[TheMightyJim2k]

your graph beat me to it. Obviously some of it is variance, but I think you should still be winning. And it is pretty much an unbeatable strategy. It is basically a math game at the stack size you are playing, and as long as you play hands that are a favorite on average against you are opponents you have +EV. Unfortunately the magnitude of your +EV is limited by the fact that you can't make people make horrible mistakes late on streets for stacks, and the fact that you have to play much fewer hands than the deep stack players that can afford to take flops and try to hit concealed big hands.

I think this is a very good strategy for someone trying to turn a small roll into a medium size roll relatively quickly. The decisions are mostly easy, the losses won't hurt as much, and if you run decent at all you'll be fine.

ps - I played some 6max .5 NL on FTP yesterday thinking maybe this time it would be different. But nope I still left thinking "god this is boring". I think I won $.50 in about 45 minutes and it was just a stupid game of pot it pf with position and a decent hand, make a c-bet if it looks reasonable, if they don't have it you win, if they have it you check the turn and fold the river. BLECH

As soon as someone hopped onto my 5/10 HU limit table I shut it down for some fun. I get to play like 78% of my hands or more HU limit, and I get to play like 25% of my hands in NL cash. which sounds more fun to you?

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by ACE'S FULL

This is an interesting discussion. I dont want to jack this... But are there any other pros/cons to consider buying in deep or short?

It depends on what kind of player you are. If you're a really good post-flop player (not me), buying in short has more cons because it is effectively killing your advantage (because decisions for the other players are becoming simpler against you). If you're better pre-flop than post-flop (me), buying in short has a lot of advantages. Unfortunately, I'm comfortable making a decision pre-flop that basically writes the rest of the hand for me. So, playing short helps me because I can raise pre-flop, and easily get committed after the flop since there won't be much money left behind. The decisions are easier, and someone that is good post-flop can't kick my ass as much as usual.

I'm stubborn, though, and I want to learn to be good post-flop, so I keep buying in deep (and I keep reloading my account... )

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

your graph beat me to it. Obviously some of it is variance, but I think you should still be winning. And it is pretty much an unbeatable strategy. It is basically a math game at the stack size you are playing, and as long as you play hands that are a favorite on average against you are opponents you have +EV. Unfortunately the magnitude of your +EV is limited by the fact that you can't make people make horrible mistakes late on streets for stacks, and the fact that you have to play much fewer hands than the deep stack players that can afford to take flops and try to hit concealed big hands.

I think this is a very good strategy for someone trying to turn a small roll into a medium size roll relatively quickly. The decisions are mostly easy, the losses won't hurt as much, and if you run decent at all you'll be fine.

ps - I played some 6max .5 NL on FTP yesterday thinking maybe this time it would be different. But nope I still left thinking "god this is boring". I think I won $.50 in about 45 minutes and it was just a stupid game of pot it pf with position and a decent hand, make a c-bet if it looks reasonable, if they don't have it you win, if they have it you check the turn and fold the river. BLECH

As soon as someone hopped onto my 5/10 HU limit table I shut it down for some fun. I get to play like 78% of my hands or more HU limit, and I get to play like 25% of my hands in NL cash. which sounds more fun to you?

BUT, if you play 35 tables of $50NL, you get to play like 3 hands an hours instead of 1!

[ACE'S FULL]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I'm stubborn, though, and I want to learn to be good post-flop, so I keep buying in deep (and I keep reloading my account... )

Thanks for the info... Your last line is my problem excatly. I am looking for some stragety that will keep me from doing this all the time.

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by ACE'S FULL

Thanks for the info... Your last line is my problem excatly. I am looking for some stragety that will keep me from doing this all the time.

Well, there's not really a strategy. You just have to be really patient and have great discipline. No matter how many times you tell yourself, "don't go broke with one pair", you have to actually do it. That's my problem. I know my hand isn't strong and is probably going to get me stacked, but I push anyways.

[ACE'S FULL]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

Well, there's not really a strategy. You just have to be really patient and have great discipline. No matter how many times you tell yourself, "don't go broke with one pair", you have to actually do it. That's my problem. I know my hand isn't strong and is probably going to get me stacked, but I push anyways.

Yeah well there you go...

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

ps - I played some 6max .5 NL on FTP yesterday thinking maybe this time it would be different. But nope I still left thinking "god this is boring". I think I won $.50 in about 45 minutes and it was just a stupid game of pot it pf with position and a decent hand, make a c-bet if it looks reasonable, if they don't have it you win, if they have it you check the turn and fold the river. BLECH

Table selection. I got a guy to river trips on me w/bottom pair.

[Chipmunk]

Originally Posted by ACE'S FULL

This is an interesting discussion. I dont want to jack this... But are there any other pros/cons to consider buying in deep or short?

What interests me most with short stacking is that you could play a lot more tables since you don't have that many post-flop decisions, and if you get rake back based on dealt cards then your tight play would give you decent rake back. If your doing some bonus then it would allow you to clear it faster (your roll might also allow you to play at a bigger limit because you buy in for less).

On 2+2 I read some discussions, many said that short stacking is better for NL100 and above since there are fewer short stacks, and they aren't as used to them then at for example NL10. As the cons some players said that the winnings are slim, and the variance is much larger.


I would be interested in short stacking to clear the PSO bonii, I read that one guy cleared several of them in about 3 hours each by short stacking 12 tables of NL25. However I think I'm doomed to grind NL5 forever so I won't be able to try it soon.

[yeltzen]

I actually wanted to find out the answer to this question myself, since I had a hunch that I was just running really well (up like $160 at 25NL over 1600 hands). So I downloaded the free software. As it turns out, I'm really just that awesome.

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

I actually wanted to find out the answer to this question myself, since I had a hunch that I was just running really well (up like $160 at 25NL over 1600 hands). So I downloaded the free software. As it turns out, I'm really just that awesome.

Yours is the first graph I've seen with the EV and actuals so close together (at the beginning). Looks like you're running just a little bit good since ~750ish. Keep it up.