Alright guys.

I put together a very meager roll ($150) to try out the shortstack strategy.


I will be on NL 50 tables on prima.


Here's the plan.


I am going to try to play like 12-16 hours a week, keep a spreadsheet of results such as winrate, standard deviation, whatnot. I will be putting my spreadsheet, my hand histories, and some comments up on my blog, and corresponding webspace.


anyone, let me know if you are interested in following this so i'm not just pissing in the wind.

also, let me know (if you look at my HH) if you wanna discuss the strategy at all.. i am playing a slight variation which includes some minor changes, and I think i'm doing it all correctly.


ps. i got a pretty good rakeback for this on prima..... cough:m me:: cough

the link is below...

i won't be posting the first results for a few more hours, or possibly in the morning.... just giving a heads up.

i'll follow and would love to view HH, and comment.

a few guidelines.

Only buy in for 10 - 15x the BB if you buy in for 20 + its too easy to make a quick few bucks on a hand and no longer be short

Keep track of how often you re-load if any, and how many tables you play at one time.

also will these be full rings or short handed?

I've been buying in for 20 bb's right now and bouncing after one double up.

I have been playing full ring, and leaving if it gets 7 handed or less.

i am reloading if i fall below 8.50 or so.. but this is arbitrary for now. I am tinkering with different stack sizes on 4 separate tables. I have noticed, thus far, that it is hard to play with any more than ten bucks. Anything over 14, and I find myself with some tough decisions.... and I'm trying to avioid those.


JJ is a much nicer hand with this strategy :-)

As i notice any patterns or anything like that, i'll be sure to mention.


I'm probably going to put up a HH and a few paragraphs tonight, and the xls tomorrow.

any stats anyone wants to see on the spreadsheet?? easily calculated, please :-) i don't want to have to hire actuary.

ok.. first results are up.

www.pages.drexel.edu/~jal63/General/

not that great, but a win is a win... i made half as much on rakeback... but oh well. a profit is a profit.

HH is IMMENSE!

it took like a minute to upload in UNIX over a cable connection.. and thats just a txt file.

its not formatted well, and most of the hands are me folding. but it will do for now. im gonna try to come up with a way to format it.


also, if you wanna datamine prima, you are going to get PLENTY of samples in the coming weeks.

I'll be an interested observer.

Thanks for doing this.

I'll be keeping up with it also.

Good stuff,

I'm a bit confused on how you lost 2 hands, but then tripled up twice?

did u buy back in 3 times, and then triple up? If you're playing this strat correctly you should have your chips in the center more often than not.

Also i'm a bit sceptical of your wins with JJ vs AA, and another vs QQ.

But keep it up and we'll see how it goes

Both Aseem and I use systems with less than 20 bbs (10-15). By buying in for less, you commit yourself and your opponents to any pot you play, and flops matter less.

Essentially, I'd buy in for a bit less, and drop AQ in EP, only play medium pairs in LP and without a bunch of limpers, and play AJo in LP.

However, tweak the hands you play depending on the table. If the table is aggressive, you should be folding more. If the tale is passive, loosen up. If the table is super loose, you can loosen up because you'll have an equity edge more often. If the table is tight, leave.

I was only mentioning some highlights of my 5 hours of 4 tabling.

I lost my ass quite a few times.

I also tripled up three times overall, i think.

the first one:

I had like 9 dollars, and made it 3.50 or 4 to go. I was reraised, and someone cold called. My thinking was that if I moved in, the guy who reraised me would isolate, and i could essentially triple up by beating one hand. turns out they had AA and QQ respectively, and I flopped a jack.

another time, was a similar situation, except vs AQ and 99.

I also tripled up in the bb after flopping a straight with 69.


I had quite a few swings, as low as 120, and as high as 180, although i expected some volatility

The chips were often in the center... go to the HH i posted on my site, and run a search for "JayAtCollege is all in"

I'll tinker with these.

20 bb's did seem a bit much on some tables, as my commiting pf raises were never called. some tables, I was getting too many calls..... I'm going to have to get a feel for it

hi everyone,

1. 20 bb - 30 bb is what ed miller considers a shortstack in his book. so, 20 bb's is okay.

2. sluggo is right, i prefer 15 bb's and occasionally 10 bb's.

3. royal tour, that is a misconception... there is nothing that says "you should have your chips in the middle more often than not." if you raise with 10-10, flop comes AQ9, and you're in a four-way pot, check/folding is fine.

jay, good luck. personally, this strategy invites tilt like the plague simply because of patience issues (ed miller calls this strategy "ultra-tight is right") and also losing with KK to Ax gets tiring. :wink:

aseem

I am on the verge of tilt right now...


I am running INCREDIBLY bad right now.

I have lost multiple all ins in a dominating position, I have outflopped with AK in a race, to see running diamonds kill me. I have pushed with AK high to be called with underpairs...

im losing at a pretty high rate right now...

not too sure what to do, so im just gonna keep playing.

dude, i TOTALLY understand. same sort of things that happened to me that caused me to tilt repeatedly.

if i may make a suggestion, please keep track of every single bet/raise you make (anytime you get money in the pot) where you go to showdown.

then, calculate your EXPECTED win/loss in each hand. like if you push with JJ preflop and run into AA, your EV would be 20% of what AA puts in minus 80% of what you put in. or if you push with AsKs on a flop of Kd8d2c against 9d9c, your EV would be something like 87% of (pot + what 99 puts in) minus 13% of what you put in.

after each session, compare where you SHOULD be on average with where you are. it'll give you a good idea, then, if you're really running bad or if there are some leaks.

aseem

Thanks for the idea...

I'm at the tail end of this session, but I'm gonna start keeping track next time.

if i survive...


the absolute hardest part is when I get sucked out on by a fish with 110 bucks... and I want to sit with a full stack soooo bad. stupid low bankroll.

Akishore,

You completely went against your own short stack strategy thread.

Why not just say, Play edmiller's way, instead of trying to pass a new microstack strategy as yours

You stated playing extreme short stack. Playing with upwards of 30BB doesnt really take away difficult decision making post flop, which is exactly what this strategy is supposed to do.

In order for him to make this work, he needs to invest his chips pre flop. and limit his flop play. Granted he can limp and see flops, but there is really no room for error with this strategy.

If you are going to make this theory work, you have to play like a chimp.
When you make decisions on when you should push post flop, then why are u playing short stacked?

30+ bb?? I think 10-20 is much better. Limping is never an option; either raise or fold pf. Normally, there is little flop play because players are so pot committed but in situations like the one aseem mentioned (PP with two big overcards and four opponents) it is reasonably safe to fold. You can't really expect to be ahead after you raise and get four callers and then someone bets that flop with enough certainty to go all in. The whole point of shortstack strategies isn't to eliminate decisions; it's to reduce implied odds and cause your opponents to err.

By playing shortstack you aren't choosing to stop playing flops. You are merely increasing the threshold at which you fold. Because your pot odds are so good, you will fold much less often than with a big stack. With a small enough stack, you will never play flops.

well..

the night has been finished down 70.

I'm a bit angry.

Bad beat time!

QQ v KQ on a KQxx board.... guess what!


AK outflops QQ and he catches running diamonds

KJ high calls all in and catches gutshot


it goes on and on.


I'm taking a break from this and playing some deep stack poker on a separate roll...... so if you see me on prima with more than 11 bucks, thats why.

there really is more flop play than you realize. I like to have a pot sized bet left in me for the flop... the idea is to insure that they don't have odds to draw with a weaker hand.

Alright I decided to do this as well. It will be updated in my blog (link is in my signature). I'll post in here when there's an update so you can go check it out. I'm playing right now so there will be a blog up about it tonight after I get done.

Jay - I left you a comment in your blog about the hands that Miller advocates, did you get it?

Signature's not working

Here's the link

http://brandofcp.blogspot.com/

not showing up. ill give it some time... :?

Day 1 for me is up. I only played 73 hands b/c I'm tired and have a test tomorrow. I posted two main hands and gave a description of a couple others. As well as hands played/amount won.

The update is in my blog
http://brandofcp.blogspot.com/

Clearly this "test" is skewed, of course a good player will win with the short stack strategy, but he would also win as a big stack.

No offence to sluggo, or aseem, I'm sure you are good players, I have yet to ever play any of you, i've never seen you in tournaments, or heard of any successful tournament placing, so i'm not sure how strong your NL game is.

But you guys are trying to come across as great players, who play the short stack strategy because its ""+EV "" eliminating some implied odds vs your opponent also eliminated your max profit for a made hand.

Take this example. A wheel chair is used to help handicapped people, they might not be able to get places as fast as someone running, but they can eventually get there.
You guys are like the person who can walk, now explaining how wheelchairs are +EV because they eliminate line ups at the airport, you can sit down in them, but all the while fail to mention the portability, the lack of speed when you're in a hurry etc....

Once again, like i stated before, this microstack strategy will not give you better starting hands. If you are unable to play a hand post flop successfully, then by all means stick to the "wheelchair"
But i'll continue to keep my min buy in at 50x +

I just ordered Miller's book GSIHE, so I'm interested.

it works now.. I linked to your blog from mine, if that's ok

How does that skew the test? As long as a player has records for both play styles, comparing the results shouldn't be too difficult.

At $10NLHE, buying in for the max is always +EV. 100% of the time. No doubts about it.

However, by playing shortstack, you can buy in for $10 at the $100NLHE and win more. Shortstack isn't neccessarily better than deepstack, but under good conditions it can be.




Answer this please:

You sit down at a $100 NLHE table with 9 opponents. Everyone has $100 and you have a positive skill edge. What blinds are most profitable? $5/$10? $50/$100? $.01/$.02? $1/2? If the blinds are too low, there isn't enough action and you don't make as much money. If the blinds are too high, you lose your skill edge and don't make as much money. The optimum blind level is somewhere in the middle. But where?

You say $.50/$1. I say it can be at $3/6.

Thanks for the link Jay.

There's a new ShortStack update on my blog
http://brandofcp.blogspot.com

EDIT - Played another short session, my third. It's up on the blog.

Update 4 is now up

http://brandofcp.blogspot.com/

I don't like completing with 3 5 . This probably the most implied odds dependent hand out there. Then again, while you're in the SB, it only costs 1/40 of your stack to see a flop so your implied odds aren't terrible (like limping with a 10BB stack). The main problem I see is 53's visibility and the potential presence of higher flushes. I think Axs or Kxs are easier to complete with because they can be the best flush.



An interesting thing about shortstack strategy is that although draws are bad because you lose implied odds and can't extract value once you hit, they are also cheaper to play. If you have a flush draw on the flop, you can go all in for half the pot and pay for 2 cards instead of 1.

I wasn't really sure about this hand. I don't recall Ed talking much about blind play in the book. Maybe I should look it over again for that. What's your conclusion on it Sluggo? I don't think it's that bad, but I'm still unsure.

Update 6 is now up, it's a bad one

http://brandofcp.blogspot.com/

Did you get KJs in the blinds?

yeah I completed from the sb, bad?

flop check/check
turn check/he pots it, I push, and I'm done

It seems to me that short stack is -ev as opposed to playing big stack. I admit I haven't read the book, but dosen't the ability to make the mathimatically correct decision add +ev to the equation? If you can not push out a drawing hand due to your short stack, you give him the right odds to call. Then he hits often enough for you to lose overall. Is this too simple a look?

Also, If you have a really large stack you can absorb variance better than if your stack is short. Isn't that worth something as well?

Thinking that big stack poker is always more profitable than shortstack poker is a common misconception. Basically, you cut your AND your opponents' implied odds and give them more chances to make mistakes. Looking at your example the opposite way, if we have a short stack our opponents can't push us off of our draws and will give us the right odds.

Shortstack poker changes the dynamics of the game, and we make money by adjusting better than our opponents.

Also, I think a big bankroll allows you to absorb variance better, rather than a big stack. The size of your stack is pretty irrelevant in terms of bankroll management.

However, buying in for 100 bbs instead of 10 bbs at a table will always be more profitable if you have a skill edge. The real debate is whether to buy in at 100 bbs at a smaller stakes table or buy in for 10 bbs at a bigger stakes table while playing with the same sum of cash.

Update 7's up. Another down session. I'm losing confidence

Maybe it's variance, maybe I'm not applying it right. If anyone has some help please give some advice. I'm still up overall. Running at 1.79BB/100 right now though.

http://brandofcp.blogspot.com/

Is there any interest in this anymore? They're haven't been many hands talked about and nobody's left a comment in the blog. Maybe people are reading and just not commenting. Just let me know if there's any intereset.

I read your latest update.

Hand 1 is standard

Hand 2 is close, you could probably fold comfortably in this spot.

Hand 3 is standard

I have a question about your standard preflop raise of 4x the BB.
I've played a short stack strategy for a while using a standard preflop raise of 6x the BB. What do you think are the advantages/disadvantages of this? In the long run do you see a 4x BB preflop raise with that stack is a more profitable play?

I always wondered if it was better to raise more --> consequently making the villains call preflop more incorrect [but then they fold more frequently to the bigger raise, yet i feel once they call pf they are more tied to their hand]

I haven't logged that many hands either using the SS Strat. But I'd be willing to follow along with your findings and maybe even start some sessions of my own.

Chief

I'm at my night class, I'll respond later tonight. I think that is a great question (about the size of the raise). Help anyone?

I usally raise about 5 bb but it really depends on stack size. Betting a third to half of your chips seems good to me, but I also think it really depends on the looseness of the table. If you are usually getting multiple callers then it's ok to raise by a bit less. If you are getting around one caller, then I think it's better to raise by more. Ironically, betting less will tend to make pots more multiway and betting more will make them less so.

I'm still interested, Brando.

I am seriously at a crossroads right now trying to decide if I want to play this strat anymore or not.

my down session was really, really demoralizing. add to the fact that I am winning at a decent rate playing a deep stacked game. I am going to get back to my starting bankroll (shouldnt be long), and I am going to try it again.

if anyone wants to read HH number 2 and spot a leak or 5, let me know... its on the blog.

I believe Miller advocates that the size of the raise should be as big as they'll call. So in looser games raise more and tight games raise less?

Should we adjust this based on our hand?

Can you explain why this would be strategically beneficial to us? Is it because no matter how big the raise is that we are making, we still get multiway action -- so by reducing the raise size, what do we accomplish? Just a bit confused, sorry. Thanks

When you normally have multiple callers preflop, the pots will be bigger. To pot commit yourself to a hand, your stack left over can be larger because the pots will tend to be larger. Therefore you can reduce the size of your raises to entice more callers.

I think it may have been a mistake to say raise more against tighter tables. More=normal. Against very tight tables, you should get up.



In a very loose game you can afford to buy in for more. In a more normal game, buy in for a normal amount.