Half Stack Buy-In Strategy for NLHE

General Aproach:
Buy-in for 50bb
Re-load when you drop below 40bb
At 75bb re-evaluate table conditions. If you don't like your seat or table, nit it up until your blinds hit, then leave.
Tend to leave if you drop 100bb at a table.

Advantages to a less than 100bb stack:
It's easier to set-up favorable stack-to-pot ratios
It simplifies one pair decsions. You just pretty much go all-in unless you're pretty sure you're crushed.
Pulling the trigger all-in is much more accessable. All-in is a weapon that I don't feel I use often enough 100bb+ deep unless the game is juiced.
You often get read as a fish. Regulars bluff you less and tend to felt pretty good hands instead of making well thought-out laydowns. Consider all the -EV shit people do for a table image like that. All I had to do was buy-in for less than max!
It changes up the decisions, hence full-buy in robots will be more likely to make errors against you.
Set-mining is less effective against you.
More options to play a monster to get all the money in since you don't need to get in a full 3 or 4 big bets.

"The way you win at chicken is to throw the steering wheel out the window in full view of your opponent" - David Skylansky

Drawbacks to playing less than 100bb:
Can't get as much value from strong second best hands or calling stations. (most calling stations have less than 100bb anyway.)
Often don't get to the river with or against a draw in a raised pot.
Can't trap someone for their stack when they flip the spew bit (although it's hard to make a hand strong enough to do this anyway.)

Although I don't like 20bb deep because I feel it takes the play out of some of my best streets. Too much pressure on making a hand and the rake doesn't cap out on as many hands.

Adjusting to play 40-60bb deep:
Big cards go up in value.
Good one pair hands tend to get felted. Try to get the money in by the turn.
Hence, draws lose value against a "made" hand because they often can't bet the river for value.
Strong draws can commit on the flop.
Suited trash goes down in value. Don't even bother without initiative + position.
Reads on your opponent lose value over strong play.
Can't float around hoping for a chance to win as much.

If you find yourself playing cards more than getting great reads. Playing infrequently enough that you don't know the regulars in your player pool. Totally lost in difficult one pair spots on the river. Going for a quanitity over quality approach to poker profits. Then I think this approach is very +++EV for you.

Posted by Fnord on November 03, 2007 at 04:02

I think you can still get away with SCs and draws, you just have to 3Bet the SCs for CBet credibility and push the draws. Same with small PP, 3Bet followed by shoving the flop.

It's terribly binary, but it may be fun.

Posted by breathweapon on November 03, 2007 at 15:19

But is it poker?

Posted by DBL0SVN on November 03, 2007 at 18:39

DBL0SVN wrote:

But is it poker?

its a case of 'do you want to be the best or make the most money'

being the best involves knowing all approaches id assume

Posted by Miffed22001 on November 03, 2007 at 20:06

If you can see people's souls, then by all means, try to cover as much of the table as possible.

Posted by Fnord on November 03, 2007 at 20:50

do we get a results thread, or are you past PT?

Posted by Miffed22001 on November 03, 2007 at 21:08

How bout some hand examples with low-mid pp's, mid sc's, AK/AQ?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 03, 2007 at 21:33

Very interesting post Fnord. I used to do that in the past with lots of success ... only DBL0SVN's question is in place.

Personally I think it's all about your goals. Making money the 'half-stack'-way is legitimate option. BUT if you want to learn and improve and move up and learn and improve and move up, then ...

Posted by Sheetah on November 04, 2007 at 15:35

so when can we expect fnord's half-stack video?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 04, 2007 at 15:53

Tell me more.

Posted by grnydrowave2 on November 04, 2007 at 21:29

Sheetah wrote:

BUT if you want to learn and improve and move up and learn and improve and move up, then ...

Improve to what? If your goal is to play nosebleed stakes, then the learning HU deep stacked NLHE is key.

For what it's worth, I think the deep as possible mentality is as much about chest thumping as anything else.

Posted by Fnord on November 05, 2007 at 00:44

side benefit of playing one level higher, more RB/bonus if you're still a small-stakes player.

I'd rather buy in 50bb deep at 100nl that 100bb deep at 50nl if I was whoring up the bonuses/rb

Posted by bigspenda73 on November 05, 2007 at 00:49

For those looking for results. Try it for a day and see what you think it does for the spots you get into. We all play poker a little differently and what works for me might not work for you.

A lot of the regulars would do a lot better with this approach.

Posted by Fnord on November 05, 2007 at 00:49

After reading Ed Miller's book on NLHE, I like and use this approach, and unless the table has at least two deep unknowns or known bad players, I have had good results buying in for 60bbs. The typical table for me at 100NL is 1-2 sethunters 100bbs deep, 1-2 good players 100bbs deep, and the rest short, mostly bad players. 60bbs is enough to cover the bad players, and if I happen to run into the deep stacks, I immediately save 40bbs.

Posted by Ltrain on November 05, 2007 at 10:23

So do we get to see any HH's?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 05, 2007 at 14:43

I will sometimes buy in with 50bb, for example when all the full stacks are strong regulars with one horrible fish at the table.
It makes hands like this one much easier to play OOP.
http://www.pokerhand.nu/hand/13423

At my regular stakes I feel that I would be giving up value most of the time not playing with a full stack though. There is nothing fundamentally weak about the 50bb approach if you make the right adjustments to your game.

Posted by Cocco_Bill on November 05, 2007 at 15:17

Here's an interesting perspective on playing against shorties

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=42520&highlight=short+stack

Posted by DBL0SVN on November 05, 2007 at 15:26

TY for (finally ;p) getting this thread made.

I like half stacking. I always have. Recently I've been playing 20bb deep and while it's been quite profitable, I feel like I'm under utilizing my knowledge of the game.

I'm not a deep stacked no-limit hold'em expert. I probably never will be. I am not good at a game of chicken, and I can't see into people's souls. By properly tailoring my stack size, I can largely negate that negative aspect of my game and accentuate the positive aspects. This is why short stacking works for me.

Posted by euphoricism on November 05, 2007 at 15:39

What adjustments do you make in your preflop raising and 3-betting range?

Posted by minSim on November 05, 2007 at 16:06

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Renton555 [Kh Kd">
pvl000: folds
ryanmack91: folds
tdiddy: folds
BeatPurdue: folds
futilewar: folds
Renton555: raises $5 to $7
PretenderTUW: folds
=LT UNITED=: calls $5
*** FLOP *** [9c 7c Qs">
=LT UNITED=: checks
Renton555: bets $12
=LT UNITED=: raises $12 to $24
Renton555: raises $72 to $96 and is all-in
=LT UNITED=: calls $67 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [9c 7c Qs"> [Ad">
*** RIVER *** [9c 7c Qs Ad"> [Kc">
*** SHOW DOWN ***
=LT UNITED=: shows [Qh Td"> (a pair of Queens)
Renton555: shows [Kh Kd"> (three of a kind, Kings)
Renton555 collected $194 from pot




*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Renton555 [Jc 9d">
dynoalot: folds
slammedfire: folds
eurostore: folds
Filthy999: folds
Dilith: folds
Renton555: raises $5 to $7
thestreak: calls $6
Mr.smith12: folds
*** FLOP *** [2c 9s 3s">
thestreak: checks
Renton555: bets $10
thestreak: calls $10
*** TURN *** [2c 9s 3s"> [Qh">
thestreak: checks
Renton555: bets $26
thestreak: raises $110 to $136
Renton555: calls $65.10 and is all-in
*** RIVER *** [2c 9s 3s Qh"> [6d">
*** SHOW DOWN ***
thestreak: shows [Qs 2s"> (two pair, Queens and Deuces)
Renton555: mucks hand
thestreak collected $215.20 from pot



*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Renton555 [Kd Ks">
mtg38skopok2 joins the table at seat #7
RikaKazak: folds
golden31: folds
slammedfire: folds
SetzerMason: folds
illu1212: folds
Dilith: folds
Renton555: raises $6 to $8
thestreak: calls $6
*** FLOP *** [2c 8s 3c">
Renton555: bets $12
thestreak: raises $12 to $24
Renton555: raises $66 to $90 and is all-in
thestreak: calls $66
*** TURN *** [2c 8s 3c"> [7s">
*** RIVER *** [2c 8s 3c 7s"> [8c">
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Renton555: shows [Kd Ks"> (two pair, Kings and Eights)
thestreak: shows [9c 8d"> (three of a kind, Eights)
thestreak collected $193 from pot


*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Renton555 [Td Ks">
luckyplayzz: folds
Cryys: folds
EMPshockwave: folds
jmoney10587: raises $6 to $8
th9nip: folds
BooneTop: folds
cancan2: folds
Renton555: raises $14 to $22
jmoney10587: folds
Renton555 collected $17 from pot
Renton555: doesn't show hand




*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Renton555 [7s 9s">
golden31: folds
Oldmistyman: calls $2
2high3kicker: calls $2
aragon: folds
Renton555: raises $9 to $11
Dilith: folds
juvenia: folds
slammedfire: folds
SetzerMason: folds
Oldmistyman: folds
2high3kicker: folds
Renton555 collected $9 from pot
Renton555: doesn't show hand

Posted by Renton on November 05, 2007 at 17:07

Renton, after taking this approach for a spin:

How often did you find yourself wanting more money behind?
How often where you glad not to have more money behind?
Did you notice any changes in how people played against you?

Posted by Fnord on November 05, 2007 at 17:24

heres a pickle.

i play this way fairly effectively at stars and Full Tilt. but, lately have switched over to AP. the min rebuy sucks, so its hard to "top off." so, i stopped shorting and went back to 100-200 bb BI's. i have found a lot of loose passives over there, and i think even if i could "top off" smaller, i would be leaving a ton of value on the table.

what table conditions do you look for, other than already mentioned, that will convince you that buying in full is the way to go? deep call stations? overly aggressive villains? etc?

imo, this strategy works well for defensive play as well as offensive. if a table is extremely aggressive and puts constant pressure on the nits, shorting is a good way to get even with them, imo.

Posted by Chopper on November 05, 2007 at 17:40

For what it's worth, I like being short when rock crushing. My basic strategy against them is to win lots of small pots, contest some medium ones and avoid playing big pots (without looking like I'm avoiding big pots.) However, sometimes big pots happen. I'd rather take the over-all worst of it in a smaller pot and show that I'm willing to commit my stack to protect my ability to keep taking down pots while they wait for a hand to stack me.

Posted by Fnord on November 05, 2007 at 18:12

does that mean you "open up" in position against them by raising sc's, baby pairs, trap hands, gappers? basically, play a blind steal/cbet game against them? and if they play back, either fold or shove? but only bet with TP+ (it just looks like a cbet)?

seems that goes against the strategy, but would be most effective in keeping continual pressure on rocks.

lately, i've been avoiding tight tables like the plague, making it easy to play deep against spewtards. but, if i find them again by switching back to some much tougher competition, i may short again instead of worrying about "opening up" and trying to go LAG, which is very against my nitty nature.

Posted by Chopper on November 05, 2007 at 20:10

Chopper wrote:

does that mean you "open up" in position against them by raising sc's, baby pairs, trap hands, gappers? basically, play a blind steal/cbet game against them? and if they play back, either fold or shove? but only bet with TP+ (it just looks like a cbet)? seems that goes against the strategy, but would be most effective in keeping continual pressure on rocks. lately, i've been avoiding tight tables like the plague, making it easy to play deep against spewtards. but, if i find them again by switching back to some much tougher competition, i may short again instead of worrying about "opening up" and trying to go LAG, which is very against my nitty nature.

For some reason opening up your game with a smaller stack doesn't feel natural to me, but I would like to hear Fnord or Renton on it. Renton's VPIP is nitty, but his PFR% is relatively high I guess.

Posted by minSim on November 06, 2007 at 04:21

How about this kind of situation with 50bb's...

Hero raises 5x pre-flop with AsKs in middle position after 1 limper and gets 1 late position caller. It's HU to the flop. Flop comes something like 6h 8s 9s. Pot is about 12bb's. Hero cbets 10bb's and is called. Turn is 2d. Pot is about 32bb's, and Hero has 35bb's left. What is Hero's best play?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 06, 2007 at 16:34

martindcx1e wrote:

What is Hero's best play?

I think that's a bad spot for a high c-bet frequency. That said, if I decide to run with it, I would probably stick the rest in on a blank.

Posted by Fnord on November 06, 2007 at 16:41

i like the hand ranges opponents are playing against us in rentons HHs

Posted by Miffed22001 on November 06, 2007 at 17:31

Fnord wrote:

For what it's worth, I like being short when rock crushing. My basic strategy against them is to win lots of small pots, contest some medium ones and avoid playing big pots (without looking like I'm avoiding big pots.) However, sometimes big pots happen. I'd rather take the over-all worst of it in a smaller pot and show that I'm willing to commit my stack to protect my ability to keep taking down pots while they wait for a hand to stack me.

Well awesome point, but i do think i'd rather have 250bb than 50bb.

Idk about 150 or 200 rather than 50 though.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on November 06, 2007 at 18:19

martindcx1e wrote:

How about this kind of situation with 50bb's... Hero raises 5x pre-flop with AsKs in middle position after 1 limper and gets 1 late position caller. It's HU to the flop. Flop comes something like 6h 8s 9s. Pot is about 12bb's. Hero cbets 10bb's and is called. Turn is 2d. Pot is about 32bb's, and Hero has 35bb's left. What is Hero's best play?

in that pot, you dont cbet the flop...you cant afford to get called. it puts you in a crappy spot w/o position. check/fold flop.

however, if this happens frequently in a session (missing flops), it makes it real easy to c/c and lead turn large when you connect, as you are almost committed.

i know it sounds sac religious, but a whiffed AK oop invites disaster to short stacks.

Posted by Chopper on November 06, 2007 at 21:44

Chopper wrote:

martindcx1e wrote: How about this kind of situation with 50bb's... Hero raises 5x pre-flop with AsKs in middle position after 1 limper and gets 1 late position caller. It's HU to the flop. Flop comes something like 6h 8s 9s. Pot is about 12bb's. Hero cbets 10bb's and is called. Turn is 2d. Pot is about 32bb's, and Hero has 35bb's left. What is Hero's best play? in that pot, you dont cbet the flop...you cant afford to get called. it puts you in a crappy spot w/o position. check/fold flop. however, if this happens frequently in a session (missing flops), it makes it real easy to c/c and lead turn large when you connect, as you are almost committed. i know it sounds sac religious, but a whiffed AK oop invites disaster to short stacks.

You probs missed that we have a spade draw there..

I'd say CRAI?

Posted by Ash256 on November 06, 2007 at 23:25

Ash256 wrote:

Chopper wrote: i know it sounds sac religious, but a whiffed AK oop invites disaster to short stacks. You probs missed that we have a spade draw there.. I'd say CRAI?

I assume you mean c/r the flop and not the turn right? C/R turn doesn't really accomplish much I don't think.

Posted by martindcx1e on November 06, 2007 at 23:47

yup, missed the flush draw. you gotta run with this one.

hell, thats 15 outs, you try and get this in with much deeper stacks. cant believe i missed that.

Posted by Chopper on November 06, 2007 at 23:56

Fnord wrote:

martindcx1e wrote: What is Hero's best play? I think that's a bad spot for a high c-bet frequency. That said, if I decide to run with it, I would probably stick the rest in on a blank.

I like c/rai on the flop more, though I'd push if I played it like this.

Posted by minSim on November 07, 2007 at 04:23

martindcx1e wrote:

Ash256 wrote: Chopper wrote: i know it sounds sac religious, but a whiffed AK oop invites disaster to short stacks. You probs missed that we have a spade draw there.. I'd say CRAI? I assume you mean c/r the flop and not the turn right? C/R turn doesn't really accomplish much I don't think.

Yeah, flop.

Posted by Ash256 on November 07, 2007 at 09:02

So I tried this for a bit last night... short stacking 100NL on PS... I ran poorly, and made some spewy plays for sure, losing 7 1/2-stack BIs in the process.

Obviously one of the strengths of this strategy is getting looked up with lots of weaker hands... It's quite liberating, to c-bet AA on a HU flop, have the guy min-reraise.. and be able to push with impunity. Often getting called by tpg-type hands.

Though getting sucked out on several times like this led me to some tilting and playing sub-optimal from time to time. I'm not used to getting a villain T6s getting AI on T87 rainbow flop... so that's something for which I need to be prepared in this strategy.

I think some of my common spewy plays were
- still trying to float to 1/2-2/3 PSB... without strong draws.
- c-betting too often... 100NL opponents seem to call and c/r c-bets far more often than 50NL opponents. As with Martin's question, if c-beting the nut flush after a PFR isn't the common play.. what types of boards are we looking to continue on?... I think I need to tighten up my c-betting tendencies as I get looked up lightly more often.

Quick question:
If there is a raise by a 14/8 guy raises 4bb in MP, 16/6 CO calls.. what range do we raise (and call) on the button, what range do we raise/call from BB?

The comment about avoiding suited trash means suited non-connectors?.. I would think to a raise and 1-2 calls we could raise/call with Axs, and most sc's IP. And often call from the blinds... is this not right?...

God... i'm such a fucking donkey....

Posted by kingnat on November 07, 2007 at 12:20

Guess I need more lessons ;/

Posted by euphoricism on November 07, 2007 at 17:35

i can see shorting at a NL table, but PL? euph, tell me that was a mistake? and, thats why only the 40 hands.

and i think we all need to remember, variance is a total bitch while shorting. no way 1200 hands can be even looked at seriously. but, you knew that already i'm sure.

Posted by Chopper on November 07, 2007 at 17:51

Yeah my all-in graph is below this post. There were a lot of spots I was glad I was 50bb deep rather than 100. It made my decisions easier with TPGK hands just like fnord said.

KingNat:

This strategy is about making the best hand as fast as possible while your opponents are still drawing. So playing drawing hands is obviously not the correct methodology. Flop hard, go all in, get paid.

So high cards that make TPTK and overpairs are going to be your bread and butter, along with the 22-TTish type hands you play for set value (speaking from a full ring point of view). Suited connectors and the like are imo only suited toward stealing blinds and I guess calling along with other callers. Maybe a PFR and 2 cold callers and your 56s is playable.

But most of the time with suited connectors youre NOT going to flop a made hand, youre going to flop a draw. And drawing is not the point.

The main mistakes I made during that 1200 session:

1) 3 or 4 stacks to bluffs. A few bluffs I attempted did indeed work, but overwhelmingly I don't think they're worth it. People call. We want them to call. We should not then expect them to fold. Thats idiocy.

2) Too much drawing. If you have a draw worth drawing to (which would have to be a big draw, definitely >9 outs) then you should just shove and add on *some* folding equity.

3) FR players don't really defend their blinds. When someone at the blinds suddenly plays back at you especially as a shorty, you need to have the goods. There is no room for a game of chicken.



My allin chart for the last session:

Posted by euphoricism on November 07, 2007 at 18:47

full stack is better... if you leave potential money out of play you are lowering the skill advantage.

Posted by Anonymous on November 07, 2007 at 20:27

*facepalm*

Posted by euphoricism on November 07, 2007 at 20:48

euphoricism wrote:

*facepalm*

Posted by grnydrowave2 on November 07, 2007 at 21:36

snugglez88 wrote:

full stack is better... if you leave potential money out of play you are lowering the skill advantage.

oh

Posted by martindcx1e on November 07, 2007 at 22:12

People that understand the theory behind shortstacking and have a good enough feel for hand ranges to do it well don't play shortstacked. Not many anyways. So many of these concepts are independent of stack sizes. What changes is how they're applied. Sitting with 40BBs isn't going to change much other than how much you can potentially win/lose if you aren't already able to beat a game playing with 100+BBs.

At midstakes and below shortstacking is next to worthless. Good luck assigning hand ranges when so many of your opponents are playing erractically and often times just according to whim. Often times you're just minimizing the extent of the mistakes they make and giving them easier decisions.

Posted by DaNutsInYoEye on November 08, 2007 at 00:19

I would think that erratic and unknown opponents is a reason to not play very deep. It's very hard to make a nut-like hand in hold'em and showing down a good hand is the best counter I know for dealing an opponent that I think is getting out of line.

Maybe I'm just not as darn aggressive in big pots as some of the other posters here. Then again, I'm a pretty consistant winner with very poor all-in equity according to PokerEV.

Posted by Fnord on November 08, 2007 at 00:53

dnuts you are oversimplifying the issue

When you play 100bb, the implied threat of stacking people and getting stacked often keeps you from getting full value on your 1 pair hands, and also causes you to very often forfeit your equity in the pot to good players.

The way I'm seeing it, you don't play 50bb to make your decisions easier, you play 50bb to make their decisions harder. I think its mostly about the increased amount of preflop and flop fold equity you get, but obviously the ability to stack off lighter helps matters too.

Posted by Renton on November 08, 2007 at 08:42

Renton wrote:

The way I'm seeing it, you don't play 50bb to make your decisions easier, you play 50bb to make their decisions harder. I think its mostly about the increased amount of preflop and flop fold equity you get, but obviously the ability to stack off lighter helps matters too.

i'm not going to try and 2nd guess you guys. but, the way i see shorting is not defense and not offense. it blends both. not only do your decisions become LESS complex. your opponent's decisions become, not more complex, but different. an opponent has to account for you being almost committed AND the deeper stack behind you still to act. if he tries to isolate you, will the deeper stack jump in with odds, too? when you're in the pot, it gives the deeper stacks "one more thing to worry about."

shorting puts a ton of pressure on the deeper stacks when used appropriately. yes, you lose some value when you could have been paid off by a 120 bb stack. but, you also gain in what Renton just said by gaining max value from your TPTK hands. you will often be called by 2nd pairs (thinking you are on a draw) or TP (thinking you are on a bluff and trying to max your FE). its this balance (pressuring the big stacks) you must learn to exploit.

Posted by Chopper on November 08, 2007 at 09:23

Renton wrote:

When you play 100bb, the implied threat of stacking people and getting stacked often keeps you from getting full value on your 1 pair hands, and also causes you to very often forfeit your equity in the pot to good players.

This is a really good point Renton.

Posted by martindcx1e on November 08, 2007 at 10:54

When we raise AQ pf and get called by AK and an A comes on the flop are we pretty much always going broke or what?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 09, 2007 at 15:37

If it was for me, every NL table should allow you to buyin 200BB.


The shortstacking strategy's backbone relies entirely upon the thought/ notion that people will call you thinner than average, because you are short.

You can buy in bigger and still get people to call you thinner. Therefore, the only thing I see you accomplish with this shorting strategy is permatilt when your nuts top pair gets cracked for the umpteenth time.


OMG CANT JOO C I GOTS TPTK? HOW CAN YOU CALLL MI WITH BOTTOM PER? WHY TEH FUK DID THAT RIVER PER TEH BOTTOM PER? FUK JOO!!

Posted by Jack Sawyer on November 09, 2007 at 16:48

martindcx1e wrote:

When we raise AQ pf and get called by AK and an A comes on the flop are we pretty much always going broke or what?

It depends. We certainly don't hate going broke here. I think "going broke" is a bad way to think about NLHE. All-ins have to happen and if you're always getting it in with the best hand you're not going all-in often enough.

Posted by Fnord on November 09, 2007 at 16:49

Fnord wrote:

martindcx1e wrote: When we raise AQ pf and get called by AK and an A comes on the flop are we pretty much always going broke or what? It depends. We certainly don't hate going broke here. I think "going broke" is a bad way to think about NLHE. All-ins have to happen and if you're always getting it in with the best hand you're not going all-in often enough.

id have argued if we arent inducing a 3bet preflop from AK then we arent raising enough anyways...
but ofc the stars games are quite passive in that way too

Posted by Miffed22001 on November 09, 2007 at 16:58

martindcx1e wrote:

When we raise AQ pf and get called by AK and an A comes on the flop are we pretty much always going broke or what?

at the stakes WE play, martin, i cant see how we get away. laying AQ on a A high flop has to be -EV down here.

Posted by Chopper on November 09, 2007 at 17:30

Chopper wrote:

at the stakes WE play, martin, i cant see how we get away. laying AQ on a A high flop has to be -EV down here.

I think this is certainly a foldable spot in any game. Don't give the table nit action without at least TPTK.

Posted by Fnord on November 09, 2007 at 17:34

Fnord wrote:

Chopper wrote: at the stakes WE play, martin, i cant see how we get away. laying AQ on a A high flop has to be -EV down here. I think this is certainly a foldable spot in any game. Don't give the table nit action without at least the nuts.

FYP

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on November 09, 2007 at 18:54

wait, TPTK isn't the nuts?

Posted by euphoricism on November 09, 2007 at 19:01

euphoricism wrote:

wait, TPTK isn't the nuts?

it is where i play

Posted by Miffed22001 on November 09, 2007 at 19:12

Jack Sawyer wrote:

The shortstacking strategy's backbone relies entirely upon the thought/notion that people will call you thinner than average, because you are short.

I disagree. 20BB short stacking relies upon the fact that the deep stacks will open very wide against each other, and preflop fold equity works in favour of the short stack alot. I haven't played 50BB much but I'd think it's strength is that we aren't going to be put in tough spot alot. Since we're often gonna just look at the flop and decide to go with the hand, we discourage them from playing back .

Posted by HalvSame on November 09, 2007 at 20:17

50 bbs is a float/implied odds killer...thats the beauty. it also keeps you from making bad post flop bluffs/calls (when you suck at reads) on the turn and river because you are usually committed by then anyway.

fnord, do you see it as an effective defense against "light 3bettors", too? i see it as a way for you to 3bet and set up an obvious flop shove, but also squelching a villain wanting to 3bet you because villain fears the obvious flop shove or c/r AI.

Posted by Chopper on November 09, 2007 at 21:21

Chopper wrote:

fnord, do you see it as an effective defense against "light 3bettors", too? i see it as a way for you to 3bet and set up an obvious flop shove, but also squelching a villain wanting to 3bet you because villain fears the obvious flop shove or c/r AI.

It certainly makes it stupid easy to felt QQ/AK agaisnt an unknown who looks kinda nitty. In wider range spots, going further down the food chain doesn't hurt as much. The Axs shove certainly is in my playbook as well.

Posted by Fnord on November 09, 2007 at 21:59

I would rather play against a short stack than a deep stack, and I'm sure I've had more success against them as well. Most shorties do not buy in for full because of a short stacking strategy they are trying to perfect, but rather because they don't want to loose 100bb in one hand.

To reiterate what chopper touched on. Shorties miss out on implied odds preflop. Isn't the name of the game to: flop set / get paid ? What about sc's followed by a raised pot preflop with a bunch of callers? These are huge pots that shorties are missing out on. Also, floating is lost. Floating in my opinion is the prettiest play in nlhe when it works and can be very profitable if chosen at the right time.

My bottom line is: Deep stacks = difficult decisions = more mistakes = more $ to be had

Posted by BankItDrew on November 09, 2007 at 23:50

I tend to agree with your bottom line, Drew. Consider this though:

Position is important to the point that beating good players OOP is difficult at best, damn near impossible at worst. Hence the old "money tends to flow clockwise around the table". Because of this we tend to position ourselves to the immediate left of the table fish (usually I don't sit at all if I can't have the first or second seat to the fish's left, but that might be a privilege (sp?) that US players don't have anymore). Now, this usually means that on our left we'll have a decent/good reg (if he's super tough I tend to not sit). With 100BB's the reg will put us in lots of difficult spots, since we are trying to play as much vs the fish as possible. Because of this I'd argue that buying in just enough to cover the fish will be better than autobuying 100BBs. I still think that if the fish buys in full we should too, but even then 50BBs might be as good or better.

Now, if we get the seat two to the left of the 50BB fish and the 100BB reg is in between, buying in for 100BBs is probably better because we will be the ones applying pressure when he's trying to isolate the fish and what not.

A point that can be made against buying in <max is that full stacks means you have to improve your postflop play to survive. Just like "many vs few tables" and "easy vs tough sites" it's a matter of comparing the relatively short term gain and the potential long term gain from becoming an expert deep stack player.

Posted by HalvSame on November 10, 2007 at 00:48

Well I tried this for a bit the last couple days at FTP. Things I noticed:

1) Decisions are 100x easier.
2) I am finding out how often people are just screwing around when my flop cbets get raised.
3) I got action from 100bb players' hands that most certainly would not give action if I had a full stack myself.
4) I never really kicked myself for not having a full stack since so many bad players are playing with around 50bb's or less already.

Posted by martindcx1e on November 11, 2007 at 00:43

#2 is so huge.

Posted by euphoricism on November 11, 2007 at 00:51

euphoricism wrote:

#2 is so huge.

for real man. it's crazy what people are testing me with. and then when i go ahead and pull the trigger with an actual hand i still get called by like middle pair no kicker cuz there just like "ah frick oh well it's just another 20bb's to try and bust him!"

with a full stack i missed out on value a bunch cuz i didn't want to play a big pot without a really big hand.

Posted by martindcx1e on November 11, 2007 at 01:11

I agree that it is wise to buy in for 50bbs as a successful deep stack player taking a shot at a higher stake, as well as certain scenarios like Bill mentioned. Other than that, it boils down to how big of an edge you have. If you're the table fish then you wanna buy in for min, if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between.

I think the idea in this thread that opponents pay off substantially lighter to mid stacks is an illusion. A lot of these hands are good for around 50bbs, but not for a 100. It is, however, safer to play shorter, but that is at the expense of more money when you are one of the good players at the table. I'm sure it's already standard knowledge that the shorter the stacks, the lower the potential winrates.

Besides, I recall Fnord saying about a year ago that he always buys in full since he always eventually gets deep anyways. Now he's indirectly suggesting to rathole it seems. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm not one of those morans who hates shorties and hit n runners.

Posted by wufwugy on November 11, 2007 at 03:23

wufwugy wrote:

, if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between.

I think you've missed the point.

Posted by Renton on November 11, 2007 at 07:37

Renton wrote:

wufwugy wrote: , if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between. I think you've missed the point.

yeah he missed it

Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2007 at 07:43

wufwugy wrote:

I think the idea in this thread that opponents pay off substantially lighter to mid stacks is an illusion.

This is definitely not an illusion. There's no way a full stack would normally get all-in for 100bb's on the flop with TP no kicker or even middle pair but there are a bunch who will gladly get 50bb's in the middle. You should probably just try it out yourself to find out.

wufwugy wrote:

I'm sure it's already standard knowledge that the shorter the stacks, the lower the potential winrates.

I don't agree with this.

EDIT: Yes, the potential winrate is higher with a higher stack but in reality the average player's 50bb winrate vs. their 100bb winrate shouldn't differ too much imo (Their 50bb winrate might actually be higher if they make a lot fewer mistakes half-stacked). If that player is way above average and is a great hand reader then their winrate would likely differ noticeably. Like stated earlier if you can read souls then play as deep as you possibly can.

And also like stated before it's all about your goals. If you want to become an expert deep stack player and be the greatest player around and pwn everyone then half-stacking isn't for you. If you don't play as well deep stacked as you do half-stacked and you just want to make the most money possible at your current skill level then play half-stacked.

Posted by martindcx1e on November 11, 2007 at 10:46

Renton wrote:

wufwugy wrote: , if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between. I think you've missed the point.

Obviously, I don't think so. Go ahead and explain.

Posted by wufwugy on November 11, 2007 at 12:08

martindcx1e wrote:

This is definitely not an illusion. There's no way a full stack would normally get all-in for 100bb's on the flop with TP no kicker or even middle pair but there are a bunch who will gladly get 50bb's in the middle. You should probably just try it out yourself to find out.

You're right. You're also comparing apples and oranges. I will often get about 35-40bb in on the flop with tpgk when 100bb deep (not tpnk because I don't play those hands). I've gotten about 70bb in with tpgk a number of times by any given street. Even 100bb, but not as often that. Midstackers vs midstackers need twice as many stacks to achieve the rate of fullstackers vs fullstackers rates.

As a midstack you're adding a little in edge with scenarios like that yet taking away a lot in edge with large bets and plays on latter streets.

Quote:

I don't agree with this.

Then you're going against allllll anecdotal evidence and what I presume to be theoretical understanding. World's best 20bb player vs a bunch of donkey 20bb players, or world's best 200bb player vs a bunch of donkey 200bb players? The latter player is making soooooooooo much more.

Playing a midstack well is great, but focusing on it is not the key way to optimize winrate over the long term of skill development. Nor is it the best way to optimize winrate when you have the biggest edge at the table. However, optimizing winrate is not the focal point of the OP, but it is a point that comes out of discussion.

Posted by wufwugy on November 11, 2007 at 12:28

wufwugy wrote:

Renton wrote: wufwugy wrote: , if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between. I think you've missed the point. Obviously, I don't think so. Go ahead and explain.

Well the thesis seems to be that 100bb is an unoptimal stack size. This has nothing to do with a skill edge or whatever. Fnord is obvious a very very good poker player, yet he's advocating this style. Do you think that he feels like he's being outplayed with 100bb stacks?

Posted by Renton on November 11, 2007 at 14:13

wufwugy wrote:

Quote: I don't agree with this. Then you're going against allllll anecdotal evidence and what I presume to be theoretical understanding. World's best 20bb player vs a bunch of donkey 20bb players, or world's best 200bb player vs a bunch of donkey 200bb players? The latter player is making soooooooooo much more. Playing a midstack well is great, but focusing on it is not the key way to optimize winrate over the long term of skill development. Nor is it the best way to optimize winrate when you have the biggest edge at the table. However, optimizing winrate is not the focal point of the OP, but it is a point that comes out of discussion.

did you read my edit?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 11, 2007 at 14:58

martindcx1e wrote:

did you read my edit?

I did not. Thanks.

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 01:30

Renton wrote:

wufwugy wrote: Renton wrote: wufwugy wrote: , if you're the table shark you want max, and if you're somewhere in between you may want to buy in somewhere between. I think you've missed the point. Obviously, I don't think so. Go ahead and explain. Well the thesis seems to be that 100bb is an unoptimal stack size. This has nothing to do with a skill edge or whatever. Fnord is obvious a very very good poker player, yet he's advocating this style. Do you think that he feels like he's being outplayed with 100bb stacks?

I doubt Fnord's getting out played since he REFUSES TO PLAY ME HU5ROLLZ

I don't get that at all from his thesis. I get that it is for some at some points in time, however. He loves poker and loves theory. He's theorizing about another way to play that he values. My responses cater to optimization since I care about optimization more so.

If you're referring to 100bb being structurally non-optimal then I disagree since I don't think that can actually be determined.

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 01:40

A major point in PNL was that 100bb is not an ideal stack size for the hand youre most likely to hit and want to continue with most often. That is top pair. It describes the Stack-to-pot ratio problem when 100bb deep with top pair. The conclusion becomes that tailoring you stack size to the hand you're most likely to make is +++EV.

Posted by euphoricism on November 12, 2007 at 08:46

few questions for the people experimenting with shortstacking:

1) have you found people are more or less likely to semibluff draws against you
a)are your semibluffs less effective (assuming you make them)

2) are they more or less likely to fire second barrels (or are you AI on the flop with any hand you are continuing with)

3)have any of the more difficult regs adjusted properly to the influx of 1/2 stacks into the game

4) are you now dumping small pairs to a single raise pf with no cold callers

since you can no longer effectively float (or so i assume), and probably have no fold equity vs. mid pairs, you require a set to continue postflop, and although you will get paid when that happens, it is going to be much closer to neutral EV depending on the size of the initial raise, ie. i would imagine a 4-5x opener is going to be very thin profit wise long-term for a 1/2 stack set hunter.

5) do you ever slowplay, ever see a need to. if not, are you becoming extremely exploitable or does the stack size make up for the transparency of your hand
on a related note, what hands is a 1/2 stack typically calling with postflop that he is not raising. are there any that fit this category

thats all i can think of for now

Posted by pgil on November 12, 2007 at 11:27

Are there any times we are getting away from TPTK/Overpair on the turn if we raised preflop and potted the flop?

Posted by martindcx1e on November 12, 2007 at 12:44

wufwugy wrote:

Even 100bb, but not as often that. Midstackers vs midstackers need twice as many stacks to achieve the rate of fullstackers vs fullstackers rates.

Here is where we disagree. First, most pots are pretty small even with deep money. Most people vastly under-estimate how important those pots are unless we're trapping someone way over-playing hands who will get trapped too often (and if this is the case we WANT to cover them.) Second, you're probably over-estimating your edge when getting it all-in against another full stack.

Posted by Fnord on November 12, 2007 at 13:06

martindcx1e wrote:

with a full stack i missed out on value a bunch cuz i didn't want to play a big pot without a really big hand.

DING DING DING DING DING

We have a winnar!

Posted by Fnord on November 12, 2007 at 13:20

pgil wrote:

1) have you found people are more or less likely to semibluff draws against you a)are your semibluffs less effective (assuming you make them)

With a bigger pot relative to money behind, lots of draws are getting it in. Still, it comes down to people needing a hand to call an all-in and that's not easy to come by in Hold'em.

pgil wrote:

3)have any of the more difficult regs adjusted properly to the influx of 1/2 stacks into the game

No, because most of them suck.

pgil wrote:

4) are you now dumping small pairs to a single raise pf with no cold callers

It depends.

pgil wrote:

5) do you ever slowplay, ever see a need to.

I slowplay more often now (with great success) since I don't need to bump the flop to get all the money in. That said, I still play most of my hands fast.

Posted by Fnord on November 12, 2007 at 13:58

Fnord wrote:

pgil wrote: 3)have any of the more difficult regs adjusted properly to the influx of 1/2 stacks into the game No, because they all suck.

FYP and I seriously cant stress this point more.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on November 12, 2007 at 14:33

Fnord wrote:

wufwugy wrote: Even 100bb, but not as often that. Midstackers vs midstackers need twice as many stacks to achieve the rate of fullstackers vs fullstackers rates. Here is where we disagree. First, most pots are pretty small even with deep money. Most people vastly under-estimate how important those pots are unless we're trapping someone way over-playing hands who will get trapped too often (and if this is the case we WANT to cover them.) Second, you're probably over-estimating your edge when getting it all-in against another full stack.

It's difficult for me to decipher what you're saying since you're saying we want to play two different ways, actually. Are you saying that midstacking is optimal, yet when there are fullstacked donkeys then fullstacking is optimal? The reason I buy in full is because of all the fullstacked donkeys. I don't overestimate my edge vs them when felted for 100bb, that's for sure. Good regs is a different matter.

It looks to me like when playing midstacked we're losing out against poor deep players, which is bad big time, yet we're tying to make up for it by getting that extra 10-15bb in as a favorite when villian is committed to our midstack a lot more often than we would if we were deep. And sometimes we are the ones who are committed with the inferior hand. Alos, not getting pushed out of pots. That is quite an important factor, but on the flip side, we're unable to push others out as a midstack.

If the most donkeys ever had in their stacks were 50bbs then no doubt it would be optimal to play 50bbs and no higher. I do not see how the advantages listed out weigh pwning deep donkeys.

Personally, though, I am adversed to me playing midstacked because I'm only getting better at fullstacking, my history has been very poor with 20bb stacking, and I don't like leaving a table because I double up. I do, however, instantly agree that midstacking is probably very awesome when taking a shot at a higher stake. I'm not yet sure if I want to try this strategy. I'm guessing I'll be sorta lost preflop.

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 16:41

I'm intrigued.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1 BB (9 handed) Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

SB ($90.15)
BB ($61.20)
UTG ($171.35)
UTG+1 ($41.85)
MP1 ($93.35)
MP2 ($117.15)
MP3 ($244.25)
Hero ($47)
Button ($100)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, A.
4 folds, MP3 raises to $3.5, Hero calls $3.50, 3 folds.

Flop: ($8.50) 6, 4, 6 (2 players)
MP3 bets $7, Hero raises to $21, MP3 raises to $247.75 (All-In), Hero calls $22.50 (All-In).

Turn: ($95.50) Q (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($95.50) 4 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $95.50

Results in white below:
MP3 has Tc Th (two pair, tens and sixes).
Hero has As Ac (two pair, aces and sixes).
Outcome: MP3 wins $204.25. Hero wins $95.50.

Posted by Warpe on November 12, 2007 at 16:46

Warpe, you didn't necessarily make more money there than had you been deeper and villian had folded somewhere. If you're both deep, villian isn't folding to your raise, a lot of players will get more than 50bb in here with TT, some will felt.

If villian had overs or a four or gutter or something AND isn't a donkey then we're talking.

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 17:04

Not many villains are shoving over with TT here if I'm full stacked, imo.

Posted by Warpe on November 12, 2007 at 17:11

Yeah, it's going down that way quite rarely.

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 17:16

If youre both deep villain is c/f'ng the turn a huge % of the time and you're not getting shiat.

If the turn was a different card less than a 9 you *might* get him to do something stupid but its probably less than 20% of the time. And if the turn is J+ its maybe 5%.

Posted by euphoricism on November 12, 2007 at 17:21

Vs a super nit, probably. Vs a good player whom you have little history, probably. Vs anybody else, not likely.

If vs nit or good player, check turn bet river, make a little bit more since he'll put you on 88 or A7s a lot. TT calls that turn a lot anyways, but then wont call a lot of rivers.

Villian is a standard semitight thinking fish at 1/2. Poor play by me on this turn and vs this villian, but c'mon, he folds an underpair and some jacks right? gol. Probably would have called river too.

Dealt to wufwugy [6s 6d">
BIGLivesOn: folds
the_main: folds
wufwugy: raises $6 to $8
laststand77: folds
joker12676: calls $8
Franzwars118: folds
Reggie999: calls $8
Amorpheous: folds
futilewar: folds
*** FLOP *** [Js 4d 3c">
wufwugy: bets $18
joker12676: folds
Reggie999: calls $18
*** TURN *** [Js 4d 3c"> [4c">
wufwugy: checks
Reggie999: bets $35
wufwugy: raises $59 to $94
Reggie999: calls $59
*** RIVER *** [Js 4d 3c 4c"> [Jc">
wufwugy: checks
Reggie999: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
wufwugy: shows [6s 6d"> (two pair, Jacks and Sixes)
Reggie999: shows [Tc Ts"> (two pair, Jacks and Tens)
Reggie999 collected $248 from pot

Posted by wufwugy on November 12, 2007 at 18:16

My big problem appears to be something like this hypothetical which i fuck up lots of times every day. So in the attempt to help myself, maybe I can help you guys. Here's where I'm losing a SHIT TON of money.

Villain is taggish reg and I have exactly 50bb.

I 4x raise preflop with AQ. He calls in the BB. Pot is 8.5bb (just call it 8, the .5 got raked off)

Flop is 259 rainbow. I cbet 6bb he check/minraises. Pot is now 12+6+8= 26bb and I have 40bb behind and its 6bb to call.

We can assume that if I shove over I'll only be called when beat and he'll fold any time he was on a pure resteal.

you can skip this part if youre lazy
We now have to make an assumption as to how often he'll call. I'd estimate he's only pure bluffing 15% of the time, and he's semi-bluffing like 65% of the time and will call 40% of the times i shove (Something redonkulous like A9 or maybe even TT/66-77 and the like which he might fold occasionally.) This means he's semibluffcalling about 52% of the time. The rest of the time he has the nuts.

Let me break that down more clearly
15% of the time he's purely bluffing and folds.
52% of the time he's calling and i have between 3 and 6 outs.
33% of the time he has the nuts/near nuts and I'm drawing dead.

skip to here
Ok I postulate that he's calling like 85% of the time. And I'm in pretty bad shape when he does, averaging maybe 2 or 3 outs in the long run. Working out the EV calc if I shove 40 into 26 and he calls 85% of the time I need to win a little under 35% of the time to break even. And with 2 or 3 outs on average I won't win 35% of the time. With an average of 2 or 3 outs I'll win between 4% and 6% of the time.

Thats a seriously -EV bet, almost 25.6bb in the negative.

Of course you can argue that he's not really calling 85% of the time. So lets just use my sexy chart and you can draw your own conclusions as to what % he needs to call (that is, what % youre drawing slim-to-dead) to make this a profitable shove

% he calls is on the left
% I win is on the right
EV of the shove is in bb.



You can see here that it's a -EV shove once he starts calling more than about 50% of the time. And I think he almost definitely will, he's not on a purebluff 50% of the time.

So, 50bbers, FOLD. I hope I've proven to you why with sexy EV charts, but i'm mostly hoping I prove it to ME. He has to be bluffing more than half the time for your shove to be +EV and HE AINT!

{obv he might do stupid shit like call with AJ or KQ or something retardo, but i think thats rare enough to ignore.}

Posted by euphoricism on November 12, 2007 at 18:41

wufwugy wrote:

It's difficult for me to decipher what you're saying since you're saying we want to play two different ways, actually. Are you saying that midstacking is optimal, yet when there are fullstacked donkeys then fullstacking is optimal?

YES


Also re: your other stuff. When you just sit down, you don't know if there are full stacked donks and probably don't have many reads at all. Hence, play short then if there are deep fish in the waters (you have position on) top off or just stay after doubling through to make a big score. I'm advocating taking control of your stack size and using it to set-up favorable spots.

Posted by Fnord on November 12, 2007 at 19:19

anyone remember some of the players on Party who used to dominate the 50 bb max tables, then when they raised it to 100 a lot of folks started dropping out of the mix... or dropping levels.. because they couldn't win anymore.

Posted by jmontis on November 12, 2007 at 19:34

jmontis wrote:

anyone remember some of the players on Party who used to dominate the 50 bb max tables, then when they raised it to 100 a lot of folks started dropping out of the mix... or dropping levels.. because they couldn't win anymore.

/nod

Now the regs are used to 100bb, throw them a curveball.

Unless you have specific deep money reads, I just don't see big edges in 120ish++ deep ABC TAgg on ABC TAgg violence. Counter-attack by punishing them for putting in bets light, under-estimating your range and playing implied odds hands to a raise.

Posted by Fnord on November 12, 2007 at 19:48

can you guys just stop arguing Fnord is a genius.

Posted by IowaSkinsFan on November 13, 2007 at 00:43

your moms a genius

Posted by wufwugy on November 13, 2007 at 01:25

so let me get this straight....

some wonder whether or not the following is a good thing:

a) having a stack that covers donkey's stack
and
b) having a stack that is small than is a stronger player than you at the table

??

no shit man, come on

Posted by BankItDrew on November 13, 2007 at 02:23

That's like having your cake and eating it too.

Posted by wufwugy on November 13, 2007 at 03:18

Warpe wrote:

Outcome: MP3 wins $204.25. Hero wins $95.50.

Well Yeah.. but Villian won twice as much money as the Hero....

Posted by kingnat on November 13, 2007 at 08:46

lol...didn't notice that. stupid converter.

Posted by Warpe on November 13, 2007 at 11:37

is this geared more towards 6-max as opposed to FR? Since first reading this I haven't really noticed too many spots where I was put in a tough spot in my 100 NL FR game where I wished I was only 50BB deep. In fact, the couple of times I was, I am 90-95% sure I was way behind and would probably have stacked off too lightly if only 50 deep.

Posted by pgil on November 13, 2007 at 12:42

Not necessarily. Renton played 50bb deep at FR and stated for every time he wished he was deep there was 10 spots he was glad he was short.

Posted by euphoricism on November 13, 2007 at 12:54

This is a great cure for nittiness, I'm finding.

Posted by Warpe on November 13, 2007 at 13:23

I'm amazed that I'm still getting nutcamped. Seems like a reason to try and lag it up. People at 50 and 100NL dont seem to know how to do anything except flop the nuts and minraise. They still call me OOP, hope to flop two pair or something, otherwise they fold.

Posted by euphoricism on November 13, 2007 at 18:27

euphoricism wrote:

People at 50 and 100NL dont seem to know how to do anything except flop the nuts and minraise.

I can't wait to get there

Posted by Jack Sawyer on November 13, 2007 at 21:27

euphoricism wrote:

I'm amazed that I'm still getting nutcamped. Seems like a reason to try and lag it up. People at 50 and 100NL dont seem to know how to do anything except flop the nuts and minraise. They still call me OOP, hope to flop two pair or something, otherwise they fold.

amen to that!! these fuckers are driving me insane. i cant seem to catch on here. assholes. raise like a man, and show me your cards!! -confession of a donkey nit.

all that aside, DREW, i would think that half-stacking would be perfect for you. in fnord's OP, you immediately came to my mind.

hehe, i wonder if you can get cocco on the bandwagon, fnord. {sarcasm}

Posted by Chopper on November 13, 2007 at 23:40

Fnord: Do you think half-stacking is more or less effective at six-max?

What about those 10-20bb shove-aces-and-kings strategies? Are they even feasible?

Are you opening up your preflop range, or tightening it?

Posted by sejje on November 17, 2007 at 01:36

I want to discuss blind defense, because it's an area that seems to be killing me a lot.

Taggy button 4xs and youre in BB. SB folds, you have AQs. You 3bet to about 14x. Villain calls.

You flop nothing. Pot is 28bb, and theres 36bb in your stack. Basically your only options are check/fold or shove, and you should be shoving way more than you should be check/folding obviously.

Is this really the ideal way to play it?

Posted by euphoricism on November 17, 2007 at 02:17

I tend to over-bet in that spot so I can shove for pot.

Another option, is that if you think you're being called tight then just pull the plug once you get called pre-flop unless you flop at least an Ace.

Posted by Fnord on November 17, 2007 at 16:05

My biggest loser over 12k or so is QQ, my second biggest loser is less than 1/3rd the losses of QQ.

So it seems pretty obvious to me that I am overplaying QQ. Apparently even in a 6max game 50bb deep, QQ is not an automatic all-in pre hand.

The standard hand is, I raise 4x pre, I get 3bet, and I shove QQ. He basically is only calling with QQ+ and AK so I'm way behind or flipping almost every time I'm all in.

I really don't think calling and playing postflop is the way to go. It feels weak as hell folding QQ to a 3bet, but it looks to be correct against most players.

Posted by euphoricism on November 20, 2007 at 13:35

euphoricism wrote:

My biggest loser over 12k or so is QQ, my second biggest loser is less than 1/3rd the losses of QQ. So it seems pretty obvious to me that I am overplaying QQ. Apparently even in a 6max game 50bb deep, QQ is not an automatic all-in pre hand. The standard hand is, I raise 4x pre, I get 3bet, and I shove QQ. He basically is only calling with QQ+ and AK so I'm way behind or flipping almost every time I'm all in. I really don't think calling and playing postflop is the way to go. It feels weak as hell folding QQ to a 3bet, but it looks to be correct against most players.

this post is spew

Posted by Renton on November 20, 2007 at 14:25

If they are only calling your shoves w/AA, KK and AK your not doing it right.

Posted by jyms on November 20, 2007 at 14:37

Thats not even remotely true.

Posted by euphoricism on November 20, 2007 at 15:07

However, I just ran the math with Mr. Halvsame, and shoving QQ over the top of a 3bet is +EV. Its not hugely +EV, but its +EV and by definition better than a fold.

Posted by euphoricism on November 20, 2007 at 16:52

euph, why wouldnt you only call the 3bet, and shove non-A flops? or fire out what looks to be a cbet of 2/3? i feel you could still get away, but you would keep the 3bettors a bit more honest against you.

or start 3bet shoving more than QQ+/AK to loosen them up and get your premiums paid in stacks. maybe 88+/AQ+/AXs/67s-9Ts? those may be way off, but you would have the image of a monkey-shover and be live against most callers. maybe you only do that to the "regs" for a couple thousand hands to showdown and change your image...in their eyes.

read disclaimer below.

Posted by Chopper on November 20, 2007 at 17:29

but, personally, i take more hands post flop. and, with a hand, i try and get it in. by the turn, i'm in. but, i can fold off a lot to pf aggression or bad flops.

Posted by Chopper on November 20, 2007 at 17:30

Chopper wrote:

euph, why wouldnt you only call the 3bet, and shove non-A flops? or fire out what looks to be a cbet of 2/3? i feel you could still get away, but you would keep the 3bettors a bit more honest against you. or start 3bet shoving more than QQ+/AK to loosen them up and get your premiums paid in stacks. maybe 88+/AQ+/AXs/67s-9Ts? those may be way off, but you would have the image of a monkey-shover and be live against most callers. maybe you only do that to the "regs" for a couple thousand hands to showdown and change your image...in their eyes. read disclaimer below.

Calling a 3bet with QQ and c/rai on a non-A board is probably fine, and it's probably the best way to extract from JJ and AQ (assuming JJ would fold to a shove pre, which I think is mostly true). I'm not sure. It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure its a better idea than just shoving.

Halvsame and I worked this out, but it became a pretty lengthy explanation. I'll try and boil it down to worst case scenario:

Villain only 3bets with QQ+/AK and will always call my fourbet shove. What equity do I need against his range to break even by shoving over?

It turns out our break even point is just a smidge over 40%, and lo and behold QQ is 40.2% (still -EV but it's close).

Of course most opponents will 3bet wider than QQ+/AK, and indeed some will even call wider than that. But at least at my stakes by far most will only call your fourbet with these hands. Now we're facing the same hands WHEN CALLED as the above hypothetical but we're going to pick up the 18bb pot a significant percentage (as high as 20-25%) of the time depending on how lightly they're 3betting.

But now look what happens when he have something like JJ and the same worst case scenario:

JJ is a 36% dog against QQ+/AK, which comes out to about -7ishbb EV if villain calls 100% of the time. This is about 3.5 TIMES more -EV than QQ was. That's pretty significant. And every pocket pair below JJ is about 35% equity (34 for 22, 36 for TT) and little changes at that point.

Basically in this spot we might as well hold 22. It doesn't much matter. It has the same equity as JJ give or take a % or two.

We're bluffing. Of course we knew we were bluffing thats why its called a fourbet bluff. So we're hoping villain then puts us on a monster and folds, and yet an essential element of midstacking is that bad players call too much, and do so without implied odds. So we've reached a dichotomy. We can't really tailor our strategy around making people call too much and then simultaneously expect them to make big folds.

Clearly what I'm showing is that if you're finding a villain that is 3betting you lightly, you should shove more. A LOT more. Basically any pocket pair is shoveable against a guy who is 3betting more than about 5% of his hands ( 99+ AJs+ KQs AKo ). But then you need to be careful. If you continue to bluffshove over his 3bets and he tightens up his 3bet and call range, you're going to be in some majorly -EV situations.

My conclusions on the fourbet bluffshove:
Generally speaking, not worthwhile but in very rare circumstances where I know villain well and I know I'll play with him in the future, and I know he'll be paying enough attention to remember me. I don't think that happens very often at my stakes.

I hope that made sense.

Posted by euphoricism on November 20, 2007 at 20:04

made good sense. thanks for explaining.

now for a new "problem" to think on, if i may:

this came up today, and its not nearly as sophisticated as yours, but all the same i want to know how to figure it out, if possible.

most villains, at my tables 25NL, will call 3bets somewhat light