theoretical question concerning buying size

[TStoneMBD]

ive noticed that certain buying sizes are more difficult to play with than others, as they restrict your options. for instance, lets say that in a 5/10 NL game that has a mandatory 20 to go rule, you buyin for short for $300. A player limps in EP and you want to raise him to $100, but that would commit 33% of your stack, making the situation difficult for youself, because pushing is excessive.

Now that was just an extreme example.

Let's assume that you will be playing in the 5/10 NL game with 20 to go, no max buyin. The minimum buyin is $300.

Everyone at the table is buying in for anywhere between 2k and 4k. Your bankroll restricts you to being the shortstack. You feel comfortable buying in for anywhere between $300 and $2,000.

What is the optimal amount to buyin for, within this range, to take advantage of the large stacks play if you are an average player at the table?

Most people say that you need to buyin as deep as possible, because if you buyin short than you are at an inherent disadvantage to larger stacks. This is just pure ignorance. While it may be true that a better player may be able to increase his bb/100 by playing a larger stack, it would seem that there should be an intuitively correct stack size for a player of average skill level to buyin for that limits the players of larger stack's options, while forcing them to make more mistakes.

Anyone have any insight on this matter?

[fsuplayer]

a PM from ML4L before i went to vegas in july. i wanted to take a shot at the bellagio 10-20.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the specific buy-in strategy that you should use, I like the idea of having two $600 buy-ins and $300 or so to reload if you get blinded off.

I could probably write a long, drawn-out message about how to play a short stack, but here's what Matt taught me: wait for a hand that you like, and then try to get all of the money in. Honestly, that's all there is to it. Preflop, you have to play pretty tight, especially up front, because you can't limp with a speculative hand and then call a raise. Limping and folding to a raise generally isn't a big deal, but when it's 3% of your stack...

Postflop, you just play straightforwardly. If you have AK and miss, take the free card instead of firing a bet out there. Your stack is so short that (generally) if some of your money goes in postflop, it all has to go in. If you flop a decent hand, try to get the money in on the flop.

One great thing about the approximate size stack that you will have is that if you raise preflop and get a caller or two, a reasonable flop bet will leave you with just a little bit left in front of you. A lot of times, if someone wants to play with you, he'll raise the little money that you have left. Or, if the guy is a moron, he'll call, and then find himself unable to fold for a little more on the turn. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you won't find it too hard to double-up, especially if you get a decent hand before people figure out how tight you're playing...

I also do advise to keep reloading if you play a short stack. I wouldn't let my stack fall below 25 BB. Look at it this way: every dollar that you don't have out there is one less dollar that will be doubled once you get your hand.

As far as the psychology-type stuff, try hard not to think about the money. Try to be in "tournament mode" when it comes to chip values. If it starts to hit you that calling a preflop raise will cost you an entire buy-in on Party, it'll mess with your head. So, think in terms of units instead of dollars.

Along those lines, if you're playing with scared money, you should consider getting up and leaving. Let's say that you double up once and win another pot and have around $1500 in front. If losing that in one hand would mess with your head too much or if the thought of that would keep you from playing well, get up and play in the 2/4 game. It's natural that your inclination will be to play tighter. That is fine. But, if you find yourself getting too tight, just call it quits. No shame in doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

heres another from matt flynn:

[ QUOTE ]
not much to it since by playing short you reduce the skill requirement dramatically. preflop raise big with AA or KK and limp with any other pair. with position and a few limpers, you can bomb with QQ (i.e. make it $120). you'll get a caller or two. set-over-set is irrelevant when the stacks are short so play all pairs. play AK and AQs and feel free to raise with them when the time's right. when you do raise, make it $80 or $100. get enough money in the pot that top pair is a no-brainer all in. that said, watch for the big tell on the flop. once a night or so you'll have the opportunity to save your stack because you were watching. think how huge that is.

wouldn't play suited aces even in position. while you may get paid off, your stack is too small to make it worthwhile. avoid the death hands KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT. you can plays JTs in position for a limp but be careful with it.

wouldn't bother with any hands except pairs and AK/AQs (maybe AQ) until you double up. think of it as a game of not going broke. your optimum strategy is to play only the very best hands. so correct play on a super-short bankroll is supertight preflop then ramming postflop if you hit. if you double up, call a buddy and plan dinner. leave the game, then return as soon as they'll let you back and play with the "earned money." now you can loosen up a little.

and be patient. the other players can't be.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

there was also a thread i made about it in june/july titled bellagio 10-20 or something, but i couldnt find it last time i looked. maybe someone else will have better luck with the search function.

hope this helps.

fsuplayer

[TStoneMBD]

while i appreciate your post, its not really what i was looking for. i have the bankroll to play a 5/10NL game, i dont have to play short. im looking more for information on how to exploit stack sizes according to game theory, not on short stack play.

[turnipmonster]

I'm not an expert but have studied game theory a little bit.

most solutions that are considered "optimal" in basic game theory involve giving your opponent a decision that has exactly 0 EV, i.e. they are indifferent to calling/folding.

most exploitative strategies are also exploitable, and therefore non optimal. so I don't think you're looking for an optimal strategy at least according to traditional game theory approaches. game theory is something to use in specific situations, like sklansky's example of bluffing with one card to come in a pot containing n bets. you wouldn't use it to figure out a general strategy against people playing short money.

as far as exploiting short stacks, they make mistakes when they put in a lot preflop with hands that have implied odds only. like in limit you want to trash their implied odds preflop by forcing them to only play premium hands against you. this usually amounts to raising them or forcing them to play for a raise, unless they are playing very very tight.

--turnipmonster

[kagame]

im playing in an 18+ oklahoma casino this weekend with a non capped 2-5 game and i was thinking/worried about this sort of thing

thanks for the great post

[mrgold]

So is there any truth to the conventional wisdom that there is nessecarily an advantage to beeing the bigstack at the table (other than the psychological advantage of beeing able to take all of a scared players money in one hand)? I've never understood why there would be...

[TStoneMBD]

no, it doesnt. people are dumb.

in actuality, if all people at the table are of equal skill, the person with the shortest stack wins the money.

however, if you are the best player at the table, and can beat the game, you can exploit the other player's weaknesses to maximum potential by being able to extract every chip in their stack.

look at it from this perspective; if you are beating your opponents well enough, that every time you get your money allin preflop you have 55% pot equity to their 45% pot equity you would make more money with larger stacks. for instance, if both of you have $1000 stacks, you would make $50 every time you go allin on average. if you have $2000 stacks, you would make $100.

[GFunk911]

[ QUOTE ]
in actuality, if all people at the table are of equal skill, the person with the shortest stack wins the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not neccesarily, although I agree with where you're going. Expanding on/Repeating what fsu said (awesome post/re-post btw), imagine you buy in for 50BB, and everyone else has 1000BB. While the short-stack strategy may be expressable in game theory terms, it is at least an analogue to game theory, with regards to the "equal ev for all opponent decisions" idea.

Just as, using game theory, you can give your opponent a decision where no matter what they do they have the same EV, as the short stack you put your opponent in a bind where both his options are equally -EV (or hopefully the option that involves ignoring you is greater EV and he chooses that option). Your opponent can either gear his gmae to combat you, and open himself up to get destroyed by the big stacks, or keep his game geared to beat the big stacks and open himself up to get beat by you. Since the big stack opponent pose 20x the potential threat to him, he has to focus on them and allow you to exploit him.

In terms of your question, it is absolutely dependant on skill level, but I don't know if it's a gradient or more of a distinct set of stack sizes. It may be that if you are all teh same skill level (or you are worse) you want to play a 50BB stack, but as your skill level goes up the stack size may not increase continuously. Certain stack sizes (100BB for example) can be marder to play than other sizes, affecting the calculation.

So, in summary: *ramble ramble ramble* *avoid your question* *ramble ramble*

[TStoneMBD]

excellent post.