10 replies to this topic

[TheCinciKid]

Ok, I originally built my roll beating up on Party SnG's, and I think I'm a decent to slightly above average NL player, at least in a tourney style situation. However, I've never been very successful at cash games. I picked up Miller's book and decided to try out the shortstack strategy. I lost 3 $20 buy-ins and I'd like to know if I'm a donkey. Please feel free to rip me a new one on any of these three hands. Hand 1 - I ended up at a PL table by mistake, and didn't even notice it til the very end. I think it's largely irrelevant for our purposes. I'd managed to build my $20 up to almost $40 when the following hand came up. Party Poker Pot-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxsaw flop|saw showdownUTG ($113.77)Hero ($45)CO ($100)Button ($101.10)SB ($97.85)BB ($100)Preflop: Hero is MP with 9:diamond:, 9:spade:. CO posts a blind of $1. SB posts a blind of $0.50. UTG calls $1, Hero raises to $5, UTG calls $4.Flop: ($12.50) 6:diamond:, 6:heart:, 2:diamond: (2 players)UTG checks, Hero bets $8, UTG calls $8.Flop bet too big or ok? Alarm bells should probably be going off after he calls, but obviously I didn't pay attention to them.Turn: ($28.50) 3:heart: (2 players)UTG checks, Hero bets $27.1, Hero calls $4.90 (All-In).I was thinking that the whole goal of the shortstack strategy is to get your money in as quickly as possible, so I pushed as soon as the pot was big enough to do so. In hindsight, maybe kind of silly with just 99.River: ($114.70) A:heart: (2 players, 1 all-in)Final Pot: $114.70Hand 2 - I think this is probably pretty standard when playing a shortstack, but I'm not sure. Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxsaw flop|saw showdownHero ($19.40)MP1 ($171.48)MP2 ($142.60)MP3 ($14.60)CO ($105.40)Button ($136.85)SB ($125.35)BB ($173.81)UTG =#A500AF(Villain)/ ($152.50)UTG+1 ($46.47)Preflop: Hero is UTG+2 with J:spade:, J:diamond:. SB posts a blind of $0.50. UTG =#A500AF(Villain)/ calls $1, UTG+1 calls $1, Hero raises to $5, Hero calls $14.40 (All-In), BB folds.Flop: ($178.40) 5:spade:, T:diamond:, 7:spade: (4 players, 2 all-in)Turn: ($178.40) 7:diamond: (4 players, 2 all-in)River: ($178.40) 3:heart: (4 players, 2 all-in)Final Pot: $178.40[b]Hand 3 - I believe I may have donked this one up pretty badly. Would like input on all streets. Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ Hero (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx[b]saw flop|[b]saw showdown[b]Hero ($18.50)[b]UTG =#A500AF(Villain)/ ($209.53)UTG+1 ($66.85)UTG+2 ($19.55)MP1 ($99.90)MP2 ($99)MP3 ($330.25)CO ($171.76)Button ($147.65)[b]SB =#A500AF(SB)/ ($97.02)[b]Preflop: Hero is BB with T:heart:, Q:club:. SB =#A500AF(SB)/ posts a blind of $0.50. UTG =#A500AF(Villain)/ calls $1, 7 folds, SB =#A500AF(SB)/ (poster) completes, Hero checks.[b]Flop: ($3) A:diamond:, 2:diamond:, T:club: (3 players)SB checks, Hero checks, Villain checks.I thought my Tens might be good here and almost bet out, but then I thought the UTG limper's most likely holding was an Ace, so I checked. He checked behind and I figured I was probably ahead.[b]Turn: ($3) Q:spade: (3 players)SB checks, Hero bets $1, Villain calls $1, SB folds.After hitting two pair, I figured I surely had the best hand and wanted callers. The $1 bet was probably too small though. I realized too late that I was probably pricing flush draws, which I really didn't want to do. Villain calls and I figure he probably has a slowplayed Ace, or a flush draw.[b]River: ($5) 7:heart: (2 players)Hero bets $2.5, Hero calls $14 (All-In), Villain calls $10.50.The river raise really surprised me here, but I put him on an Ace and decided to push. In hindsight, I think I got too caught up in thinking about Vegas and the fucking Mirage and didn't realize that a raise here isn't very likely to make money. I think calling the raise is ok. Re-raising is just flat out donkified. [b]Final Pot: $38

[STYLINHAWYN]

Im not really that experienced playing the aggressive short stack in a NL game, but do you think 2o big blinds is even enough to be called a short stack...I think if you want to better apply this strategy, your going to need to buy-in for a lot more than just $20. ex.you raise $5, and your opponents see that you only have $15 left, they are going to gamble with you, they can only lose $20, but at the same time, they can also win without risking too much of their stackthey are going to call your all-in raise with a lot more marginal hands than say if you had 40-50% of the max buy-in, now if they want to gamble with you, its going to cost them a lot more than your mesely $20 buy-in.

[screech]

The way I used shortstack theory was to cash out and buy back in once I doubled up. Once you reached 40bb's in the first hand, you couldn't really use the strat effectively.

[CobaltBlue]

Stylin, I think you're missing the point of the short-stack theory. That's exactly what you want your opponents to think: "Hey, I'll gamble. This guy doesn't have much more money."Cinci, you weren't particularly short-stacked in the first one, so I wouldn't necessarily push here. Also, make sure you're not playing PL next time. One of the keys to short-stack is being able to get in pre-flop or on the flop.The second hand is fine, I believe.The third hand doesn't apply as much to short-stack theory as you're playing the later streets. Villain could easily be slowplaying KJ or have hit on the river with something like A7, so don't re-raise.

[cheetaking]

Just a few quick thoughts...1.Buying in with only 20 big blinds is usually a bad idea. short stack theory applies much more in tournaments than in cash games. I would buy in for at least $50 at a .5/1 NL table.HAND 1:Your bets pre-flop and on the flop are good. You have to be wary, though. Your opponent could be calling you with anything from a draw to 2 overcards to an overpair to trip 6's. Tread carefully. A check/call is always either a draw or a slow-play.The real mistake here is the bet on the turn... it was way too big. I would bet maybe $10 here, not 27. When you made that huge bet, you were committing yourself to calling an all-in. What did the $27 bet accomplish? If your opponent called, you were beat, and if he folded, you would have won the pot anyway.The principle theory of betting is this: You should only bet out if you think your opponent will either fold a better hand than yours, or call with a worse hand than yours.Let's look at your bet on the turn this way... Do you think your opponent would fold a better hand? No way! If he has pocket tens or higher, there is no way he's folding them. Would your opponent call with a worse hand? Probably not. He might call with pocket 8's or 7's, but he would probably fold anything else.My guess for what he had: A/6HAND 2:Usually, if a big stack suddenly decides to push all-in preflop, alarm bells should be ringing in your head. The call isn't terrible because you had almost 1/3 of your stack in already, but I would fold this with a bigger stack every time. So, with your <20 stack, the call was okay. But if someone had done this randomly and you had 50 or more, I would probably fold.My guess for what he had: A/AHAND 3:I would usually throw out a feeler bet on the flop. There was no pre-flop raise, so chances are actually not bad that nobody has an ace. Your tens might be good, and you are not going to find out by checking. I would bet $1 or $2 here just to see what the other 2 players do. If they call, it doesn't matter... you now have control of the betting, and they will be putting YOU on the ace. This is just a thought, and not everyone does it, but I like to do it in order to get a read on the other players.The bet on the turn was atrocious... NEVER make a value bet with mid 2 pair. That hand turns into crap so often that it's almost un-natural. If a draw hits, you're screwed. If the board pairs, you're screwed. If the other guy hits 2 pair or trips, you're screwed. It's just way too dangerous to try and be sneaky here. I would bet at least $5. NOBODY is going to fold top pair with a weak kicker or even a crappy draw to the minimum bet. Usually, you want weaker hands to call, but here it is just too risky. You have to bet more, whether for protecting your hand or just getting a read.Also, I would just call the villain's bet on the river instead of re-raising all-in. Raising on the river is usually a bad idea unless you are bluffing or sitting on a monster. Remember... only raise if your opponent will call with a weaker hand, or fold a stronger one. You might beat something like A/K or A/Q, but since there was no raise pre-flop you can usually take that out of consideration.My guess for what he had: A/7One final note: If you are good at sit-and-gos, you should play sit-and-gos. If you are good at cash games, you should play cash games. If you are in it for the money, you should usually play whatever format you are good at. If you like playing aggressive and making big moves, tournament play is usually a better option. At cash tables, it's not about being super aggressive, it's about grinding it out. Get your money in when you have the best hand, and protect it when you don't. Simple as that. Since you built your bankroll at the tournament tables, I would probably stick to tournament play if I were you. I had the same problem when I first bought in online, so I'm pretty solid on this idea.Well, I hope this lengthy post has helped you.

[econ_tim]

cheetaking said:

1.Buying in with only 20 big blinds is usually a bad idea. short stack theory applies much more in tournaments than in cash games. I would buy in for at least $50 at a .5/1 NL table.

The theory the OP refers to in the title is a strategy specifically for cash games. Please see the long thread in general strategy ("An Objective Look at Short Stack Strategy") for more info. That's the place to debate whether or not you should buy in for $20.

[Abbaddabba]

first hand: you arent really short stacked. second hand: fine. the big stack pushing doesnt mean so much because there's only one person besides you left to act and you have only slightly more than a pot raise left (pot of 11.50 after the call, your stack is 15). he makes this move as often with 8's through 10's and he does queens up, and occasionally with AK or AQ. I'd be _more_ intimidated if the guy who still hasnt acted was a bigger stack, but he's only bot $45 left, which means the all-in push isnt risking nearly as much in case he picked up a big hand.third hand: he only makes that river raise with hands that have you killed, or absolutely nothing. either call or fold, but never raise there.

[TheCinciKid]

cheetaking said:

One final note: If you are good at sit-and-gos, you should play sit-and-gos. If you are good at cash games, you should play cash games. If you are in it for the money, you should usually play whatever format you are good at. If you like playing aggressive and making big moves, tournament play is usually a better option. At cash tables, it's not about being super aggressive, it's about grinding it out. Get your money in when you have the best hand, and protect it when you don't. Simple as that. Since you built your bankroll at the tournament tables, I would probably stick to tournament play if I were you. I had the same problem when I first bought in online, so I'm pretty solid on this idea.

I appreciate your thoughts on the specific hands. And you were pretty close on the reads. However, I have to really disagree with this paragraph. My point in mentioning that I built my original roll playing SnG's, was that I'm not a complete novice at NL and at least have some experience winning, yet have had marginal success at best, in playing cash games. I also do fairly well right now in the small stakes limit games, however that's no reason for me or anyone else to stick to what they're successful at. Yes, the goal of poker is to make money, but I could probably do that using the Smash strategy. My goal, and I believe it should be the goal of everyone who takes this game seriously, is to constantly improve my game and become a well-rounded player. Right now I only play Hold'em and I'm trying to get to where I'm proficient at all forms of Hold'em. Within a year or so, I plan to start branching out to other forms of poker. Eventually, I'd like to be proficient at all forms of poker and I don't think that is an unrealistic goal. In fact, I think it's one that every serious player should strive for.

[Actuary]

Is this a good rule of thumb:Don't reraise the river w/o the nuts (or damn close) ?

[STYLINHAWYN]

CobaltBlue said:

Stylin, I think you're missing the point of the short-stack theory. That's exactly what you want your opponents to think: "Hey, I'll gamble. This guy doesn't have much more money."

is this really what you want though, putting all your money in on coin flips at best. I'm trying to understand this short stack strategy and what comes to mind is playing super aggressive post flop and winning without a showdown, getting your oponnent to fold his marginal non profitable hands, not all-ins preflop hoping to win 50% chancers. If your opponnent connects with any piece of the flop, especially top pair or better, you think that they are going to fold to your bet of $15 more...NOI hear what you are trying to say, but c'mon 20 big blinds, thats really not going to get you anywhere playing NL cash games, especially when you only buy in for 20% of the max buy-in.edit:1 more thing i wanted to add to this, my main source of making money comes from playing $1NL and $2NL shorthanded cash games. I now always buy in for the max, and I can tell you first hand that I feast off of opponents who try to buy in for the minimum. these people don't last very long at any table they play at. If i get it heads up with a shortstack, all I do is push him all-in if I have any kind of a hand or draw, even bottom pair. now this puts him to the test, do you think they are going to call with anything less than a solid hand...It's just way too easy to get bullied around with that short a stackso i stick by my word, you need to buy in for at least40-50% of max buy-in to make this strategy work. other wise, your just wasting your time and money.

[cheetaking]

the last paragraph stated "If you are in it for the money". That was the intention. I like playing different forms also... it keeps me more entertained than just sitting and playing one game all day. But when I want to make money, I usually stick to what I'm best at. I just stuck that in as an afterthought, so it's not really important.