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