Do you keep playing or quit?

Mackerel · #1 08-17-2005, 01:30 PM

Hi all,

I've been playing almost exclusively at the Full Tilt NL100 6-max tables trying to clear a $600 bonus. This seems to be happening to me nearly every day and I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the best way to proceed.

You buy-in for the full $100 at a good table with a couple of big stacks and good action. For the next 1-3 hours, you steadily build your stack up to $150-$250.

Now all of the big-medium stacks are slowly getting busted or leaving, and are replaced, one by one by people buying in for $20-$40. Suddenly you find that it's just you and all of these tiny stacks intent on finding a hand to get all of their money in PF or on the flop.

Do you stay and play with these muppets, hoping one or two of them will build up a stack worth taking (hopefully against others [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), or do you just leave and start over at a different table? This is really starting to annoy me.

yvesaint · #2 08-17-2005, 01:34 PM

It depends on how they're playing. If there's a few crazy short stacks going all-in pre-flop / on the flop, I'll stick around and play tight, because a lot of times, even if I double one of them up, they give back to me later.

It's also a nice 'stepping down' from multi-tabling a lot of poker. Playing against a table of short stacks doesn't require much concentration on my part - just enough to identify who's an idiot and who's not. After a big session, some time to cool down with short stacks is always nice.

Mackerel · #3 08-17-2005, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how they're playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the response.

Well, they aren't all the same, but mostly they seem to be playing fairly tight and just waiting for the right spots to get in. But with that said, a lot of them will still open push PF with hands like 77, AQo, or even KQs. And almost all of them are willing to get in with TP2K or better if they see a flop.

When I've stayed in, I've mostly taken to aggressively stealing their blinds and limps, but being willing to fold against resistance without a decent hand. This seems to work okay, except that a continuation bet on the flop will often get you PC'd, so I'm finding myself being more passive on the flop than I prefer.

I don't know if I'm just playing wrong or it's just variance, but I seem to backslide quite often against this kind of lineup. I prefer deep-stacked play where there is more room to maneuver. So do you think its still worthwhile to keep playing in these spots?

subzero · #4 08-17-2005, 01:46 PM

Keep playing. You can afford to wait for a hand longer than they can. Wait for a big pair then bust 'em. Try to steal blinds if they're sitting around waiting for a hand.

ajmargarine · #5 08-17-2005, 02:37 PM

If they are the kind to push preflop, I maybe stick around for a bit. If they are trying to play "normal poker" with their $20 buy-ins, I leave. I hate shortstackers. And I play at a site where they are an epidemic. Not uncommon to see a $1/$2 table have 10 players with under $40 in front of them. I rationalize that there's not enough money in circulation to be won at the table, and find a better table.

Mackerel · #6 08-17-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If they are trying to play "normal poker" with their $20 buy-ins, I leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks aj, this is kinda where I've been heading in my thinking, I just hate to leave right after I've finally got a stack big enough to really play NL with.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate shortstackers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen!

poboy · #7 08-17-2005, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If they are the kind to push preflop, I maybe stick around for a bit. If they are trying to play "normal poker" with their $20 buy-ins, I leave. I hate shortstackers. And I play at a site where they are an epidemic. Not uncommon to see a $1/$2 table have 10 players with under $40 in front of them. I rationalize that there's not enough money in circulation to be won at the table, and find a better table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have this completely backwards. If they are pushing in preflop or on the flop they are likely employing Miller's strategy and you should leave since you will be taking much the worst of it. If they want to try and play poker with short stacks that's something else entirely, this would generally signify that they are weak players and you should stay since you have an edge, unless of course you can find a table with big stacks and weak players(not too difficult to find).
I used to think the same thing you do until I picked up a copy of GSIH and read the short-stack strategy and tried it. You cannot beat this system no matter what you do. JMO

chumsferd · #8 08-17-2005, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I used to think the same thing you do until I picked up a copy of GSIH and read the short-stack strategy and tried it. You cannot beat this system no matter what you do. JMO

[/ QUOTE ]

If bankroll wasn't a consideration, do you think sitting in the $50/$100 game on UB and playing Miller's shortstack strategy would be +EV for you?

poboy · #9 08-17-2005, 07:14 PM

In theory it would absolutely be +EV for me or anyone. What Miller's strategy does is completely negate a better player's edge. The edge that better players have is their post-flop skills(correct bluffing,hand reading, value betting, better decision making in general), this is taken away from them because you are all-in so early in the hand. They cannot call with marginal hands because there are no implied odds, all they can do is wait until they have a hand that compares favorably with yours. Since the strategy involves only playing the top few hands, they will very rarely have a hand with which they should call.

In reality I believe the people playing 50/100 would be smart enough to know this and would not play with you, and you would essentially blind yourself away. I have tried this as high as 200NL though, and it works flawlessly(amazing how many idiots play that level). JMO

chumsferd · #10 08-18-2005, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In theory it would absolutely be +EV for me or anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really disagree with what you say. My $50/$100 comment was a little candid. What I was really angling at was that Miller's short stack strategy is designed to exploit the general inability or lack of willingness of people to adapt their play to it. What I meant to suggest was that it is theoretically possible to adapt your play to beat the short stack strategy and good players should know how to do this... maybe the $50/$100 comment wasn't an appropriate way to do this...

There are common mistakes people playing Miller's strategy make, which can be exploited (sitting in short handed games and poor seat selection spring to mind). If you consider the strategy on a practical level, these areas are exploitable. If you'd rather consider it on a pure theoretical level, where the player playing the shortstack makes no mistakes what-so-ever they you have to lend the opponents with deep stacks the same courtesy. Clearly there are adjustments people can make to counter it, you name one yourself...

[ QUOTE ]
In reality I believe the people playing 50/100 would be smart enough to know this and would not play with you, and you would essentially blind yourself away

[/ QUOTE ]

...I think I'm just being a pedant... but Miller's system isn't theoretically +EV under all game conditions... I concede however that for most practical purposes you will be +EV playing it, if you play it well.