Taking money off the NL table at Party Poker

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that a good player is hurt by a short stack, just that he cannot maximize his edge nor learn how to properly play a larger stack. You can search the poker theory forum for more on this as there have been a couple threads in the past few months discussing the short stack strategy in Ed Miller's book.

However regarding the bad player, you are correct in that by playing a short stack they cannot lose as much as with a larger one and this does act as a safety net somewhat, but only to the degree of limiting their losses. Since they are playing bad, and thus in a negative expectation manner, then all their leaving when they hit and coming back with less amounts to is a money management scheme, similar to those used by people playing casino games. It still won't help them keep from losing in the long run, it just prolongs their play before the negative expectation overcomes any positive short term variance they might be lucky enough to experience.

When you say that their short stacks prevents your making advanced moves on them or getting implied odds to draw out, then all that means is that the good player should adjust properly and play appropriately against them and just count on showing down the best hand to get their money, which should then be assured in the long run. It is only the failure of the good player to adjust that makes the good player play bad against them and really adds to their safety net.

[/ QUOTE ]

If not being able to maximize your edge isn't hurting a good player I'm not sure what does.

I am familiar with the Miller short stack strategy. Ask Ed whether his strategy is intended for good players or for new players who don't know what they are doing. He's obviously tested it, but do you think he actually uses it for himself? Contrary to what you seem to think, his strategy supports my points.

Your last paragraph details all the reasons you can still beat a bad player with a short stack - just not as easily and quickly as if they had a bigger stack. That doesn't go against my point either. No one is arguing you can't still win plenty of money off them.

Bottom line: Your profits in poker come from your opponent's mistakes. The bigger the mistakes, the bigger the profits. Period. It's that easy. With a smaller stack, the bad players make smaller mistakes and less frequently. The result - the good players make less money against them than they would otherwise. Thus, small minimum buy-ins and ratholing are a bad thing for good players though as I said before, the bad effects are somewhat lessened if this causes the bad players to not quit playing poker since they won't go broke as quickly.

[Scotty O]

[ QUOTE ]
If you leave a table on UB and try to come back to it within 20 mins it won't let you sit down with less than what you had when you got up.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is a trick to do this at UB too. saw someone put up all of his bankroll at another table then sit back down with the min buy ins for PLO

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
If you leave a table on UB and try to come back to it within 20 mins it won't let you sit down with less than what you had when you got up.

[/ QUOTE ]

UB rocks!