Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-28-2005, 03:44 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2005, 04:02 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

[ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure you have the sample size to prove it? 1 or 2 bb/100 over 30,000 hands is very big.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I have enough hands? What's next, will you say that I probably buy in short because I am underbankrolled, or some other speculative nonsense? That's usually how these discussions have gone in the past. To forestall that, I am massively overbankrolled for the highest NL game I play regularly, NL 400. Despite this, when I play NL 100, I usually buy in short, and I have for the past 20k NL 100 hands. I usually didn't buy in short for the first 20k hands. My win rate hasn't changed noticeably between those.

However, even if my win rate drops by 2 BB when I buy in short, it would still mean that buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table is much more profitable than buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table. Winning 8 BB/100 ($16/100) at NL 100 is better than winning 12 BB/100 ($12/100) at NL 50. (Actually, according to PokerTracker, my win rate is higher at NL 100 than NL 50, but I didn't use my observed win rates.) So, your suggestion (which is not supported by my evidence) argues for buying in short at a higher stakes game.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-28-2005, 04:35 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-28-2005, 11:35 AM
yeau2 yeau2 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 1
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

How do you feel about giving a weighted average to the percent of times I should be re racking to the full amount and the times I stick with a short stack. In other words, the % of times I decide I need a full stack vs the times I don't should be added above the "standard" bankroll I judge from my shortstack times 20 bankroll.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-28-2005, 11:53 AM
GrunchCan GrunchCan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jundland Wastes
Posts: 595
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-28-2005, 12:16 PM
Fallen Hero Fallen Hero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 34
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:41 PM
scrapperdog scrapperdog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 26
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:55 PM
zipppy zipppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minneapolis, 20+2
Posts: 236
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:58 PM
beavens beavens is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-28-2005, 02:09 PM
zipppy zipppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minneapolis, 20+2
Posts: 236
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.