15 replies to this topic

[MikeR]

You know Ed Miller's strategy for buying in for the minimum and just pushing with superior hands? Does this mean that when I try to determine a bankroll (i.e. 25xBuy in for that NL buy in) I can do it by 25xA min buy in? Just wondering if I'm playing NL with this strategy exclusively if I adjust the bankroll requirements as well. For example, in a $100 max NL game if my normal bankroll would be $2,500, would the bankroll now be $500 if I played the small stack strategy exclusively and bought into the $100 max game for $20 each time.

[turd ferguson]

If you are even reasonably smart, you shouldn't be using this strategy.

[MikeR]

The bankroll strategy or Ed Miller's short stack strategy? Could you elaborate on which, and why you think a smart person shouldn't use this strategy?

[JayPaav]

Cmon man, what is the point. i mean, the math is right as far as 25 x 2o as the min buy-in, but i see guys do this all the time both online and in the cardrooms and it makes no sense to me. buying in for the minimum requires you to get lucky and get dealt early on when you sit down. then when you dont get dealt and have sacrificed a few blinds and your at about 10-15 dollars you make a stupid play and push with J 10 off or something and you have to rebuy... theres no poker involved when you buy-in for the minimum and then push hoping to get lucky - in this case youre talking about playing luck. yes poker has an element of luck to it - but if you look at playing the game correctly luck becomes much less of a deciding factor.buy-in for the full amount (at the very least 3/4 the full amount) and play the game straight-up, you will find that you will do much better overall.

[MikeR]

I heard that Chris Ferguson used this strategy to turn his dollar into $3,000, and that Jim Rose used it to average $28/hr. I play Omaha8/b, and just wanted to do this on a background screen for fun.

[MikeR]

JayPaav said:

theres no poker involved when you buy-in for the minimum and then push hoping to get lucky - in this case youre talking about playing luck. yes poker has an element of luck to it - but if you look at playing the game correctly luck becomes much less of a deciding factor.

Ed Miller disagrees, and in fact says that this strategy can be used at loose NL games allowing a rank amature to beat the game in the long run. Basically your pushing with superior starting hands, and counting on lesser hands calling you, which in the long run should be +EV.This could never be done in limit against expert players, because of the different streets, but allows you to make 1 to 2 decisions max in NL while getting your money in with superior holdings.

[turd ferguson]

MikeR said:

The bankroll strategy or Ed Miller's short stack strategy? Could you elaborate on which, and why you think a smart person shouldn't use this strategy?

Because you're negating your poker skill. If you're good, you should be able to outplay your opponents most of the time and produce a positive win rate. You're taking away the edge that your skill creates.

[MikeR]

turd ferguson said:

MikeR said:

The bankroll strategy or Ed Miller's short stack strategy? Could you elaborate on which, and why you think a smart person shouldn't use this strategy?

Because you're negating your poker skill. If you're good, you should be able to outplay your opponents most of the time and produce a positive win rate. You're taking away the edge that your skill creates.

An expert player would no doubt make more, but I think this system would still earn money but at a smaller rate. Again, I don't really play NL cash games, and thought this could be fun and moderately profitable as a background to mu Omaha8b games.If I wanted to start playing NL cash games regularly I would not play a system like this, as I would want to make more money.

[turd ferguson]

MikeR said:

turd ferguson said:

MikeR said:

The bankroll strategy or Ed Miller's short stack strategy? Could you elaborate on which, and why you think a smart person shouldn't use this strategy?

Because you're negating your poker skill. If you're good, you should be able to outplay your opponents most of the time and produce a positive win rate. You're taking away the edge that your skill creates.

An expert player would no doubt make more, but I think this system would still earn money but at a smaller rate. Again, I don't really play NL cash games, and thought this could be fun and moderately profitable as a background to mu Omaha8b games.If I wanted to start playing NL cash games regularly I would not play a system like this, as I would want to make more money.

I see. Well, go for it then. I guess it can't really hurt to experiment with.

[akishore]

jesus christ, the consant and repeated flaming of this PROVEN strategy is getting insanely tiring."i see people do this all the time at my local cardroom ... then, when they don't get dealt and are down to 10 or 15 bucks, they push with J-10 off ..."my ass. i will bet you $1000 that the people you see doing this in your cardroom are not following ed miller's strategy. it is so blatantly clear that you don't even understand it, so please, don't even begin to flame it."if you're good, you should be able to outplay your opponents ... you're taking away the edge that your skill creates."why is it just *assumed* that the EV of playing a big stack is ALWAYS higher than the EV of playing a shorter stack? the OP says he doesn't play no limit, so this strategy is CLEARLY best for him to start out on. further, it can be shown that even if your EV is lower playing a short stack, your HOURLY RATE playing at higher stakes with a shortstack can be higher than your hourly rate playing at normal stakes with a deeper stack.to the OP:i would recommend a minimum of 20 buy-ins. if you are buying in for 20 bb, that would be 400 bb. this is minimum, though. while i can't justify why, the variance in shortstack strategy tends to be higher, in my experience.good luck,aseem

[jayistheman]

ive never read this strategy in its entirety, and although im deeply annoyed by a bunch of shortstacks in a highly competetive game, I am curious.is the full strat outlined in one of his books, on 2+2, where?a link would be good.thanks

[akishore]

jayistheman said:

is the full strat outlined in one of his books, on 2+2, where?

"getting started in hold 'em"ed milleraseem

[jayistheman]

ty much sir

[gilbertology]

People play the lottery all the time and you don't do anything but check if your numbers win, where's the fun in that?Using a small buy-in strategy is not a good idea for an experienced relatively advanced poker player. However, if you are playing NL and want to buy in for 15-25BB and you play the way you should, such as pushing with the premium hands, then you have a better chance of increasing your bankroll then you do of winning in blackjack. Plus you gain experience by playing tightly and watching what how the better players play. What I'm saying is that if you have $50 and want to buy in for a $1-$2NL game, go for it and play your short stack correctly. There's a good chance you'll end up broke but if you play well and get the cards there's a better than 1 in 4 chance you end up with $200 to donk away at $4-$8.Hey, it's a small price to pay for a fun time and a chance to win MILLIONS of cents.

[Sluggo]

If small buyins are bad then why does DN expect most players to buy in with the minimum (167 bbs):

Quote

Most players will probably buy in for the minimum, but as I start tomorrow with Barry Greenstein and Doyle Brunson, my guess is that there might be about $4 million on the table. It should be interesting.

If deep stacks are so much better, why don't they each buy in for 10 million?ROI.To maximise $winnings/hour/$invested.To MikeR and any other curious players: for the love of god and everything that is holy, don't belive some of the above posters on face value alone. They have closed minds and are prejudiced against players who use different styles than they do. And even if shortstack IS always worse than deepstack assuming a winning edge (which it is not), I still recommend trying it just to vastly increase your understanding of implied odds.

[TeeSludge]

I fully agree with Aseem on this topic. In fact I would go as far to say that a player who uses this strategy correctly could have a better winrate then most of those who bash the strategy. I use this strategy when I am clearing bonuses and as a supplement to my regular play. If I remember correctly Aseem had an in depth post about the short stack strategy a while ago.