Short stack play in the Party NL 2000

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
But even a top NL 400 player could make more buying in full than he could with a $500 stack at NL 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not so sure of this, because it could easily (game selection) be who loses less, and with a 500 stack you have less to lose, capisco?

[mrwatson23]

No one is answering the question. I asked how much one could expect to make buying in for $500 in the Party NL $2000, using the basic strategy outlined in Getting Started in Hold'em. I have no doubt that one could make more playing a big stack if he was an expert no-limit player. I think the number of people who think they are expert players and play their big stacks poorly is very large. I don't think that anyone who plays a short stack really cares if the big stacks hate what they are doing. It is about making money, period. I posted a hand that is a typical interaction between a small stack and a large stack on the Party NL $2000. No one has commented on it. Playing a small stack super tight may be transparent, but it doesn't seem to affect how people play against you. They still give action with the worst hand. These kinds of hands happen all the time, and the big stacks still criticize the small stacks, despite the fact that they get consistently get their money in with the worst of it.

[fimbulwinter]

i've read posts before that claim 2-4BB/100 playing the shortstacked way against a table of big stacks. let's look at this versus 400NL at 10BB/100 and 100NL at 20BB/100.

using conservative estimates:
1. 2BB/100 @ $20 BB is $40/100
2. 10BB/100 @ $4 BB is $40/100
3. 20BB/100 @ $1 BB is $20/100

getting to play 4 tables of 400NL at 10BB/100 is tough and requires not only experience, but a measure of innate intelligence/talent. doing so by an algorithm in a book is easy. since his VPIP is so low, he could easily 8 table doing this, so at ~300-400/hr he's looking at an expected earn of 120-160/hr doing something mindless...

do this with a $400 stack and a $8K bankroll and you have a license to print money. granted you'll want to kill your brain after about 20K hands of this, but it will be easy.

fim

PS- this is why NL games need one set point for buyin with rebuys varied, like they are live.

[mrwatson23]

You guys really need to read this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...14&fpart=1

[cero_z]

Hi mrwatson,

[ QUOTE ]
"you obviously suck, otherwise you wouldn't buy in for $500 in a $2000 game"

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny; I've never seen anyone type this, even though virtually everyone who does this does suck. Sorry to participate in the hijack of your thread; I haven't had a chance to read Ed's new book yet, but I wanted to comment on the "short-buy" strategy in the big game at Party.

I think that a short-stack strategy could win in this game if implemented well, because there are plenty of bad players in the game. But so would any other reasonable strategy, for the same reason. I actually don't think that the type of play you describe really exploits the general weaknesses of this game very well. Specifically, players seem wary of big pre-flop raises to a fault, in my opinion.
I can see your strategy working better (proportionally) in the 600 game and below.

Also, I'm not sure what the minimum buy-in at the 2000 game is (200?), but it's less than 500. A stack of 500 makes your post-flop decisions a lot more important than a stack of 200. What you usually see from the uber-short stacks is them getting all their chips in with in-between hands, like AJ or KJ. They often lose way more equity than they picked up pre-flop by calling off the last 2/3 of their stack with next to nothing.

In the AA hand you posted, you played your hand well, but your opponent didn't play too badly either; his flop bet is reasonable, and obviously his call of your all-in is automatic. The debatable play is calling 70 more with A8s out of the BB vs. a short-stacked raiser. A loose call, to be sure, but not out of the question, given the other player in the pot. On the flop, he's about even money against any overpair except AA.

[mrwatson23]

Nice post cero. One question though, would any other reasonable strategy that could win in this game require less thought?

[AZK]

I don't know if this is going to help but I feel like typing it anyway.

For the last two months or so, I have devastated an otherwise great bankroll for my limits (2/5 - 10/20) by playing nuts super lag bad (i.e. I've had no discpline in my game). I have been playing like a total moron and it isn't an issue of running bad, it's an issue of playing bad. I used to play a game where I would buyin short (at least for the game - about 500 in 2/5). When I first started out I was playing ubertight when I didn't have position and doing well, as I slowly doubled through people, my stack grew. When I had a big stack, my game changed as I became more aggressive and started raising a lot more with position, picture this over one session. A lot of people at the table didn't realize that I had totally changed gears and it was amazing how many other big stacks I managed to stack because they were giving me credit for AA with a raise rather than 78s, since 3 hours ago, I was only playing 1 hand an orbit if that. Despite being up, I remained tight without position and still didn't coldcall raises with garbage (i.e. 87o) As the roll grew, I began buying into games deep right from the start thinking I could just use my stack to get me out of poor preflop decisions. I also started calling a lot more raises preflop trying to out play/bust people. I totally gave up on position (if we all have 5k and the blinds are 2/5 who cares I thought?) It doesn't take long to lose a lot of money this way, the smart short stacks were in heaven when I and others would play like this against one another. While you can't buy in deep online, even with 100xBB I still find myself calling a lot of raises I shouldn't, paying off a lot of value bets that I should be folding to and things of that nature.

Recently, as depressing as this is, I decided to put myself on a leash for online games, I buyin for 50xBB, so 1000 in the 2k game. People give you incredible action for the size of your stack because of the "why no max buy in this game?" All of your decisions are easy, and I payoff a lot less now. I hope one day I will have the discipline to buy in reg. online, but for now, this is working. Diablo and Flynn have mentioned this in the past about an easy way to play NL online, because all your decisions are so easy. I'm going to stick with it online and see how it works at least until I manage to control my LAG urges...I'll keep you posted on how it works. I wouldn't buyin for 5 at the 2k game, that's too short I think, I think your money is better off in the 1k game with 5, but this is just what I've been messing around with for the past week. Sorry for hijacking your thread, just wanted to get this off my chest.

[AZK]

The biggest factor in determining how much money you make as a short stack in a game like this is how active the game is. I think shortstack strategy works a lot better in a game like the commerce 10/20 (at least from how I hear how that game plays) than online. From what I've seen, a lot of the 5/10 - 10/20 games online are more rockish then they are crazy action...

[KaneKungFu123]

its profitable, but youll need to change names often.

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you think a player could make buying into the Party NL $2000 for $500, then using the short stack strategy as outlined in Getting Started in Hold'em. I have been experimenting with this, and it is funny how many times I have seen "you obviously suck, otherwise you wouldn't buy in for $500 in a $2000 game" typed in the chat box. But they still get their money in with the worst hand more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
its profitable, but youll need to change names often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?