short stack strategy = high variance?

[Tomatoes]

Been experimenting with short stack play recently. Thought I'd get my feet wet at the micro stakes level first. Not going well; yesterday my all-ins with KK got beaten 6 times by hands like 77 (once by AA). Aside from the fact that I find this short stack strategy incredibly boring I'm getting called way too often...probably too be expected at these stakes, but that's why I'm posting in the small stakes section. Can I expect more of the same at small stakes (and above)? Slotboom says he made a lot of money using this strategy; any of you have that experience? If so, what's the best buy-in size and hand selection to use? And back to my "subject" question; does this strategy mean high bankroll variance regardless of the stakes?

[mikechops]

It means low win-rate. If you are making 10PTBB/100, variance ain't that big of a deal. If you grind out 2PTBB/100, then it is more important.

[Vammakala]

Obv you lose parts of your stack a lot. But notice that you can lose 5 all-ins (not sure how low stack we're talkin' here but I assume 20 BB) and only be down 1 buy-in. Obv, you'll be doing a lot of 70-30, 60-40 situations so variance will obviously be higher as well as you can't exploit the bigger edges postflop.

I'd imagine that once players get a bit better, they won't call you down too light so the variance will go up even more. Low stakes you have people calling you with hands drawing to 10% or so. And if your all-ins get beaten when you're ahead to begin with - I don't see the problem.

And I'm fairly certain that all you get is hate from this forum if you wanna learn some short-stack ninja rathole strats. It's no skill => it's easy and it's annoying. What's wrong with learning to play for real? ;D

[MyTurn2Raise]

slotboom's strategy is for PLO games. It doesn't work at any significant level of NLH as there are not enough multi-way pots and players willing to commit 18BB+ without the goods.

With alot of work, you can make 1BB/100. I suggest set-mining instead.