[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you could have accomplished the same thing with a bigger stack raising to say £16 pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you mean £32? The big blind was £2. Raising to only 8 BB with a deep stack would not have had nearly as much of a chance to win the pot, as any speculative hand could call with position.

In case someone has a real hand or makes a big call, I'm relying on being all-in. That allows me to get back a substantial fraction of the pot even against a dominating hand, which I why I only needed everyone to fold about 43% of the time instead of 73%. With a deep stack, I have to fold after a limp-reraise, giving me nothing. If I get called, I'm out of position with garbage, so I'm usually in deep trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
buying in short against bad opponents isn't maximizing your EV. Sure you can make a few BB here and there, but i think you can make far more by buying in for more and outplaying them. That's all I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a possibility. I sometimes buy in for the maximum, and keep playing with multiple buy-ins. Sometimes I play short-stacked. It's not clear to me which is more profitable. I hope PokerTracker will let us filter by stack size in the future.

At higher online levels, the win rates of good players are much lower than at lower online levels. You can't count on someone with top pair doubling you up most of the time you hit a monster. At higher levels, picking up the limps once an hour would be a significant addition to anyone's win rate.