Do you keep playing or quit?

[poboy]

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

[theben]

i should add, this assumes that the others arent in vending mode. in other words, if there were several players w/ 100-200bb stacks who totally sucked or if somebody w/ a 30-40bb stack pushed every other hand, i would have to stay.

[Miles Ahead]

You can beat Miller's strategy by playing aggressively.

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]
You can beat Miller's strategy by playing aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[Miles Ahead]

Sure. I think Ed Miller himself has made this point in some thread on this forum. The Ed Miller strategists won't defend their blinds as often as they should, for example, and you can gain some equity from constantly attacking them.

[poboy]

I don't see how that would defeat this strategy? How often should one defend their blinds in NL cash games ? Even with a large stack I rarely defend my blinds, it's just not worth it for 1BB. The only way I think this strategy could be countered would be for the entire table to agree to not give the short stack any action when he raises, this of course would never happen and could be considered collusion if it did. So I stand by my original statement, this system cannot be beat no matter what you do. JMO

[pokerjoker]

[ QUOTE ]


You buy-in for the full $100 at a good table with a couple of big stacks and good action.

[/ QUOTE ]

why are big stacks good to play against? I always thought they won a lot of money and thus were good players....do they standardly piss it all away?

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]

why are big stacks good to play against? I always thought they won a lot of money and thus were good players....do they standardly piss it all away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deep stacks = more money on the table to be won. The majority of the 200+BB stacks I regularly see on tables aren't that good, and it's easy to identify who's playing TAG and who isn't. Deeper stacks also allows more turn/river play, where I think I can outplay my opponents more.

[Mackerel]

[ QUOTE ]
Deep stacks = more money on the table to be won. The majority of the 200+BB stacks I regularly see on tables aren't that good, and it's easy to identify who's playing TAG and who isn't. Deeper stacks also allows more turn/river play, where I think I can outplay my opponents more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. I'd also add that if it turns out that one of the deep stacks is a TAG player, it won't take long before you recognise each other and start staying out of each others big pots for the most part (and hopefully, when you do play a big pot with him, you'll have him crushed [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

[chumsferd]

[ 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.