Is NL a flawed form of poker?

[salloch]

In his book “Getting Started in Hold ‘em” Ed Miller makes the claim that No-Limit is a “flawed” form of poker if people are allowed to buy in with short stacks (say 20x BB or less). In a nutshell, you play very tight, try to get called PF by inferior hands, and then try to get your stack in asap. I had to work off a bonus at Party so I decided to give his system a whirl. I have never purposely played short stack NL before. Here’s what I found.

I bought in for $5.00 and left if I doubled up. I four tabled and pretty much played like an auto-pilot monkey. I can’t say I played the system flawlessly, but it was by far the least thinking I have done while playing, and four tabling was a breeze (it’s something I never do while playing “thinking” poker).

I played 1296 hands (it took that many to clear the 700 hand bonus!?!), VPIP of 13.3, PTBB/100 of 2.48. Biggest downswing 32 PTBB

(I made some adjustments for hands that were not properly played according to his system. Without these adjustments PTBB were 2.18)

I know the sample size is small, but his system sure felt right, and it worked exactly as he predicted. I was seldom the dog when all the money went in, and I was amazed at some of the bad hands that called all-in.

Is it possible that this method represents a “risk free return” at NL?

I’ve noticed a lot more short stack buy-ins (at the $50 NL) since Ed’s book came out. Anyone notice this too?

Anyone else tried this out? What did you experience?

I didn’t really enjoy it, but it was the fastest I’ve ever cleared a bonus, and with (what felt like) little risk. I will definitely use this to clear my bonus next time.

Ed claims that anyone using his methods with a short stack can enter the biggest NL games and expect to win in the long run. Anyone think he’s wrong? If so, what’s the counter strategy?

-Sorry for the long and rambling post

-salloch

[PinkSteel]

I think the experiment demonstrates the virtues of tightness, not the virtues of short-stacking.

I'm an idiot, but by just tightening up my play at $25NL I'm now winning. I always come in with a full stack, and top off if I drop below 80%.

I'm not at all surprised that the author's system is profitable, but it doesn't make it max EV, even in the land of the blind.

[LuckYou777]

run a search... "prima" in the subject, "KaneKungFu123" in the author, and do it within a year or something. post is something like "100/200 hand on prima".

thats a pretty good analysis of buying in short to NL games (even at stakes as high as that in the thread).

[Ghazban]

The short answer is that, yes, you can use something like this system to make money in NL games where everybody else is deeper but you can make more by being deeper yourself and outplaying your opponents. If everybody at the table buys in short and uses that system, success will be determined totally by the luck of the draw. The system described in the book works because big stacks cannot simultaneously play optimally against other big stacks and small stacks at the same time.

[LuckYou777]

[ QUOTE ]
but it doesn't make it max EV

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but you can make more by being deeper yourself and outplaying your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

they got it just right.

use it to clear bonuses if you like, hoss, but don't let that keep you from playing deepstacked and sharpening post flop play. dont let the system keep you from becoming a better player.

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the experiment demonstrates the virtues of tightness, not the virtues of short-stacking.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is not quite it. It's not just the tightness that makes his system work it's combination of that plus being short stacked against deeper stacks. It makes many bad players make poor calls because they don't have the implied odds to out-flop you. When you are deep and they call out of position with something like 87s they aren't making that big a mistake, when you only have 20bb then they are making a big mistake. Also many people are more likely to call an all in against you since "hey it's only 5 bucks". It basically makes you have 0 hard decisions and exploits bad players.

FWIW, I do agree with the your post that is not Max EV.

Also I have noticed a ton of short stacks at the 100NL 6max tables. Don't know if it is a result of the book. One guy at one of my tables doubled up and then immediately sat out. I typed "Ed Miller huh?" but he was gone before he could respond.

[jkkkk]

[ QUOTE ]
PTBB/100 of 2.48

[/ QUOTE ]

no thanks.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Is NL a flawed form of poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, limit is [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Interesting post.

[Ilovephysics]

I don't think this is anything 'new'. I've talked with people who have told me of such a system for years at NL games... I.e., goating people into an otherwise bad call (as a short stack) because of the sheer 'cheapness' of the call. Often it also including trying to cheaply flop sets and hoping someone with overcards or TP would also call.

[Ilovephysics]

Since you are playing largely on the sheer 'cheapness' factor of your all-in to get bad calls, the thing I'd be worried about on the short term is the added variance if your small all-in encourages several bad callers.