|
|
#102
06-14-2005, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: My Answer
Hi Ed,
Thanks for another excellent response. I haven't resonded in the last 30 or so posts because I think we don't basically have any disagreement regardless of whether a couple stubborn donkeys see my point or not, and because the arguement degenerated a lot of posts by those who think that big stacks do have an advantage over small stacks in a hand (which I don't, just believing better than average players will make more money with big stacks). I agree with the validity of your short stack strategy for less experienced players, and that it is money losing for big stacks to attempt to push them around in *most* cases. You have also agreed that the better than average players do best by playing larger stacks, and I don't think you have to bet the very best player at the table to do this, just one of the top 2 or 3. From my experience at the 1K/2K full ring tables this is the usual makeup regardless of the their stack sizes: 1) 2-3 very good players who are capable of mixing up their play, putting on a move in the appropriate situation, and getting good value from their best hands - if the entire lineup consisted of these players I would consider buying in short myself as I didn't come to gamble with them; 2) 2-3 excessively tight players who almost always have what they represent, don't play drawing hands, but are capable of laying down AA/KK when they think it's beat - I don't care if these players have the same amount of money as myself because I am never paying them off except in the ugly case of set over set, and reduce the chance of this happening with them by not calling their preflop raises with small pocket pairs since they are capable of folding an overpair (no true implied odds since they won't go broke with AA); 3) 3 players who seem like the category above but will never fold AA/KK headsup thinking that another player with a set or 2 pair, particularly if a flush draw is present, is just putting a move on them - I want to have as much money as these players because I know that when I hit a set or bottom two pair with a suited connector they are paying me off; 4) 1 or 2 loose players, either of the passive or aggressive type - I wan't to match these players' stacks as well and never waste any money trying to bluff them but do aggressively value bet them even thinly when the situation warrants it. These are the factors that I consider in normally buying in for the max. I do have a question for you though Ed. If someone playing the short stack strategy were to find a table with several other players with the minimum buyin playing the same strategy, should that affect their table selection criteria, i.e. does the prospect of less misplaced excessive action on the part of big stacks make that a bad table for another short stack? It would seem to me that it might, but I am interested in your opinion. 
|
|
#103
06-15-2005, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to play against opponents who "push me around" by making it $200 to go as the standard preflop raise in a $5-$10 blind game. [/ QUOTE ] If you are a $200 short-stack, while profitable, this is not very fun. I used to play in a 1-2-2 $100 buyin game where at times many of us had $3000+ stacks. The guys who bought in for $100 did not have very much fun when it was $50 to go every hand. It was very profitable for them, though.
|
|
#104
06-15-2005, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
A short-stack in the game reduces the number and complexity of decisions in a hand. So, if the big stack is a better player than the short stack, this actually evens the playing field a bit for the short stack. If the short stack is the better player, he is giving up some of his playing advantage. In some situations, the big stack will play horribly against a short stack but will play timidly and OK against a big stack. In that case, the better player is also well-served playing a short stack.
|
|
#105
06-15-2005, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players. [/ QUOTE ] And again regarding two of them and yourself, I am sure that members of the breed equus asinus think highly of one another. [/ QUOTE ] Are you referring to Kane and me or Kane and Zee?
|
|
#106
06-15-2005, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Followup Response
Joel,
You are confusing two different issues. One is being a short-stack at the table. The other is being underbankrolled for a particular limit. I often buyin for $2500 to $3500 in the UB 25/50 game. This is because against certain lineups, I feel my EV is highest with this particular stack size (certain guys won't give me action w/ 5k behind, but will easily double me up w/ $3000). This is largely a function of what the pot size will be on the flop after the average expected pre-flop action. Nobody can push me around, and in fact, I put big stacks to tougher decisions than they put me to. When I sit down at an NL game, whether I'm sitting w/ $500 or $20,000, I'm always happy to get those chips in the middle. That is the issue, not the size of your stack. Many players w/ $15,000 stacks in the UB 25/50 game can be pushed around by players with $5,000 stacks because the big stack is not sufficiently bankrolled or comfortable to be putting $5k in the middle without being confident he has a huge edge.
|
|
#107
06-15-2005, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question for Joel (and anyone else who\'s interested)
[ QUOTE ]
if I have $2000 and you have $200, and I put you on a big pair, then I can set you all-in on the flop with AK, AQ or any quality draw (8 outs or better). One pair (even an overpair to the board) isn’t that great of a hand in NL and is easily stacked, most NL players know this and the good ones understand the importance of being able to lay these hands down [/ QUOTE ] The good ones also know that when you are playing a short-stack, you commit your whole stack with a much wider range of hands. [ QUOTE ] $30 is a very small amount in proportion to $2000, so I can also call you with hands like small and medium pairs, 67s, Axs, or Kxs. [/ QUOTE ] You completely miss the point here. There is not $2000 to win. Making bad $30 calls to play against a $200 stack is a horrible strategy. [ QUOTE ] The point is if I have you outstacked enough it is almost inevitable that I will either push you around all night or break you. [/ QUOTE ] False. [ QUOTE ] The Big Stacker will be able to read your SS strategy easily, but you won’t be able to read him, which gives him an additional advantage. This is why I personally don’t play in uncapped games. [/ QUOTE ] The short stack does not need to read him. That is why playing a short stack against better players minimizes the advantage of the better players. [ QUOTE ] they’ll just start raising 25x the big blind ($500) which is in the same proportion to their stacks as 5x was to the table max. After the flop they will bet in proportion to the pot (3/4 or the whole pot) [/ QUOTE ] This is a goldmine for the $2000 stack. Not the most fun game, but insanely profitable. You have some serious misunderstanding about NL if you think what you have descibed is a bad spot for the short stack, profit-wise.
|
|
#108
06-15-2005, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
[ QUOTE ]
...GSIH, which is where this statement and the subsequent advice to play small stacks appears, is targetted for beginners. I don't claim that playing a small stack is optimal. I claim that it simplifies the game so that beginners will have a better chance to win right off the bat. [/ QUOTE ] Ed, I think this is what everyone is missing/overlooking. They argue that a big stack has an advantage over a small stack because it is more efficient/optimal for a good player. Therefore, that player should have a higher expectation in a game than if he were to buy in short. This is probably true. So while it may be true that a deep stack has a higher expectation than a short stack playing at any given table, that does not mean that the deep stack player has an advantage over the short stack player. This is the connection that many are not making. Deep stack's greater expectation isn't coming from the short stack, it's coming from others at the table, who presumably bought in for more than short stack. Am I off base? Did it make it any clearer for anyone?
|
|
#110
06-16-2005, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players. [/ QUOTE ] And again regarding two of them and yourself, I am sure that members of the breed equus asinus think highly of one another. [/ QUOTE ] Are you referring to Kane and me or Kane and Zee? [/ QUOTE ] I respect you El Diablo, so that should narrow it down considerably.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
