Absolute player. Anyone got info on this angle shooter [Archive]

pzhon

03-26-2005, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It just means he will bust out on any bad hand he plays, but can't get full value from a good one. He is taking implied odds out of the equation. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, it is an advantage to be short-stacked. Though you don't get to make value bets on the river if you are all-in, you don't have to pay anything to call down, and you can't be charged sufficiently for staying in with a weak hand.

This is particularly serious in a loose 7 card stud game. One angle shooter kept buying in for the minimum so he could be all-in by 4th or 5th street. I quit the game, since this was too much of an advantage. The reason you fold bad hands in stud is that you would be charged repeatedly on later streets by good hands and good draws. Few hands are huge favorites over others in early streets, so this player would almost always put in less money than his pot equity once he was all in and several players had been knocked out.

Some players on NL Hold'em tables at Absolute take money off the table. I think they do this because they don't know how to play with deep stacks. Again, it is an advantage to be short-stacked. It is even more of an advantage if your opponents are playing a deep game, raising and calling raises with suited connectors and low pairs, while you have a very short stack and can play hands like KJo, and push with TPGK on a drawish board.

radek2166

03-26-2005, 10:04 AM

Anything that can be done about this?

sourbeaver

03-26-2005, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anything that can be done about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't play in that particular game.
It is a simple strategy (that works) and they are 100% entitled to using it.

Overdrive

03-26-2005, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just means he will bust out on any bad hand he plays, but can't get full value from a good one. He is taking implied odds out of the equation. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, it is an advantage to be short-stacked. Though you don't get to make value bets on the river if you are all-in, you don't have to pay anything to call down, and you can't be charged sufficiently for staying in with a weak hand.

This is particularly serious in a loose 7 card stud game. One angle shooter kept buying in for the minimum so he could be all-in by 4th or 5th street. I quit the game, since this was too much of an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen several players doing this while I was clearing bonuses at Pokerooms 1/2 stud game. At pokerroom you can buy in for .10 cents which is the ante for their 1/2 stud game. So people will just continually buy in for .10 as their whole bankroll and get to see each hand all the way to 7th street for only .10 cents. I e-mailed Pokeroom about this months ago, but they apparently are not concerned about this rampant cheating on their 1/2 7 card stud game. When it happens when I am there I will either change tables, or I will just start doing the same thing the angle shooter is doing and start buying in for .10 for each hand and go all the way to 7th street for my .10. They usually just leave when they realize I am doing it too, or even funnier they start chatting and calling me names and all that...

I wish Pokeroom would fix this, but I guess they don't care.

radek2166

03-26-2005, 10:54 AM

I sent an e-mail to CS to see if their is anything to be done about this here's the reply

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Customer;

Thank you for letting us know about this.
I will forward this to our Poker Room Management department and make sure they do something about
this.

Thanks for playing at Absolute Poker! If there is anything else we can help you with, please let
us know. We're here for you!

Sincerely,

Kyoko
Team Absolute ~ Customer Support
"Continuing to be the Best and Most Trusted"
Support@AbsolutePoker.com

[/ QUOTE ]

splashpot

03-26-2005, 11:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, it is an advantage to be short-stacked. Though you don't get to make value bets on the river if you are all-in, you don't have to pay anything to call down, and you can't be charged sufficiently for staying in with a weak hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it may be advantageous to be short stacked when you have a drawing hand. But there are many other situations where you lose a lot by not being able to punish other players from drawing out on you. For example, you go all in with top two pair, but the flush draw pays an extremely small price to see the turn and river card. Are you implying that when you play short stacked, you only play drawing hands? I can't see this being a winning play.

KingDan

03-26-2005, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is particularly serious in a loose 7 card stud game. One angle shooter kept buying in for the minimum so he could be all-in by 4th or 5th street. I quit the game, since this was too much of an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen several players doing this while I was clearing bonuses at Pokerooms 1/2 stud game. At pokerroom you can buy in for .10 cents which is the ante for their 1/2 stud game. So people will just continually buy in for .10 as their whole bankroll and get to see each hand all the way to 7th street for only .10 cents. I e-mailed Pokeroom about this months ago, but they apparently are not concerned about this rampant cheating on their 1/2 7 card stud game. When it happens when I am there I will either change tables, or I will just start doing the same thing the angle shooter is doing and start buying in for .10 for each hand and go all the way to 7th street for my .10. They usually just leave when they realize I am doing it too, or even funnier they start chatting and calling me names and all that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing these 3 tables at a time might be a good way to clear pokerroom bonuses. Most 7 stud hands are raked.

EjnarPik

03-26-2005, 11:44 AM

Not really.

"Boxing" some money, as we call it in denmark, can only be good tactics for a losing player. Of course in a single hand, a short stack can be beneficial, but as a strategy, it cannot be right for a winning player.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

pzhon

03-26-2005, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that when you play short stacked, you only play drawing hands? I can't see this being a winning play.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you have AA, or hit the flop really hard, you will regret being short-stacked. However, it is far more common to have a hand that is not a monster, but which possesses some winning chances because it might be best, and it might improve, e.g., when you have 87 on a Q76 board. You could easily have the best hand, and you might improve to two pair, trips, or a straight. In these more common situations, it would be a relief to be all-in after the flop. These effects roughly cancel.

A normal opponent with 87 on that flop would not fear bets from you on the turn and river, but that opponent has to deal with other players who might bet. So, when you bet all-in on the Q76 flop and someone with 87 is not last to act, they may fold, though they would like to call just you.

The net effect favors a short stack.

splashpot

03-26-2005, 12:29 PM

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with almost everything you just wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have AA, or hit the flop really hard, you will regret being short-stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, that was the point of my post.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is far more common to have a hand that is not a monster, but which possesses some winning chances because it might be best, and it might improve, e.g., when you have 87 on a Q76 board. You could easily have the best hand, and you might improve to two pair, trips, or a straight. In these more common situations, it would be a relief to be all-in after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

True it could be profitable to be all in after the flop. For example you have a flush draw on the flop. Chances to hit are about 1/3 and you are getting 4-1 pot odds. If you are all in, it is clear that you make a profit. However, you can make even more profit when you continue to get good odds on 4th street. Obviously if you don't hit on 5th street, you will fold, losing no more bets. But when you do hit, at most loose tables online, you'll be paid off on the river. Passing up these value bets is very costly.

[ QUOTE ]
These effects roughly cancel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The vast majority of players online are loose passive. You will find many many more calling stations than tight aggressives. This means that by you will be faced with the situation of having a calling station call down your value bets far more often than you will be punished for having a drawing hand. Sure every once in a while you'll pay someone off for not hitting your draw, but every time the loosies call you with middle pair, thats an extra few bets in your pocket. The latter happens far more often.

[ QUOTE ]
A normal opponent with 87 on that flop would not fear bets from you on the turn and river, but that opponent has to deal with other players who might bet. So, when you bet all-in on the Q76 flop and someone with 87 is not last to act, they may fold, though they would like to call just you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different from not being all in? The player with 87 would still have to face the decision of calling with others to act behind him.

[ QUOTE ]
The net effect favors a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't emphasize enough how much you lose by not getting calling stations to call you down to the river. This more than overcomes the price you pay for drawing hands.

radek2166

03-26-2005, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, it is an advantage to be short-stacked. Though you don't get to make value bets on the river if you are all-in, you don't have to pay anything to call down, and you can't be charged sufficiently for staying in with a weak hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it may be advantageous to be short stacked when you have a drawing hand. But there are many other situations where you lose a lot by not being able to punish other players from drawing out on you. For example, you go all in with top two pair, but the flush draw pays an extremely small price to see the turn and river card. Are you implying that when you play short stacked, you only play drawing hands? I can't see this being a winning play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this hurts more than helps. I just found it disturbing that he could come right back after sucking out on some guy winning a 100 dollar pot and comeing right back for the table minimum. Thats all. I love when people buy in short.

flair1239

03-26-2005, 12:56 PM

He is a fish. Plays major league loose.
And yes he is an angle shooter.

A couple weeks ago he did a disconnect abuse with me when he had pocket aces and the board became a three-flush.

But he is such a terrible player that it does not matter.

radek2166

03-26-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He is a fish. Plays major league loose.
And yes he is an angle shooter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I poted his name for a heads up to you guys.

I know on interpoker if youleave and comeback you are forced to play with what you left the table with for 30 minutes.

benfranklin

03-26-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"Boxing" some money, as we call it in denmark, can only be good tactics for a losing player. Of course in a single hand, a short stack can be beneficial, but as a strategy, it cannot be right for a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly true for holdem, but may vary for other games. With a short stack, you are basically turning HE, which is a post-flop game, into a pre-flop game. This strategy is really a legal (within the rules) way to disconnection with protection whenever you want. So this might be a good strategy for someone who doesn't know how to play post-flop. You are limiting your downside, since you can't be outplayed post-flop. But you are also limiting your upside, since you can't outplay anyone post-flop.

Since the profits at holdem come from aggressive post-flop play, the strategy should be a net loser in theory. In practice, it seeems to me that it turns into literally a crap game. The game has a small -EV, but if you get hot, you can score a big win. If you do't know how to play post-flop, the -EV here is less than the big -EV of playing with a full stack.

And don't forget the psychological edge this strategy gives you. It is obvious just from this thread that playing this way has a good chance of putting your opponents on tilt.

This strategy might be more workable for a game like Omaha/8. O8 is much more of a pre-flop game than holdem. This would protect you against getting quartered with the nut low when the idiot with the other nut low starts jamming the pot.

But in either case, I'd prefer to know how to play the game, and to have the stack to maximize my profits when I catch a hand.

StellarWind

03-26-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, it is an advantage to be short-stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
This can be true at forms of poker such as stud that are played for an ante. Suppose you have N opponents and you go all-in for exactly the ante amount. You are getting N-1 odds on your all-in bet and would breakeven if everyone played their hands to showdown. You actually have a large edge because the eventual best hand will often be forced out before showdown by bets from other players.

I was going to finish my post by observing that none of the foregoing works at hold'em played with a blind structure. Only the best starting hands will call your all-in big blind and you will have much the worst of it.

Then I realized that there is a way to make this pay at hold'me:

1. Buy in for 1 SB and post the big blind all-in.

2. Rebuy a normal stack while the BB is played out.

3. Play normal good poker for the rest of the orbit.

4. Change tables and repeat.

This strategy should reduce the -EV of playing the BB by: 1) protecting your free plays from preflop raises 2) negating your bad position and 3) eliminating the negative implied odds of junky flops. The rest of the orbit you only play good hands so you want to be free to fully exploit them by betting.

As long as the minimum buy-in is 5 BB (is it?) this strategy should not exist in practice. But it does show why the minimum buy-in rule is necessary.

Your Mom

03-26-2005, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything that can be done about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't play in that particular game.
It is a simple strategy (that works) and they are 100% entitled to using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. This should not be allowed. Some sites (I know Gaming Club, for sure) prevent this kind of crap.

pzhon

03-26-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[Sometimes you want to be able to bet. Sometimes you are glad you don't have to call.] These effects roughly cancel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is clearly correct, in theory. If you everyone were just as shortstacked as you, the game would be symmetric, hence even.

You can ignore the part of people's stacks greater than yours if you choose. However, the other players can't afford to play that way, so they have to play suboptimally from your perspective.

Imagine you have KJ and a short stack. You are ignoring the size of the stacks beyond yours. You raise preflop. You bet all-in on the KJ8 flop. Two players call all-in with A9 and JT. An ace comes on the turn. The opponent with JT, who was all-in, suddenly folds. What a bad play! Then a Q comes on the river, and your two pair wins. That's too bad for the player with JT, who would have hit a gutshot straight.

What really happened was that there was a bet on the turn, and the player with JT folded, correctly or not. You won a pot that you wouldn't win if everyone were shortstacked. If everyone were shortstacked, the game would be even, but unequal depths favor the short stacks.

[ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of players online are loose passive...

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine, people don't play optimally. Maybe you can exploit them more if you don't have a short stack. However, given players of equal skill, it is an advantage to have a short stack. That's why buying in short is angle-shooting. It's not necessarily optimal for a good player.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A normal opponent with 87 on that flop would not fear bets from you on the turn and river, but that opponent has to deal with other players who might bet. So, when you bet all-in on the Q76 flop and someone with 87 is not last to act, they may fold, though they would like to call just you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different from not being all in? The player with 87 would still have to face the decision of calling with others to act behind him.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was my point. Your opponent folds because he does not get to be all-in. That is a bad play to try to take your money, so you gain. You can act optimally to take their money up to your stack depth. They shouldn't act optimally to take your money.

Maintaining a very short stack is angle-shooting.

splashpot

03-26-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[Sometimes you want to be able to bet. Sometimes you are glad you don't have to call.] These effects roughly cancel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is clearly correct, in theory. If you everyone were just as shortstacked as you, the game would be symmetric, hence even.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be correct if both opportunities happened an equal number of times. Of course this is all dependant on what limits you are playing, but the times when you "want to be able to bet" happen far more often than the times when you "are glad you don't have to call."

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you have KJ and a short stack. You are ignoring the size of the stacks beyond yours. You raise preflop. You bet all-in on the KJ8 flop. Two players call all-in with A9 and JT. An ace comes on the turn. The opponent with JT, who was all-in, suddenly folds. What a bad play! Then a Q comes on the river, and your two pair wins. That's too bad for the player with JT, who would have hit a gutshot straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, in this one example, being all in worked in your favor. But I could also give thousands of situations where being all in would cost valueable bets on the turn and river. What if the Q didn't hit on the river? Then you would be giving the player with A9 infinite odds to draw out on you.

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, people don't play optimally. Maybe you can exploit them more if you don't have a short stack. However, given players of equal skill, it is an advantage to have a short stack. That's why buying in short is angle-shooting. It's not necessarily optimal for a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard the term angle-shooting so I won't comment on that. The rest of this paragraph makes very little sense though. You say "you can exploit them more if you don't have a short stack", yet you also say "it is an advantage to have a short stack". Then you finish the paragraph saying "It's not necessarily optimal for a good player." Very contradictory. Aren't we always trying to use the optimal play? Why would you assume equal skill in the first place? If any assumption is made about the skills of you opponents it should be that they are worse than you. Because you would be stupid to play a game where all the players are of equal or greater skill. How can it be an advantage if you can exploit bad players better with a large stack?

Assuming equal skill, a short stack has neither an advantage nor disadvantage. The outcome would be purely based on the luck of the cards. When the short stack goes all in, it would be entirely up to the cards to decide whether he busts or doubles up.

The point I'm trying to get across is that you pass up far too many +EV situations while avoiding relatively few -EV situations.

bonanz

03-26-2005, 03:50 PM

mason had an article on this in one of the poker essays books i think

pzhon

03-26-2005, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[Sometimes you want to be able to bet. Sometimes you are glad you don't have to call.] These effects roughly cancel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, this is clearly correct, in theory. If everyone were just as shortstacked as you, the game would be symmetric, hence even.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be correct if both opportunities happened an equal number of times.

[/ QUOTE ]
What don't you understand about, "the game would be symmetric, hence even?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you have KJ and a short stack. You are ignoring the size of the stacks beyond yours. You raise preflop. You bet all-in on the KJ8 flop. Two players call all-in with A9 and JT. An ace comes on the turn. The opponent with JT, who was all-in, suddenly folds. What a bad play! Then a Q comes on the river, and your two pair wins. That's too bad for the player with JT, who would have hit a gutshot straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, in this one example, being all in worked in your favor. But I could also give thousands of situations where being all in would cost valueable bets on the turn and river.

[/ QUOTE ]
It looks like you missed the point of the example, and perhaps you should reread it.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif If everyone were shortstacked, the KJ would not win the pot.
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Since the other players were not shortstacked, the KJ won the pot.
/images/graemlins/spade.gif If everyone were shortstacked, the game would be even.
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Since the other players are not shortstacked, the short stacks gain in comparison with the even game, in part because of pots like this.
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Being better off than even means the short stacks have an advantage.

It is +EV to be short-stacked even if you have no skill advantage over your opponents. In fact, it can make up for a skill disadvantage.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, people don't play optimally. Maybe you can exploit them more if you don't have a short stack. However, given players of equal skill, it is an advantage to have a short stack. That's why buying in short is angle-shooting. It's not necessarily optimal for a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard the term angle-shooting so I won't comment on that.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a term I made up. "Angle shooter" is in the title of this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of this paragraph makes very little sense though. You say "you can exploit them more if you don't have a short stack", yet you also say "it is an advantage to have a short stack". Then you finish the paragraph saying "It's not necessarily optimal for a good player." Very contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no contradiction. If it seems contradictory to you, reread it and think about it for longer than 30 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming equal skill, a short stack has neither an advantage nor disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. If you don't like my arguments, read the ones in TOP.

LinusKS

03-26-2005, 04:39 PM

pzhon is right. Suppose you could buy in for exactly one big blind on every hand, and four other people are seeing the flop. Your pot odds are 1:4.

That means you only need to "win" one out of five times to break even. As long as at least some of the other players are dropping out on or before the river, you're almost guaranteed to do better than that.

Another way to look at it: the people who fold, because they don't have odds to go on, are leaving dead money on the table for you.

One other way: while everybody else has to pay to see more cards, you get to see all five cards for free.

It's angle shooting, which is why it isn't allowed at most sites (well, Party and Stars, anyway.)

contentless

03-26-2005, 05:02 PM

Pzhon, I'm not sure how your example demonstrates anything. It's been specifically made up to demonstrate your point, but that doesn't prove that the general idea of being short-stacked is +EV. In that specific situation, sure, but there are many more situations in which it's -EV.

Some pre-flop hands are better than others, or have a greater EV. (Obviously.) With a +EV hand, you want to maximize your expectation. Most of the time, you want to make a hand with the board, but with most premium pre-flop hands, you may not need to.

With a -EV hand, you want to maximize your expectation as well, but in this case, you need to make a hand with the board. 87s that doesn't match with the board is virtually guaranteed to never win. You want to pay as few bets as possible until you make your hand, THEN you want to punish people through betting when that hand is made. Playing while all-in almost always leaves you short of what you could've made.

Pre-flop, when all-in, +EV hands are 'stunted', most -EV hands are still -EV, and a few -EV hands become +EV. The lost expectation in the 'stunted' +EV hands does not roughly equal the small subset of -EV to +EV hands. Your change in expectation with this play is negative.

Even in your example, with no knowledge of the river card, your all-in play is negative expectation. You would like to cap on the flop, and you would like to cap on the turn. All-in, you have no opporunity for either. The only cards that can beat you on the river are the 2 remaining Aces, 4 Queens, 4 Nines, and 3 Eights. The other 29 cards are in your favor. Much more often than not, you will win.

It's illogical to argue that being short-stacked in general is better. You can create examples to illustrate your point until the end of time, but if being short-stacked were advantageous, I'm sure you wouldn't be the first to mention it. People who say they play better short-stacked are, in essence, saying that they don't make good decisions usually, and would rather rely on the luck of the draw.

Perhaps I am not understanding your point correctly. Maybe it's a mental block on my part. Any further illumination on the subject would be much appreciated.

radek2166

03-26-2005, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Pzhon, I'm not sure how your example demonstrates anything. It's been specifically made up to demonstrate your point, but that doesn't prove that the general idea of being short-stacked is +EV. In that specific situation, sure, but there are many more situations in which it's -EV.

Some pre-flop hands are better than others, or have a greater EV. (Obviously.) With a +EV hand, you want to maximize your expectation. Most of the time, you want to make a hand with the board, but with most premium pre-flop hands, you may not need to.

With a -EV hand, you want to maximize your expectation as well, but in this case, you need to make a hand with the board. 87s that doesn't match with the board is virtually guaranteed to never win. You want to pay as few bets as possible until you make your hand, THEN you want to punish people through betting when that hand is made. Playing while all-in almost always leaves you short of what you could've made.

Pre-flop, when all-in, +EV hands are 'stunted', most -EV hands are still -EV, and a few -EV hands become +EV. The lost expectation in the 'stunted' +EV hands does not roughly equal the small subset of -EV to +EV hands. Your change in expectation with this play is negative.

Even in your example, with no knowledge of the river card, your all-in play is negative expectation. You would like to cap on the flop, and you would like to cap on the turn. All-in, you have no opporunity for either. The only cards that can beat you on the river are the 2 remaining Aces, 4 Queens, 4 Nines, and 3 Eights. The other 29 cards are in your favor. Much more often than not, you will win.

It's illogical to argue that being short-stacked in general is better. You can create examples to illustrate your point until the end of time, but if being short-stacked were advantageous, I'm sure you wouldn't be the first to mention it. People who say they play better short-stacked are, in essence, saying that they don't make good decisions usually, and would rather rely on the luck of the draw.

Perhaps I am not understanding your point correctly. Maybe it's a mental block on my part. Any further illumination on the subject would be much appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice post.

Keith Fellmy

03-26-2005, 05:38 PM

all sites on the B2B Network have a "pocketing rule." If you leave and come back to the table within 90 minutes you must come back with the same amount that you left with. They won't let you take the money out.

Yes most players that do this will eventually lose that money back. They are just bad players and are worried about losing their money. They play scared. That will never work. Oh they may have a stellar day once in a while but normally once their streak ends it goes real bad.

pzhon

03-27-2005, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pzhon, I'm not sure how your example demonstrates anything. It's been specifically made up to demonstrate your point, but that doesn't prove that the general idea of being short-stacked is +EV. In that specific situation, sure, but there are many more situations in which it's -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are imagining some list of situations in which it is an advantage, and a list in which it is a disadvantage, and you have no idea what the balance is between the two. That having the nuts against calling stations is very vivid to you does not mean it outweighs the more common situations.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif If everyone were shortstacked and equally skilled, the game would be even. 0 EV. The advantages and disadvantages would exactly cancel. Ok? Please tell me if you disagree with this.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif When you are shortstacked and your opponents are not, you win a few extra pots in comparison with the 0 EV game. Your opponents act suboptimally for the shortstacked game in other ways. Ok? Please tell me if you disagree with this comparison with the game in which everyone is shortstacked.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif That you are better off than in the 0 EV game means it is +EV. Ok? Please tell me if you disagree with this.

By the way, even if you have the best hand, sometimes you can get more money into the pot when you are shortstacked. If you will be all-in, people are more willing to call with weak made hands, not just with draws.

[ QUOTE ]
It's illogical to argue that being short-stacked in general is better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't tell me I'm illogical just because my conclusion makes you uncomfortable. Point out a real flaw in my logic, or retract your insult.

[ QUOTE ]
You can create examples to illustrate your point until the end of time, but if being short-stacked were advantageous, I'm sure you wouldn't be the first to mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is another pointless insult: For some reason you are saying I can't be the first to come up with something. But in this case, you are right that I'm not the first to come up with this. I believe there is an essay in Theory of Poker that argues for the same conclusion. Unfortunately I have lent that book out, and don't have the exact reference. Could someone post it, with a relevant passage?

contentless

03-27-2005, 01:48 AM

I am thinking it over, but I'm going to elaborate on what you perceive to be insults.

[ QUOTE ]

It's illogical to argue that being short-stacked in general is better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not say you were illogical. I said the concept of being short-stacked being +EV was illogical. It was not meant as an insult. My train of thought is that it is not the number of pots you win, but it is how much you win. This is why I have a slight issue with your second point. The assumption is that your opponents act suboptimally. The other assumption is that more smaller pots is better than less bigger pots. The second assumption I have more issue with. The first one, I'm not understanding and need elaboration.

[ QUOTE ]
You can create examples to illustrate your point until the end of time, but if being short-stacked were advantageous, I'm sure you wouldn't be the first to mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant to say (perhaps if I were more tactful), is that if being short-stacked were +EV, then it would be a more prevalent tactic. After all, we all aim to play the type of poker that maximizes our expectation. If you felt that it was an insult, I apologize and I retract the statement.

The first and third points are very clear, but they're meaningless without that second point.