Is it good to stay in the red zone?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I am reading this thread. And to think some experienced posters are arguing for this...I am not going to cast any insults but this is all just so logically absurd I feel like its a geek's version of Who's on First...

Now excuse me bc I have to go cut both of my arms and legs off so I can collect 100/week workers comp...its +EV and easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have explained several times, I presented this somewhat
ironically, but I am not arguing that a 6xBB stack is better to have than a 12xBB stack. I arguing that a 6xBB stack can be played more effectively than a 12xBB stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

As in you either double up or you're done? yes...in that case, 2BBs is even better.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very important point. so i want to make sure everyone who thinks this thread is "retarded"(for the mental 11 year olds who still use that word as an insult).

This theory says that YOU WANT A BIG STACK. and its worth risking becoming a redzone stack to attain a huge stack at times when you have a breakeven, or maybe even slightly -EV gamble to do so. if you lose the gamble and are down to a shortstack, its not that bad. if you win and become a huge stack its GREAT. but the point is that passing up the gamble to stay an in between stack isn't too favorable.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
As in you either double up or you're done? yes...in that case, 2BBs is even better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. There are good EV+ opportunities with 2xBB. You don't have folding equity, but you should find a chance to get your money in with a reasonably good hand and pot odds.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
This works well for my style of play. I can play a short stack well. Playing flops with shallow money is not my strength. I get better results if I have a big or small stack that I can play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only because you are playing more agressively preflop and getting lucky. Having more is better because you should be playing VERY agressively postflop as well. IOW, if i am hearing you correctly, you are less concerned about getting all-in PF and you don't feel comfortable doing the same POST flop...well, that's a problem obviously if you feel you are better off with ("more effective", whatever) 6BBs than with 12BBs.

p

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only because you are playing more agressively preflop and getting lucky. Having more is better because you should be playing VERY agressively postflop as well. IOW, if i am hearing you correctly, you are less concerned about getting all-in PF and you don't feel comfortable doing the same POST flop...well, that's a problem obviously if you feel you are better off with ("more effective", whatever) 6BBs than with 12BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do better preflop and it may be partly I play postflop poorly and partly I play preflop better than most people. A lot of people don't understand proper short stacked strategy.

With 12xBB, you are not going to see many flops anyway. If you raise or limp, you wind up with difficult situations if people come over top of you. If you see a flop, you often have to push with some pair, draw, or bluff. You have to fold some fairly strong hands from early position.

When you are short stacked, you have plenty of good opportunities to push. As a big stack, you can limp, raise, reraise, steal pots on the flop etc.

Having 9-20xBB and being a medium stack is not the easiest place to be. Sure a good player can find ways to play it, but you can gain more chips more easily with a stack that is easier to play aggressively.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it good to stay in the red zone?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think it is advantagous to maintain an M of 5 or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Advantageous compared to what?
Advatageous to have a smaller M? yes.
Advantageous to have a great M? no.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is necessarily worthwhile to make marginal pushes with like 9xBB with a small ante or no ante. If I get blinded down, I will have better opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]


No you won't.
This is the main flaw of your post. You say you will have "better opportunities". This is incorrect.
You will have better opportunities to double up. However, you will NOT have better opportunities to get to ~18 BBs (which is where you get when you double up your 9BBs).
Ok, so rather than take a marginal situation at 9 BBs (which may get you to 18BBs or more), you get blinded down and take a slightly better situation (which may get you back to where you started - though slightly deeper in the tourney, which carries both advantageous and disadvantageous).

[ QUOTE ]
Some will say you can't win a tournament as a small stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, if only there was a cliché regarding MTTs, something like 'anyone can win with a chip and a chair'.

[ QUOTE ]
However, a lot of daily live tournament and online tournaments on some sites have fast structures so that everyone at the final table is short stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the theory holds when it's true by definition. Insight!

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you don't mind doubling up and becoming a bigger stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really?
Why?
I don't mean to be coy here, but you say it may be 'good' to stay in the red zone, and now you acknowledge that it's undoubtedly good to double up and get out of it.
So they are both good?
So what are we saying here, that one way or another having chips is favorable to not having chips? Fantastic.

[ QUOTE ]
However, as a medium stack, you have to more wait for big hands. As a short stack or a small stack, you can play more aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]
To the limited extent that this is true, it's irrelevant, unless we consider playing hands favorable to not playing hands regardless of the value of those hands.
Also, you're misusing the term 'aggressively' here. Since aggressive is generally a quality in poker play, it carries certain connotations, none of which apply in this situation.
While it is necessary to play certain holdings with a short stack that you wouldn't play with a big stack, does that mean you are being more aggressive with a short stack than with a big stack? No, not quite.

You are being aggressive when you can intimidate other players, mainly by threatening them with the possibility of busting them. Accordingly, despite tightening starting hand requirements for most players, increased stack size fosters aggressiveness rather than inhibiting it.

You aren't being more aggressive with a short stack, you're just playing more pots.

As others have said, while staying in the red zone might make decisions easier, that in itself does not make it 'good'.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I typed out a whole thing highlighting the major logical flaws in this arguement, but deleted it, after I started cursing to myself.

think of this...

you have 5xBB and push, are called by X.
you have 9xBB and raise to 5xBB, are reraised all in by X.
The intrinsic value of the 5xBB bet hasnt changed. it still wins you the smae number of chips 100% of the time.

In case 2, you can either fold and have a great 4xBB redzone stack (which are SO valuable), or you make a +EV call.

So, explain to me why having a 5xBB stack is worth more than 1/2 of a 10xBB stack, when we could just raise 1/2 our stack, incorrectly fold if reraised and have exactly 1/2 or stack?

This thread is borderline lunacy

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry for another bump to this, but i was just reading through this thread again, and i must have missed this post the first time. this example you gave is VERY flawed. if you push allin for 5x BB and are called, how do you think that you have the same number of chips as if you raise 5x BB with a 9xBB stack and then fold? you certainly win have more than 0% pot equity in the first example when your push is called.