GSIH No-Limit Short Stack Strategy

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are following his strategy correctly, there shouldn't be a line. You either doubled up or busted out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can easily be blinded down, as well as end up losing an all-in against someeone with half your stack. I suggest topping off your stack so it stays at 10big blind or so. On Party this is possible, on other sites like Stars you have to make it a full minimum buy-in again, which actually is on the high side.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I play at the PokerStars 1/2 cents tables, where the minimum bankroll is $1.00. Two questions:

1. Does the Short Stack Strategy apply to micro-limits,
like my table?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the table - specifically, how much you can get them to call for with an inferior hand. If you're at an incredibly dumb/loose table where people are willing to call a 50xBb raise with QTs, then raise 50xBb. Miller just says that in most cases, a good rule of thumb is a 3-5xBb raise, since even very loose players usually wont call much more than that unless they have aces or kings.

It all depends on what you can get away with, essentially.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Since the minimum is 50 BBs already, can one use the SSS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, depends on your table and depends on the size of the stacks around you - like the book says, the goal is to "get all-in against a weaker hand as quickly as possible." The quicker the better, since he won't have the chance to pick up any draws, and your short stack means that even if he does pick up a draw, its not worth chasing since he's not going to get a sufficiently fat payday if he were to hit it.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it applies, just as long as one realizes you're risking the dollar when you go all-in. Average pots at 1/2 cents tables are not 6 or 8 cents, as one might guess. They are probably 75 cents, with occasional $5.00 pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Well, there you go. Try the SS method; hell, at that kind of a table you might even be able to raise your entire dollar before the flop and get a call from a weaker hand.

[Student]

Appreciate it!

My intuition is in agreement with you. 1/2 cents tables are a place where good and profitable players will "go slumming," so as to test new theories about strategy etc. It's also where professional poker teachers take their class, as a recent article in Internet Magazine here on 2+2 suggested. I'd wondered why some players seemed so talented; it defied reason that they were there for the money!

Since you field those questions so well, I have another for you. Being a mathematician/scientist, and also a beginner at poker, naturally my interest has focused on applying mathematics, as my talents might apply. I worked on measuring luck, and this lead to individual hand strengths of the 169 combinations of hole cards. One thing always leads to another, and this lead to figuring out a mathematical way of analytically computing (not estimating) the percentage of hands one would enter, given a particular set of opening hands. I'd gone that far, so I then wanted cards for opening hands at the 15% level of entry, 20% (nominal case), and 25%. I saw this as a way of adapting to tight, normal and loose play at a particular table.

This last project was more a trial and error thing. I'd set forth a particular set of opening hands, and then compute the percent of hands one would expect to enter, on average.

So it happens I found another tight set of opening hole cards, one with 13.91% of hands to be entered, compared to the 13.825% that are the Miller tight set of hands from "Getting Started in Hold'em." Naturally I compared these two opening hands cards, since they were very alike as to hands entered.

So I'm going to lay out where the 2 opening hands cards are different, and then ask you to speculate on whether my set of tight opening cards would also work with Miller's Short Stack Strategy (SSS). The big difference involves pairs and unsuited hole cards. Miller goes 2, 2, and 7 for Late, Middle and Early, and mine are 7, 8, and 9. So I lose quite a few hands, based on pairs. I make it up by permitting a few hands with unsuited hole cards. In what follows I'm specifying only the weakest hands we each permit, with our opening hands cards. Hence, Miller does for Ace: 10, 10, and J, and I do for Ace: 10, J, and Q. Miller does for King: J, J, and Q, and I do for King: 10, J, and Q. Miller permits no other hands, whereas I do for Queen: 10, J for Last and Middle and for Jack: 10 for Last.

Since there are 12 ways of making a certain unsuited pair of hole cards, and only 6 ways of making pairs, each 2 removed pairs from Miller's opening hands card covers 1 unsuited hole card combination permitted. Yet, overall, my opening hands card has a bottom-line same percentage of hands entry statistic.

At issue is some of the Miller pairs aren't very strong, and quite a bit less strong than the strongest unsuited hole card combination I include. This is especially apparent when viewing unsuited connectors QJ and JT, vs pairs like 22 and 33.

Hopefully my questions will be apparent above, but otherwise I'll be glad to spell them out better. Of course, comments are appreciated, and intuitions too!

Dave

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
At issue is some of the Miller pairs aren't very strong, and quite a bit less strong than the strongest unsuited hole card combination I include. This is especially apparent when viewing unsuited connectors QJ and JT, vs pairs like 22 and 33.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are making a pretty common beginner mistake and overvaluing hands like JT, QJ especially the off-suit versions. These hands really are weak against any hand that you are going to get involved with if you are looking to get a lot of chips in the middle.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Appreciate it!

My intuition is in agreement with you. 1/2 cents tables are a place where good and profitable players will "go slumming," so as to test new theories about strategy etc. It's also where professional poker teachers take their class, as a recent article in Internet Magazine here on 2+2 suggested. I'd wondered why some players seemed so talented; it defied reason that they were there for the money!

Since you field those questions so well, I have another for you. Being a mathematician/scientist, and also a beginner at poker, naturally my interest has focused on applying mathematics, as my talents might apply. I worked on measuring luck, and this lead to individual hand strengths of the 169 combinations of hole cards. One thing always leads to another, and this lead to figuring out a mathematical way of analytically computing (not estimating) the percentage of hands one would enter, given a particular set of opening hands. I'd gone that far, so I then wanted cards for opening hands at the 15% level of entry, 20% (nominal case), and 25%. I saw this as a way of adapting to tight, normal and loose play at a particular table.

This last project was more a trial and error thing. I'd set forth a particular set of opening hands, and then compute the percent of hands one would expect to enter, on average.

So it happens I found another tight set of opening hole cards, one with 13.91% of hands to be entered, compared to the 13.825% that are the Miller tight set of hands from "Getting Started in Hold'em." Naturally I compared these two opening hands cards, since they were very alike as to hands entered.

So I'm going to lay out where the 2 opening hands cards are different, and then ask you to speculate on whether my set of tight opening cards would also work with Miller's Short Stack Strategy (SSS). The big difference involves pairs and unsuited hole cards. Miller goes 2, 2, and 7 for Late, Middle and Early, and mine are 7, 8, and 9. So I lose quite a few hands, based on pairs. I make it up by permitting a few hands with unsuited hole cards. In what follows I'm specifying only the weakest hands we each permit, with our opening hands cards. Hence, Miller does for Ace: 10, 10, and J, and I do for Ace: 10, J, and Q. Miller does for King: J, J, and Q, and I do for King: 10, J, and Q. Miller permits no other hands, whereas I do for Queen: 10, J for Last and Middle and for Jack: 10 for Last.

Since there are 12 ways of making a certain unsuited pair of hole cards, and only 6 ways of making pairs, each 2 removed pairs from Miller's opening hands card covers 1 unsuited hole card combination permitted. Yet, overall, my opening hands card has a bottom-line same percentage of hands entry statistic.

At issue is some of the Miller pairs aren't very strong, and quite a bit less strong than the strongest unsuited hole card combination I include. This is especially apparent when viewing unsuited connectors QJ and JT, vs pairs like 22 and 33.

Hopefully my questions will be apparent above, but otherwise I'll be glad to spell them out better. Of course, comments are appreciated, and intuitions too!

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the idea with the small pairs is that you flop a set and get all in. With unsuited low broadways, you have a very high chance of being dominated. So although you have more chances to hit you pair, you also have a much higher chance of being dominated or drawn out on.

Plus ... Ed is a Genius. Don't ever second guess 2+2 or they will find you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (at the table)

Greg

[Student]

Appreciated your comments!

I bring to the table my mathematical abilities, and haven't even read "Getting Started in Hold'em." I've read quite extensively on 2+2 concerning GSiH, first so as to make the decision to buy it, and then to find what others had learned by reading it. Then I'd crack the book, enough so as to check on the comments others had made.

The 2 hands I'd mentioned as being outside Ed's card, yet inside mine, are very strong hands. 22 and 33 are quite weak hands, so much so that QJu and JTu (unsuited overcard connectors) average a bit over 26% stronger than these pairs.

One of the projects I have is to program the Monte Carlo comparison of 2 hands, one vs the other. It would be most instructive to see how 22 holds up against QJunsuited. What is the distribution of winning hands for each? Intuition says 22 in the hole with 2 on the board is very, very strong, especially since no one knows you have it!

Presently I haven't read GSiH, but I've taken a good look at the tables on pp 108-9. So I don't know how he handles play for these cards. I suppose he treats 222 (with 22 in the hole) as being much stronger than AA, and even AAKK, as it is! I'm in process of reading the book, but I have so many competing interests, including a number of them involving poker.

I hope to reach a point with my poker where I have quite superior support concerning software. I'm the kind of guy who prefers software to be of my own construction, so I can do studies without restriction. So Stovepipe and PokerTracker don't interest me much. I suspect some of my problems with moving from rank beginner status, including consistent unprofitability, and my reluctance to abandon everything in favor of reading poker books, are because of my attitude. Nevertheless, I'm having lots of fun regarding poker, and it's because of my unusual approach to the subject.

Yes, I agree concerning Ed's genius! He's able to translate the genius of Mason and David into something comprehensible to beginners, and that's definitely the action of genius.

Dave

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Plus ... Ed is a Genius. Don't ever second guess 2+2 or they will find you. (at the table)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to get off-topic, but I loved Ed's story, mainly the fact that he became a great poker player through hard work and study.

It's a pleasant contrast to Sklansky & Malmuth, who give off the impression that one day they just arrived from On High to play in the big games and teach us all our poker sins. (and they certainly don't exactly dispute that impression in their books, as far as I've read [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[popniklas]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
If you are following his strategy correctly, there shouldn't be a line. You either doubled up or busted out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not really, since your opponents may fold.

As I understand it, you usually either double, triple (or more if you're lucky), almost-double (if, say, two people call your raise but fold on the flop) or bust out. Except for posting blinds and ocassionally watching everyone fold and pick up the pot preflop.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are following his strategy correctly, there shouldn't be a line. You either doubled up or busted out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not really, since your opponents may fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're following the system correctly, you should only just pick up the blinds maybe the first two or three times you raise, while you're feeling out the table for just how much you can charge them. After that, you should be raising an amount that you discovered weaker hands at the table would be willing to call, yet still high enough that you're getting the best of it.

[popniklas]

Well, of course you WANT to be called, that is the goal if your raises. Ideally you would be called every time (including the first 2-3 times). Most of the time you will be (unless you are doing something wrong) but sometimes everyone will fold, either preflop or on the flop.

You don't know what the other players hold, nor EXACTLY how willing they are to call your raises. You can not always make an optimal raise, just a pretty good estimate of what would be appropriate.