Posted Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:52 pm GMT by Ensano
I find myself in this type of situation quite frequently so I'll ask if it's a big leak or not. When a short stack (I mean really short stack, like 10-20 times the big blind) either pushes or c/r you preflop do you loosen your calling requirement? Take the following HH for example..
***** Hand History for Game 5518325560 *****
$25 NL Texas Hold'em - Tuesday, December 19, 20:40:18 ET 2006
Table Table 126925 (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 3: MrFistor ( $19.70 )
Seat 4: Ensano ( $24.45 )
Seat 10: JackHighDonk ( $27.15 )
Seat 5: filphillip ( $7.40 )
Seat 9: KlaraErotics ( $50.60 )
Seat 7: shakan82 ( $6.30 )
Seat 1: glorY4liSa ( $23.40 )
Seat 6: python_dave ( $23.90 )
Seat 2: KATEENA_HUNT ( $4.65 )
Seat 8: churib ( $5 )
python_dave posts small blind $0.10.
shakan82 posts big blind $0.25.
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Ensano  
KlaraErotics folds.
JackHighDonk folds.
glorY4liSa folds.
KATEENA_HUNT calls $0.25
MrFistor folds.
Ensano raises $0.75
filphillip folds.
python_dave folds.
shakan82 folds.
KATEENA_HUNT raises $4.25
Ensano raises $7.50
KATEENA_HUNT is all-In.
** Dealing Flop **   
** Dealing Turn ** 
** Dealing River ** 
Ensano shows high card Ace.
KATEENA_HUNT shows   a pair of Aces.
Ensano wins $3.60 from side pot #1 with high card, Ace.
KATEENA_HUNT wins $9.20 from the main pot with a pair of Aces.
#Game No : 5518326813
Now this specific situation aside, if a Short Stack with 10xbb pushes what hands do you call with? (average player < 30% vpip)
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:00 pm GMT by Ensano
was just going through my HH and saw again a similar situation....
Game #2756736103: Hold'em NL ($0.15/$0.25) - 2006/12/11 - 19:15:16 (DST)
Table "Patrica" Seat 1 is the button.
Seat 1: Ensano ($26.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Thepier1 ($8.72 in chips)
Seat 3: ArneBjarn ($25 in chips)
Seat 4: Nekrofil ($33.34 in chips)
Seat 5: kappadaga ($5 in chips)
Seat 6: Borjiviso ($8.15 in chips)
Seat 7: Eye_spy ($5.95 in chips)
Seat 8: Foyalrush ($9.74 in chips)
Seat 9: Fatbob999 ($14.90 in chips)
Seat 10: snoooopD ($4.80 in chips)
Thepier1: posts small blind $0.15
ArneBjarn: posts big blind $0.25
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to Ensano  
Nekrofil: folds
Borjiviso: folds
Eye_spy: folds
Foyalrush: folds
Fatbob999: folds
snoooopD: calls $0.25
Ensano: raises to $0.75
Thepier1: folds
ArneBjarn: folds
snoooopD: calls $0.50
----- FLOP ----- 
snoooopD: bets $0.25
Ensano: calls $0.25
----- TURN -----
snoooopD: checks
Ensano: bets $0.75
snoooopD: calls $0.75
----- RIVER ----- 
snoooopD: bets $1.50
Ensano: raises to $24.75 and is all-in
snoooopD: is all-in $1.55
Returned uncalled bets $21.70 to Ensano
----- SHOW DOWN -----
Ensano: shows (A Pair of Aces, King high)
snoooopD: shows   (Three of a kind, Eights, Ace high)
snoooopD collected $9.50 from Main pot
----- SUMMARY -----
Total pot $10 Main pot $9.50 Rake $0.50
Board
Seat 1: Ensano (button) showed and lost with A Pair of Aces, King high
Seat 2: Thepier1 (small blind) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: ArneBjarn (big blind) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Nekrofil folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Borjiviso folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: Eye_spy folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Foyalrush folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Fatbob999 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 10: snoooopD showed and won ($9.50) with Three of a kind, Eights, Ace high
****HAND ENDS****
Again what do you'se do to aviod overplaying a short stack?
Posted Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:42 pm GMT by TheSalche
You can't blame yourself for either of those hands. The advantage of playing a short stack is that people are calling you lighter than if you had a big stack. For example: in that first hand if the shorty had something like $15, you might opt to call the smaller raise preflop and fold if you don't hit an ace or king. The disadvantage for them is that they don't get as much value out of their big hands as big stacks do, and they can't play poker.
For the most part you can run over short stacks and take a lot of small pots off them. I don't see error in either hand. These guys will have junk hands like K4 or Q6 a lot of times too, so don't beat yourself up too much over these two hands.
Posted Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:03 am GMT by MrDarling
in a cash game I don't change my requirement to calling an allin from a SS.
While being involved in a hand against a SS, like you 2nd hand, I'll see more SD even if I feel there is a chance I'm behind just because the price is right.
btw, I think you played both hands ok. In low levels players will push allin with any pocket pair. Some SS will push with Axs as well. And since you're only a real dog to 2 PP, racing with any other pp and dominating any Ax it is usually a good call. However, in hand where there is a bet, a raise, a reraise etc... I might fold AK pre.
Posted Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:50 am GMT by BeerWench13
It depends on the player pushing most of the time. If they're SS because they've been making stupid bets/calls/plays, then I'm more inclined to call with a weaker hand than normal. Without reads on the players, I'm likely to only call with premium hands (AK is one of those btw). Though in most low limit cash games, I may call with any PP if it's cheap enough.
Posted Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:41 pm GMT by Ensano
thanks for the info.... now I've got a question about SS play. On the Crypto network there's a player that I've seen a lot. snoooopD.. I've seen him/her play for over 20 sessions and 700 hands; now I know that this isn't a large enough sample size to really determine anything conclusive, but it is interesting enough. Basically his strategy is always the same no matter what the stakes. He buys in for the min $5 and just plays ABC poker and never commits his whole stack without at 2 pair or a clutch hand. Playing like this according to PT he's winning 35.90 BB/100! When he loses he only loses 5$ but people love to try and put him out and when he's got a hand he's sure to double up. I know I've done it myself a few times. Is playing a SS a valid strategy or am I just not seeing the big picture?
NB: If anyone has any HH with this person in them I would love to increase my sample size to get a more accurate BB/100..
Posted Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:11 pm GMT by supafrey
there is an argument that you can make SOME money playing proper ss push poker. this doesn't make anywher enear the money of a good player with 100 or 200bb buyins. it's just barely possible.
while 700 hands is plenty to determine style of play (TAG, like you said) it's nowhere near enough for money expectations over the long term. add in the fact that we would have NO idea whether he would make even MORE if he were to buy in full ....
by the way.. according to your question. You I overcall shorties constantly. they are faaar more likely to have nothing.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:25 am GMT by TheSalche
that short is really pushing it though ... i remember a poster a while back (it may have been zinn actually, dunno) played on the 100NL pacific poker game and bought in short for $40 everytime and basically went allin with sets, two pair, etc and got a few callers each time, so he would tend to triple his money
but playing with 20bbs is just waaay too short
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:09 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
There are definite advantages to short stack play. But as many have pointed out, for a good player, those advantages are greatly outweighed by the advantages in deep-stacked play when you are the superior player.
Playing 200 BB stacks is very different from playing 100 BB stacks, which is very different from playing 50 BB stacks, which is even more different from playing 25 BB stacks (which is about the lowest you should ever consider going).
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:11 am GMT by aaronw
Barry Greenstein, who is arguably one of the best no-limit hold'em players in the world, says that he prefers to buy in for the minimum at the table because it is easier to play that way. There must be a reason that he feels this is the best way to play for him. If he didn't have a significant edge doing it, I am sure he wouldn't do it. I am not too sure really... just thought I would throw that out there. Any opinions?
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:43 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I agree with what you guys have said so far.
If you are playing at a table where everyone is exactly as skilled as you, you could go from a break even player to a +EV player by buying in small. The reason for this is large stacks will often be forced to play poorly against you in order to play well vs. each other. For example: you push, big stack 1 calls, big stack 2 has a draw that does not give him good odds to catch but he is forced to make a bad call vs. you because of the implied odds he has vs. big stack 1, result: you gain. This also has an effect preflop with reguard to blind stealing. The explanation is a little more complicated but goes along the same lines.
For a good player, this small edge you gain does not make up for the large edge you give up by lowering the stakes of the game and simplifing the game (for both you and your opponents). You would only gain by playing short if you are worse than slightly better than average.
There are two things that make a poker hand good:
1) it will be best at the end frequently
2) you'll know when it's best and when it's not
Consider two hold'em hands:
-Hand A has 75% equity on all flops
-Hand B has 100% equity on half the flops and 0% equity on half the flops
Which hand is better? It depends on stack sizes. If stacks are short hand A is a better, if stacks are deep hand B is better.
If you play short you need to play more hands like hand A, it's more important to have equity. If you play deep you need to play hands like hand B, it's more important to know if your hand is best.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:54 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| aaronw wrote: | | Barry Greenstein, who is arguably one of the best no-limit hold'em players in the world, says that he prefers to buy in for the minimum at the table because it is easier to play that way. There must be a reason that he feels this is the best way to play for him. |
This indicates neither a significant edge nor the most profitable way to play for everyone. His edge in the games he frequents is likely much less than that of a decent to good player in a $1/$2 NL game.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:10 pm GMT by aaronw
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | Barry Greenstein, who is arguably one of the best no-limit hold'em players in the world, says that he prefers to buy in for the minimum at the table because it is easier to play that way. There must be a reason that he feels this is the best way to play for him. |
This indicates neither a significant edge nor the most profitable way to play for everyone. His edge in the games he frequents is likely much less than that of a decent to good player in a $1/$2 NL game. |
Touche! I have even heard of him buying in 5/10 NL games for the min. Surely he has a significant edge in these games?
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:32 pm GMT by supafrey
significant?
i dont know about that
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:39 pm GMT by aaronw
| supafrey wrote: | significant?
i dont know about that |
I would say that he probably has a large edge in a live 5/10NL game. He definately has a larger edge in that game than he does in a 200/400NL game.
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:25 am GMT by supafrey
ah i thought you meant on the net. live players suck.
Posted Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:05 am GMT by aaronw
| supafrey wrote: | | ah i thought you meant on the net. live players suck. |
Haha! Very true! I would bet that the top $1000NL and $2000NL online players could easily hold their own (and possibly be a bit better) against Barry Greenstein and some of the other professionals.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:01 am GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | live players suck. |
And swallow. 
Here we go with the live players are not as good as online players theory again. I'd play you live any day, hon.
| aaronw wrote: | | I would say that he probably has a large edge in a live 5/10NL game. |
I think it would vary based on his opponents. He has a little of the intimidation factor on his side as most players at the lower limits would know him to be a "pro". Conversely, he also has a bullseye on him for just this reason.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:01 am GMT by supafrey
Beerwench you can't tell me you dont have a week to come fly up to toronto on my dollar...
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:10 am GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | Beerwench you can't tell me you dont have a week to come fly up to toronto on my dollar... |
Oh sure. And tell the hubby what? I can't and won't lie to him and something tells me that if I went to him and said "Oh yeah, honey, one of the guys from the poker forum wants to fly me up to Canuckville for a few days. You don't mind, right?", that his replay would not be "Sure, honey, need some spending money?"
Besides, I'll be in Florida next month, Kentucky in March and Jamaica in May. As it is I'll be out from work for at least 2-7 days every other month from now until summer. I'm also hoping to fit in a trip to AC in February or April. My boss is pretty lenient since he's in love with me, but I can't push it but so much. My charm has its limits. 
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:16 am GMT by supafrey
The fact that you are having to find legitimate reasons not to go makes me believe you're at the very least interested. I'm just a little kid - your hubby can't be scared of that?
^_^
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:21 am GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | The fact that you are having to find legitimate reasons not to go makes me believe you're at the very least interested. |
Who in their right mind would pass up the opportunity to meet The Great Supafrey in person? Atlantic City can't be too far for you and you have gobs of money sitting around. Maybe one of these years you can head down there and school me in some live $1/2NL.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:50 am GMT by supafrey
I think I'll HAVE to eventually come down to AC. That seems to be in the middle of a good chunk of us, and i'm still unconvinced that Sean-The-Grinch would make the trip to vegas for us.
Posted Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:56 am GMT by BeerWench13
I'd love to go back to Vegas for fun instead of business, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen before next fall at the earliest. As you can see my docket is pretty full for the next few months and it's nearly impossible to get away from work during the summer.
Hijack completed.
Playing short-stacked makes it easier to make decisions. In many cases it's push or fold. I prefer more options, personally, but I do see many players who buy in for the minimum and walk away with a decent profit. I think it's situational to some extent and personal preference.
|
|
