just like fr->6max does.

I suppose its a business thing as if they restrict short stacks then some of those who would have played short wont play, but allowing shorties is unlikely to put off deep stacked players (especially if they keep playing bad!) which means less rake for the poker room.

[oyvindgee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"the kinds of players who play with them are terrible. I mean, they're the gutter of poker players"

Ive played short stack $100 NL over 150,000 + hands at 5bb/100 hands,NICE TO KNOW I BELONG IN THE GUTTER!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The you are probably okay, but you are still an idiot for ruining the games. And at NL100 5PTBB is far less than what can be achieved by actually playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, not if he isn't any good at playing deep stacked poker...or at least not better than the other NL100 players.

He isn't ruining the game. If you don't like them, that probably means they are doing something right. Playing with and against a short stack requires a change in strategy...those who ignore this, get punished. Those are also typically the people that hate short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The shorter the stacks, the smaller potensial profit for everyone around the table. Think about a game where everyone have 5BBs, not even Phil Ivey would beat the rake. The same principle is true with somewhat bigger stacks of 25Bs or whatever, just to a smaller extent.

I understand that it is within the rules, but I absolutely hate them nonetheless.