[jojobinks]

on sunday i decided it was time to make sure i got my silver star for the month, so i did what i always do: run a buncha tables at way bigger stakes, buying in for the minimum and playing super-nitty.

so, i played between 6-9 tables that night at 1/2 nlhe, buying in for $45, topping off to $40 once in a while and leaving if i doubled up. got my silver star and had some fun with it.

decided maybe this is something that i could be profitable. then...behold my last 4 days.



is this unrealistically good? online nl players speak up. b/c i really think that people don't know how to counter this strategy. it's only 5100 hands, i know. my numbers, for the record: 9/5/2.

were greenstein/ed miller right about shortstacking? am i just on a good upswing? would i be making more buying in deep? is this just a thinly veiled brag?

[hachkc]

I've done the same thing before when it got close to the end of the month.

As for your numbers, I'd say its just variance. If I read your chart right, you average 3.6 BB/100 hands which is a good number. As for it being a profitable strategy hard to say, I assuming you don't play a lot of 1/2 and after a bit folks will pick up on your play which should hurt the long run numbers; just a guess.

My thoughts on the short stack approach is its basically easier to play as the post flop decisions are easier and even the preflop decisions are easier as you can't really chase some marginal hands because the odds just are not there with the small stack. I assume you've read the debates on this approach at 2+2 which oddly enough seem to generally be against it from what I remember. Personally, I think its a good approach when you initially move up in stakes or first join a new table. It forces you to play tigher and get an opportunity to profile the opposition without committing a bunch of chips to a hand.

As for variance/thinly veild brag, I've had some decent runs which simply turned out to be nice blips but not sustainable.

For 1/2007, I was 5.3 BB/100 over 15k hands for the month at NLHE. Most was .25/.50 but I played from .10/.25 - .50/1. Next month, I was .14 bb/100 hands for 16k hands with the same approximate mix of limits. Apparently I forgot how to play the next month.

For 9/2005, I ran 9.18 BB/100 over 6k hands for the month at PLO8 (.10/.25 - 2/4) and was then -2.5 BB/100 over 11k hands for 10/2005.

[jojobinks]

well, i figured out the answer to whether i just run good. the answer is yes.

Shot at 2007-07-25

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by hachkc

My thoughts on the short stack approach is its basically easier to play as the post flop decisions are easier and even the preflop decisions are easier as you can't really chase some marginal hands because the odds just are not there with the small stack. I assume you've read the debates on this approach at 2+2 which oddly enough seem to generally be against it from what I remember. Personally, I think its a good approach when you initially move up in stakes or first join a new table. It forces you to play tigher and get an opportunity to profile the opposition without committing a bunch of chips to a hand.

i think the shortstack hate stems from the fact that it's a different game, and one that is hard for deep stacks to adjust to. they need to worry about the other deep stacks, and in so doing they often will play badly against me.

but yeah, as you can see in my last graph...i don't have too much to be proud of (except the balance in my p* account )

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

i think the shortstack hate stems from the fact that it's a different game, and one that is hard for deep stacks to adjust to. they need to worry about the other deep stacks, and in so doing they often will play badly against me.

No argument there. I've also heard it phrased that this approach means you "lose" money on your good hands (deeper stack, means more profits in some cases) but "win" money on your bad hands (shallower stack, limits loses against drawing hands that make it aka sklansky bucks).

but yeah, as you can see in my last graph...i don't have too much to be proud of (except the balance in my p* account )

Is there anything else that matters?

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by hachkc

No argument there. I've also heard it phrased that this approach means you "lose" money on your good hands (deeper stack, means more profits in some cases) but "win" money on your bad hands (shallower stack, limits loses against drawing hands that make it aka sklansky bucks).

yeah, as long as you realize that tptk sucks when you're really deep.

you're gonna definitely win more deep when you flop top set or a straight. but when deep on the later streets, the VAST majority of the time, you'll be tough situations with one pair or a draw.

[hachkc]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

yeah, as long as you realize that tptk sucks when you're really deep.

Its pretty good when you are shallow though plus those are the people you make money off so keep it quiet

you're gonna definitely win more deep when you flop top set or a straight. but when deep on the later streets, the VAST majority of the time, you'll be tough situations with one pair or a draw.

Hence the comments earlier about it being easier to play. All those tptk, bottom/middle 2pr, etc hands are so much easier to play now. At a home game where I have good knowledge of players, I'll always want a deep stack. At a game of total unknowns, I prefer to start with a short stack.

[Poboy]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

i think the shortstack hate stems from the fact that it's a different game, and one that is hard for deep stacks to adjust to.

I hate short stacks because I don't want to waste a set/flush/straight and win $10. And that you can't cbet them. God I hate short stacks


What I don't like about playing it is how quickly you're committed. That and I raise too much, which would kill me short.

[yeltzen]

I haven't found short-stacking to work very well for me. Probably because I play a table with higher stakes and only play 1 table so I get bored really fast and start playing stupid. I did pretty well deep-stacked when I was really trying and I'm not very good post-flop. Then again, that was $10NL so that's kinda like saying I got an A in gym class.

I don't really see why 3.6BB/100 is just running well in NL, though. Seems pretty realistic.

[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?