Bankroll Requirements

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
unfashionable does not mean it is wrong or unprofitable

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the point. SS is +EV, just less +EV than full stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you changed your post to add this after my first response. I didn't miss this idea at all, as I have discussed it numerous times in past discussions. I agree with Tommy Angelo and Ulysses/El Diablo that it is often a good idea to buy in short. If the game conditions favor having a deep stack, you can easily add money to a short stack. If you have a deep stack and realize it would be more profitable to have a short stack, you can't take money off the table.

Many people are uncomfortable with this idea. Too bad; it's right.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out.. Care to explain how a situation can favor a short stack? Just bet less, unless you are talking about image, which is crap.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain how a situation can favor a short stack?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here are examples:

If I find that the fish have shallow stacks, and a few good, tough players have deep stacks, then I often want to be able to attack the fish without having the rest of my stack exposed to the good players.

It is easier to punish people who play speculative hands when you have a short stack. Buying in short deprives them of the implied odds they need to justify calling your raises, which frequently allows you to steal the limps, and prevents you from losing too much against a slow-played AA. Think about how it feels when you limp with 44 UTG (which is fine), and the one player with a short stack, 25 BB, raises to 5 BB behind you. You can't defend your limp. In addition, when you have a very short stack, players are often pot-committing themselves with any raise, which means if few people act after you, you can reraise with anything ahead of their range. That's much weaker than normal. It makes it much easier to punish people who raise with speculative hands.

The rules of poker give short stacks an intrinsic advantage. When you are all-in, you can't be charged any more, but the deep stacks with chips left can knock each other out. In a recent game, a very short stack pushed with A9, someone called, and I reraised with QQ, knocking out the caller. The short stack was about a 2:1 underdog, but because of the dead money, he was getting 2:1 on his money, so he shouldn't mind. By reraising, I transferred some equity to myself, and some equity to the short stack.

It can be worth giving up the advantages of having a short stack for the ability to outplay people in big pots. I often do that. To me, it's not worth giving up the advantages just to be fashionable.

[ QUOTE ]
Just bet less, unless you are talking about image, which is crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sentence makes no sense to me.

[Fallen Hero]

buying-in short is -EV for your poker "career". Most of us play ssnl to improve and move up, not to maximize EV at the current level.

[scrapperdog]

I agree with grunch, if you are gonna buy in short what is the reason for going with 50 bets? You dont accomplish becoming the short stack, and you dont have the stack to maximize your value on those hands where you are super strong and get unlimited action. This seems to be the worst of both worlds. Your better off buying for 25 or 100 bets.

[beavens]

this has turned from a basic "look to the FAQ" question into a pretty nice discussion on the cost/benefit on buying in short.

since i can't really add anything constructive, i think that the mods should consider this thread for the digest.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with grunch, if you are gonna buy in short what is the reason for going with 50 bets? You dont accomplish becoming the short stack, and you dont have the stack to maximize your value on those hands where you are super strong and get unlimited action. This seems to be the worst of both worlds. Your better off buying for 25 or 100 bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buying in for 50BB instead of 100BB certainly strips away implied odds for large stacks looking to play speculative hands. If it takes away enough implied odds to be effective, then playing with 50BB has the same benefits as playing with 25BB but with all the benefits that come with a larger stack.

I think it's incorrect to think that it's always best to start with 100BB, or always correct to start with 25BB, or always correct to start with either 100BB or 25BB. It's table dependant, and in some cases 50BB is probably optimal, but it depends on specific opponents.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
buying-in short is -EV for your poker "career". Most of us play ssnl to improve and move up, not to maximize EV at the current level.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe it's just me, but I think learning to maximize EV at my current level is improving. Also, if there are situations in which buying in short at your current level is optimal, then I'm willing to guess there will be situations when buying in short at higher levels is optimal as well.

Pzhon isn't advocating always buying in short; he's simply pointing out that buying in for the full amount isn't always the right move.**


>>>ZIPPPY


**unless I'm interpretting what he was saying incorrectly, which is quite possible.

[GrunchCan]

I have always agreed with pzhon that buying short can be the most +EV play, depending on who you are and where you're playing.

But I disagree that buying for 50BB is ever right, if 50BB isn't the minimum buyin. If buying short is the most +EV move for you at a particular time, then there are two overriding reasons why that is so. First, it limits the amplitude of your errors. Second, it reduces the chance that you can make a mistake postflop, since you are going all-in preflop so frequently.

Buying in for 50BB rather than the absolute minumum comprimises both of these considerations. Since you bought in for more, you can lose more when you're wrong, and you'll get all-in preflop infrequently which exposes you to postflop play.

So basically, if it's more +EV for you to play short, then the best ammount to buyin for is the absolute minimum.

In fact, I might go so far as to say that if it's theoretically most +EV to play short, but the minimum buyin is 50BB, then in reality it's most +EV to play deep at a (edit) smaller game. The reason for this is becasue the amplitude of your errors is unchanged in reall dollars, but becasue your stack is so much bigger in relation to the pot, you will not often have to make crying flop calls becasue you were potstuck. Being deeper allows you to dodge losing situations more often.

[ajmargarine]

Interesting thread. I agree with Grunch that 50bb's is not a good buy-in level for the short player. And I stand by my previous assertion that an ~80% buy-in is OK if you have bankroll considerations.

I still don't agree with the shortstack mentality however. I don't believe that is more +EV than buying in full. Yeah, I find it a nuisance when I limp with 44 and the SS PFR's and I have to fold, but so what. I find it easy to play against SS's. You just have to make a few adjustments, something any decent player should be able to do.

At NL200 and below, villians make so many mistakes. The greatest EV comes when you can capitalize to the maximum on their mistakes. If they have a 140bb stack, your greatest EV against them will occur when you have 140 bb's as well and they make a mistake.

I read the Tommy Angelo thing and I see his point. He is not talking about playing the perpetual shortstack. It's the Ed Miller SS thing that I think of when people start talking about buying in short, that IMO isn't good for the avg. 2+2'er.