|
Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
How much do you think a player could make buying into the Party NL $2000 for $500, then using the short stack strategy as outlined in Getting Started in Hold'em. I have been experimenting with this, and it is funny how many times I have seen "you obviously suck, otherwise you wouldn't buy in for $500 in a $2000 game" typed in the chat box. But they still get their money in with the worst hand more often than not.
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
well they are right, you do suck. frankly, following a chart out of a book hardly consitutes playing poker.
but they suck also if they are getting it in with the worst of it. so its a battle of who sucks more. sounds like a good game! |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
I don't really care if I am "playing poker" as you define it or not. What matters is whether playing a small stack makes money. I don't claim to be an expert no-limit player, which is why I am playing the small stack in the first place. There was a big thread about this in the Poker Theory forum, with some very informative posts from Ed Miller. You should read it.
|
Here is a typical hand that shows how much I suck
Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (8 handed) converter
SB ($2011.5) BB ($2606) UTG ($1925) UTG+1 ($2965.5) MP1 ($2458) MP2 ($2334) CO ($2057) Hero ($597) Preflop: Hero is Button with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $10. <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls $20, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $90</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $70, UTG+1 calls $70. Flop: ($280) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font> <font color="#CC3333">BB bets $150</font>, UTG+1 folds, Hero calls $507 (All-In), BB calls $357. Turn: ($1294) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font> River: ($1294) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font> Final Pot: $1294 Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF"> BB has As 8s (flush, ace high). Hero has Ah Ad (two pair, aces and tens). Outcome: BB wins $1294. </font> |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
you do what works for you. obviously im not a fan of it because the strategy is blatantly obvious and it tightens up the game considerably once a few of you sit down.
i do find the quote in the initial post sort of funny now that you admit that its true.. [ QUOTE ] I don't claim to be an expert no-limit player, which is why I am playing the small stack in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
what's more important, playing great, or making money?
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
I hate it when people ruin the games by buying in for the minimum and thne just pushing preflop. The lucky fuckers just double up and leave. This the most annoying when im playing shorthanded.
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
You could make a LOT more if you learned to play, I'll tell you that much.
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
[ QUOTE ]
You could make a LOT more if you learned to play, I'll tell you that much. [/ QUOTE ] the sick thing is that in a sense, you're right, but in a much more pragmatic, immediate way, you are very very wrong. fim |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
Of course he won't learn overnight. It's possible he won't even learn ever. But even a top NL 400 player could make more buying in full than he could with a $500 stack at NL 2000.
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
[ QUOTE ]
But even a top NL 400 player could make more buying in full than he could with a $500 stack at NL 2000. [/ QUOTE ] Im not so sure of this, because it could easily (game selection) be who loses less, and with a 500 stack you have less to lose, capisco? |
Ed Miller, please read this thread
No one is answering the question. I asked how much one could expect to make buying in for $500 in the Party NL $2000, using the basic strategy outlined in Getting Started in Hold'em. I have no doubt that one could make more playing a big stack if he was an expert no-limit player. I think the number of people who think they are expert players and play their big stacks poorly is very large. I don't think that anyone who plays a short stack really cares if the big stacks hate what they are doing. It is about making money, period. I posted a hand that is a typical interaction between a small stack and a large stack on the Party NL $2000. No one has commented on it. Playing a small stack super tight may be transparent, but it doesn't seem to affect how people play against you. They still give action with the worst hand. These kinds of hands happen all the time, and the big stacks still criticize the small stacks, despite the fact that they get consistently get their money in with the worst of it.
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
i've read posts before that claim 2-4BB/100 playing the shortstacked way against a table of big stacks. let's look at this versus 400NL at 10BB/100 and 100NL at 20BB/100.
using conservative estimates: 1. 2BB/100 @ $20 BB is $40/100 2. 10BB/100 @ $4 BB is $40/100 3. 20BB/100 @ $1 BB is $20/100 getting to play 4 tables of 400NL at 10BB/100 is tough and requires not only experience, but a measure of innate intelligence/talent. doing so by an algorithm in a book is easy. since his VPIP is so low, he could easily 8 table doing this, so at ~300-400/hr he's looking at an expected earn of 120-160/hr doing something mindless... do this with a $400 stack and a $8K bankroll and you have a license to print money. granted you'll want to kill your brain after about 20K hands of this, but it will be easy. fim PS- this is why NL games need one set point for buyin with rebuys varied, like they are live. |
Finally someone addresses the original question
You guys really need to read this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...14&fpart=1
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
Hi mrwatson,
[ QUOTE ] "you obviously suck, otherwise you wouldn't buy in for $500 in a $2000 game" [/ QUOTE ] Funny; I've never seen anyone type this, even though virtually everyone who does this does suck. Sorry to participate in the hijack of your thread; I haven't had a chance to read Ed's new book yet, but I wanted to comment on the "short-buy" strategy in the big game at Party. I think that a short-stack strategy could win in this game if implemented well, because there are plenty of bad players in the game. But so would any other reasonable strategy, for the same reason. I actually don't think that the type of play you describe really exploits the general weaknesses of this game very well. Specifically, players seem wary of big pre-flop raises to a fault, in my opinion. I can see your strategy working better (proportionally) in the 600 game and below. Also, I'm not sure what the minimum buy-in at the 2000 game is (200?), but it's less than 500. A stack of 500 makes your post-flop decisions a lot more important than a stack of 200. What you usually see from the uber-short stacks is them getting all their chips in with in-between hands, like AJ or KJ. They often lose way more equity than they picked up pre-flop by calling off the last 2/3 of their stack with next to nothing. In the AA hand you posted, you played your hand well, but your opponent didn't play too badly either; his flop bet is reasonable, and obviously his call of your all-in is automatic. The debatable play is calling 70 more with A8s out of the BB vs. a short-stacked raiser. A loose call, to be sure, but not out of the question, given the other player in the pot. On the flop, he's about even money against any overpair except AA. |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
Nice post cero. One question though, would any other reasonable strategy that could win in this game require less thought?
|
My Deal
I don't know if this is going to help but I feel like typing it anyway.
For the last two months or so, I have devastated an otherwise great bankroll for my limits (2/5 - 10/20) by playing nuts super lag bad (i.e. I've had no discpline in my game). I have been playing like a total moron and it isn't an issue of running bad, it's an issue of playing bad. I used to play a game where I would buyin short (at least for the game - about 500 in 2/5). When I first started out I was playing ubertight when I didn't have position and doing well, as I slowly doubled through people, my stack grew. When I had a big stack, my game changed as I became more aggressive and started raising a lot more with position, picture this over one session. A lot of people at the table didn't realize that I had totally changed gears and it was amazing how many other big stacks I managed to stack because they were giving me credit for AA with a raise rather than 78s, since 3 hours ago, I was only playing 1 hand an orbit if that. Despite being up, I remained tight without position and still didn't coldcall raises with garbage (i.e. 87o) As the roll grew, I began buying into games deep right from the start thinking I could just use my stack to get me out of poor preflop decisions. I also started calling a lot more raises preflop trying to out play/bust people. I totally gave up on position (if we all have 5k and the blinds are 2/5 who cares I thought?) It doesn't take long to lose a lot of money this way, the smart short stacks were in heaven when I and others would play like this against one another. While you can't buy in deep online, even with 100xBB I still find myself calling a lot of raises I shouldn't, paying off a lot of value bets that I should be folding to and things of that nature. Recently, as depressing as this is, I decided to put myself on a leash for online games, I buyin for 50xBB, so 1000 in the 2k game. People give you incredible action for the size of your stack because of the "why no max buy in this game?" All of your decisions are easy, and I payoff a lot less now. I hope one day I will have the discipline to buy in reg. online, but for now, this is working. Diablo and Flynn have mentioned this in the past about an easy way to play NL online, because all your decisions are so easy. I'm going to stick with it online and see how it works at least until I manage to control my LAG urges...I'll keep you posted on how it works. I wouldn't buyin for 5 at the 2k game, that's too short I think, I think your money is better off in the 1k game with 5, but this is just what I've been messing around with for the past week. Sorry for hijacking your thread, just wanted to get this off my chest. |
other thought...
The biggest factor in determining how much money you make as a short stack in a game like this is how active the game is. I think shortstack strategy works a lot better in a game like the commerce 10/20 (at least from how I hear how that game plays) than online. From what I've seen, a lot of the 5/10 - 10/20 games online are more rockish then they are crazy action...
|
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
its profitable, but youll need to change names often.
[ QUOTE ] How much do you think a player could make buying into the Party NL $2000 for $500, then using the short stack strategy as outlined in Getting Started in Hold'em. I have been experimenting with this, and it is funny how many times I have seen "you obviously suck, otherwise you wouldn't buy in for $500 in a $2000 game" typed in the chat box. But they still get their money in with the worst hand more often than not. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
[ QUOTE ]
its profitable, but youll need to change names often. [/ QUOTE ] Can you elaborate? |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
thats why they get paid off well, because 75% of short stacks are donks.
when i see a short stack limp in MP with QQ, the game is over, i make a note that he is Tight Short, and he wont get paid in marginal situations. But when i go against an unknown short stack ill give him the benefit of the doubt that he is a donk. i dont see you making more then one or two BB's/hour. look at how much you are giving up with 22-JJ. |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] its profitable, but youll need to change names often. [/ QUOTE ] Can you elaborate? [/ QUOTE ] people in that big a game with a shallow player pool keep book. your jig is up real quick like. fim |
Re: other thought...
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest factor in determining how much money you make as a short stack in a game like this is how active the game is. I think shortstack strategy works a lot better in a game like the commerce 10/20 (at least from how I hear how that game plays) than online. From what I've seen, a lot of the 5/10 - 10/20 games online are more rockish then they are crazy action... [/ QUOTE ] This issue, that of game selection, is the most important post in this thread and is the most important factor in how much you can make with any given stack size. |
Re: My Deal
Well said AZK. This is something I have thought a bit lately, but haven't tried this startegy even once.
I mean personally my biggest problems(and misstakes) come in start of the session when im not in my A-game, but more like in C-game. So what I have thought is that in beginning of session, I would in future buyin for lets say 30bb. And when im getting into my A-game I will add my stack up to the max 100bb, either by winning or just bringing more. Also personally I play much better while winning, so it's important for me to get a good start for the session otherwise I will play bad. Cant really see down sides of this strategy, except occassionally missing value. |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
I would have to agree 75% of these shorties are donks who are looking to get lucky and run when they double up....v annoying.
I have a reasonable amount of experience short buying and I can beat the 5/10 on Prima for about 4PTBB/100. If you treat it like a different game it's actually quite easy - my normal VPIP is 25/8, shortbuying on 5/10 is more like 15/10 I have tried and tested conditions for playing this way, I won't bother trying to explain them all but generally the best time to do it is on a loose-ish table with everyone else above 100BB stacks. Other short stacks tend to get in the way and change the game as previously mentioned by another poster. Also what you buy in for is very important, there is a huge difference in play with a 20BB stack and a 50BB stack. There are many more factors I consider with table selection too, much more so than if I sit on a random 2/4 for 100BB. I'm not going to kid myself though - I may have doubled through various very good players on Prima but I'm under no illusion I could outplay them at equal stacks, it's just that I'm playing a different game to them. |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Not to rock the boat, but I applaud you. The fact that you buy in short and are that annoying rookie hit-and-run guy is not going to be popular here. I think it takes some balls to post what you have on this forum that prides itself on cultivation of premium skills. FWIW, I think this kind of attitude will translate well at the table.
Also, you'll probably learn a lot more at the bigger buy-in table (if you are willing to focus) than you would at the lower levels. So hell, if you can find a formula that works for you - go for it. I doubt, however, that anyone here will tell you that it's a good idea... Marlow [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
I agree with AZK that this ($500) is TOO short for that game.
For giggles, I tried this the other day in the $2000NL game. I bought in for $600 and every time I dropped below $540 I would bump it back up to $600. I played only 55 hands so of course this a tiny sample size. I only VPIPed twice - once to call a $60 raise with 66 and once to call a $70 raise with AKo. Both times the flop missed me. All told I lost ~$350 - due to paying the blinds for 5-6 orbits and not getting any playable cards. I guess the point is that buying in THIS short you need to double up once every few orbits or the blinds and raised pots where you check/fold will eat you up. |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Unless there were a few callers in front, you should have folded the 66 hand.
|
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Hi,
I've never played the Party $2,000 game. I've never played any no-limit game on Party. So I'm guessing. But my guess would be like one or two big blinds per hour... that is, profitable, but just marginally so. Here's my take. There are very few FULL (9- or 10-handed) NL games in the world where this strategy, played properly, would not be profitable long-term. This is essentially regardless of stakes and true both B&M and online. I don't think it matters whether some of your opponents know more or less what you are doing or not... though obviously if they know you won't do as well. People play loose with big stacks, and those people will get caught with money in the pot when you show up with pocket kings. It's their tendency to play loosely in general that will make you the money... even if they know to tighten up against you. The bigger you play, though, the "better" you will have to play this strategy to make it work. I intentionally left out some details to give the reader some things to explore. If you want to make money in big games doing this (and I think real money can indeed be made with relatively little poker skill) then you need to get some of the "details" right. Particularly, you will still sometimes have some tricky decisions on the flop. One thing I know for sure is that playing this way won't make you any friends. Your opponents will view it as "cheap" or "dumb" or "donkish" or "lame" or whatever. I obviously don't view it as any of these. If you can make money waltzing into a big game with a tiny stack, that's a problem with the game, not the player. |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
So all a winning low limit NL 4 tabler needs is a bankroll of 10grand or so to significantly increase his income playing a dumbed down version of the way he currently plays? Or find a backer who wants to make another grand or so a week on a 50-50 deal... haha
|
Re: My Deal
How good this strategy is depends largely on what the average action is pre-flop. 50bb is a nice amount in the UB 25/50 game because it often lets you get in your stack very good on the flop. 100bb is often an unwieldy amount in that game given the standard pre-flop action. On the other hand, 100bb is a great amount in the UB 10/25 game and often lets you have 2 streets of play. Of course, given the right caliber of bad opponents, those considerations become less important and you just always want to buy in for as much as possible. I've spent a (very) little time in the Party 2000 game and based on what I've seen (both at the start and just last week), I'd always buy in for 2000 in that game. Too many players willing to get stacked with not very much and not quite as aggressive play on early streets as the UB games.
In general, when deciding how much to buy in, I think you should consider a few factors: 1) How do you stack up v. the competition? 2) What is the average action pre-flop? 3) How many streets do you want to play? 4) Given the other factors, at what point and how will you get pot-committed? Basically, I think you want to avoid situations where stack sizes result in you either getting yourself pot-committed with mediocre hands against decent players or having to make either underbets or overly large overbets. |
Re: Short stack play in the Party NL 2000
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] its profitable, but youll need to change names often. [/ QUOTE ] Can you elaborate? [/ QUOTE ] Once someone sees you fold fold fold..all in KK...fold fold fold...all in AKs....fold fold fold... they know all your moves? |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Hi Luv,
[ QUOTE ] I played only 55 hands so of course this a tiny sample size. I only VPIPed twice - once to call a $60 raise with 66 and once to call a $70 raise with AKo. Both times the flop missed me. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I was talking about. You played both hands wrong (fold 66 unless there are already 3 players voluntarily in the pot, re-raise AKo to at least 200). |
Re: My Deal
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, I think you want to avoid situations where stack sizes result in ...having to make either underbets or overly large overbets. [/ QUOTE ] Another thread hijack, but how do you play in games where everyone has 3-400xBB? The stack sizes in relation to the pots more often than not result in a pot being played for too small a % of your stack, no? Is this ever a problem? |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Luv, [ QUOTE ] I played only 55 hands so of course this a tiny sample size. I only VPIPed twice - once to call a $60 raise with 66 and once to call a $70 raise with AKo. Both times the flop missed me. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I was talking about. You played both hands wrong (fold 66 unless there are already 3 players voluntarily in the pot, re-raise AKo to at least 200). [/ QUOTE ] Two questions - following the 5/10 rule it's OK (but not great) to call 10% of my stack hoping to flop a set, no? Secondly, if I'm reraising AKo to 200, I'm obviously calling a push. What's my action on a flop of all unders? (assuming my opponent checks to me). |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Playing for sets is something that becomes less appropriate the smaller your stack. Even if you can guarantee doubling up if you spike a set versus an overpair, it might only barely be +EV longterm. Conversely, with hands like AK you just want to throw your stack in there pre flop to put the pressure on. A lot of pairs will fold, and there might be enough dead money to make it neutral EV against them anyway.
This is my understanding at least. I think many of the regular STT'ers would especially excel at playing the shortstack in these NL ring games. Many of the same principles crossover in my opinion. |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
[ QUOTE ]
If you can make money waltzing into a big game with a tiny stack, that's a problem with the game, not the player. [/ QUOTE ] Isnt the problem with the structure of the game, and not the other players? I dont really understand why the minimum buy-in for a $2000 game isnt set atleast $1000. |
Re: My Deal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Basically, I think you want to avoid situations where stack sizes result in ...having to make either underbets or overly large overbets. [/ QUOTE ] Another thread hijack, but how do you play in games where everyone has 3-400xBB? The stack sizes in relation to the pots more often than not result in a pot being played for too small a % of your stack, no? Is this ever a problem? [/ QUOTE ] In some games like this, straddles and larger than normal standard opens effectively increase the size of the game. Other times, there's weird action post-flop. The games where you love to play deep, the stacks end up getting in there. |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you can make money waltzing into a big game with a tiny stack, that's a problem with the game, not the player. [/ QUOTE ] Isnt the problem with the structure of the game, and not the other players? I dont really understand why the minimum buy-in for a $2000 game isnt set atleast $1000. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. |
Re: Ed Miller, please read this thread
Hey Ed, would you mind giving us a quick summary of what you wrote in GSIH with regards to the shortstack NL strategy? I don't mean this to come off as "just tell us everything that's in the book so we don't have to buy it," but an introductory poker book simply isn't going to be of any interest to most of the people posting here. The book's strategy is referenced enough on 2+2 that it would be nice for us to know the basics of what you've written. I suspect most of it is stuff that the majority of posters in this forum already know, and if you just provide us the basics outline we could fill in the blanks on our own.
~edit~ Are the guidelines in this post a fairly complete summary? I hadn't noticed that thread until after posting here... |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.