Buying in short as a legitimate strategy under normal circumstances

pokypoky

bohsman wrote:

This forum is great. Recently I have learned that I should fold an overpair in a tournament to an all in preflop if they have me covered and I know that they have an underpair because I will go bust 20% of the time so should wait for a better opportunity.

Who taught you that? Whats his name on stars? I always wanted to bluff someone off aces preflop:)

NickyOD

I can't believe this is still being argued. It is very black and white. As a good player it is less profitable to buy in short because your implied odds go out the window. The flip side pf this is you don't pot commit yourself when behind. You maximise your profits by having more money in front of you. End of discussion.

Ste05

I was going to write a long reply yesterday, but just couldn't motivate myself, and still can't really. But my quick thoughts on this are:

A short stack needs a different strategy to playing with a Full tank. If you play a short stack the same was you would if you had a Full Tank, 2 things will happen (a) you won't make as much as you could if you had a full stack; and (b) you won't make as much money as you could if you played with a proper short stack strategy. i.e. it's never good.

However, If you realise that as a short stack you must utilise a different type of strategy it can prove to be more profitable to sit into a bigger game short stacked, than it would be to sit down at a smaller game with the same buy-in but a stack that covers the table.
Basically BR management, and is more $ based than BB based.

Basically IMHO to play with a short stack you need to realise that you only really have 2 moves and you're basically playing SledgeHammer poker. There's no real latitude for tricky plays or intricate bluffs, etc.

My thoughts on the main distinctions is that with a full stack you basically have 4 moves, Pre-Flop, Flop, Turn and River, you can check, bet, raise, re-raise on most streets to allow you to win the pot or to maximise your winnings. However with a short stack you only really have 2 moves. I'm probably not explaining my thoughts clearly at all here. But basically I draw a distinction between regular cash play and short stacked cash play, the same way as there is an obvious distinction between tournament play and cash game play.

I realise there will be loads of people who will completely disagree with me, and this kind of thing isn't good for a newbie's development, etc. etc. and I wouldn't be advocating this a long term strategy but I use it occasionally when I get the urge to sit down at a higher game, but can do so without risking too much of my BR. This is kind of a contradictory point as this style of play has much higher variance but so many people look down on a shorty because the vast majority of players who sit down with a Short Stack are just the fish that they appear, but if you realise the strengths and weaknesses involved in being a short stack and exploit them correctly then it can be a profitable proposition.

How this whole thing stacks up EV wise, I couldn't tell you, would the EV be greater for a solid player to sit down fully tanked at a lower level as opposed to the same person sitting down shortstacked at a higher level??

Actually that turned out longer than I thought, :rolleyes: but I was just scratching the surface of a topic that I think has legs if we were to get into it.

Rnger

I've only read the first post....

He has sacraficed implied odds to sit down shortstacked. You can afford to make these calls, he can't. As your both the best players there, you should both sit down with the maximum amount to get the most out of your good hands.

Playing shortstacked is only suitable to weak players imo

I hope I'm not repeating other people.