Stack size theory q.

We all know that a good shortstacker on a table filled with fullstacks will inevitably show a profit (as it's in the fullstacks interest to play optimally against each other rather than to adapt to the lone shortstack).

But what about a table filled with 20bb stacks and one smaller one? Do you feel it gives him an advantage or perhaps quite the opposite? Where would you place the threshold point(as in the point where you have a shallower stack than the table and sense that doesn't work in your favor anymore)?

why are you even thinking about <21bb poker ?

I'm wondering whether it's correct for a shortstack on a 20-50bb table to automatically rebuy once he loses a portion of his stack.

On August 17 2010 15:57 tomson wrote: I'm wondering whether it's correct for a shortstack on a 20-50bb table to automatically rebuy once he loses a portion of his stack.

no

cool question, wish i could give a good answer

my initial thought is that an 8-10bb stack could exploit a table of 20bb stacks, but a 4bb stack would be at a disadvantage because they would be forced into spots where the "correct EV move" is to call off their stack with any 2 even when they are behind their opponent's range (ie have worse than an average starting hand).

for ex. say a 4bb stack is in the BB (leaving him with 3 bb's after he posts) with 85o, folds to SB who shoves, BB is pot committed even though he loses to a random hand. also as an extension of that he wouldn't have any fold equity from shoving himself, which from what i gather seems like a very important part of shortstacking at higher levels. i guess this also guaruntees he gets paid off with his monsters but intuitively it seems like the lack of fold equity overrides that, i dunno.

will wait for someone who knows maths and stuff to give a better response, but my guess is that the cutoff point is whatever stacksize that they don't have fold equity due to pot odds. could be wrong.

hmm I owuld immagine 8bb or less is no longer profitable, since your shoves have close to 0 fold equity against any opening range, your re-stealing frequency has to drop siginificanty to a point where its 100% for value + each orbit you now lose almost 20% of your stack
the 9-13bb area is very profitable since you have enough to survive the blinds you have significant FE on your shoves - only problem is that you are doubling up to get back to even (or slightly above), you can't quit when you double up you need to to another 6-8bb before you can quit

I would immagine 9-12bb poker is by far the easiest to play / most proffitable (assuming you can quit with a profit when your stack size is 15bb or larger)

On August 17 2010 16:30 TalentedTom wrote: hmm I owuld immagine 8bb or less is no longer profitable, since your shoves have close to 0 fold equity against any opening range, your re-stealing frequency has to drop siginificanty to a point where its 100% for value + each orbit you now lose almost 20% of your stack

Fair points, but you could turn those disadvantages into advantages: they're pot commited against your re-steals and have to lower their steal %.

Correct they should have lower steal %'s in addition to smaller open bet siziing, should be almost min opening. Only someone who's completley ignorant would continue opening the same size / frequency, but someone that ignorant is probably being exploited by most players anyway.

It is a HUGE advanatage knowing people are pot commited with their opening range, if they are opening 20% of hands you can shove top 10-14% (if you find you have fold equity (which I asssumed should not exist), you can re-adjust and widen this). Only problem is blinds hurt your stack very significantly - if you could somehow top off an extra 1-2bb you would be jin. Still, even with that dis-advantage, the possitives far outweigh the negatives

It's all relative you see. What if the table is full of 9bb stacks? 1bbsssftw

When you're THAT short, rake should start hurting like a motherfucker

On August 17 2010 16:53 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 16:30 TalentedTom wrote: hmm I owuld immagine 8bb or less is no longer profitable, since your shoves have close to 0 fold equity against any opening range, your re-stealing frequency has to drop siginificanty to a point where its 100% for value + each orbit you now lose almost 20% of your stack Fair points, but you could turn those disadvantages into advantages: they're pot commited against your re-steals and have to lower their steal %.

YOU may turn those disadvantages into advantages but why you assume people playing 9bb short (or whatever short) can think on such lvl? IMO if they could adapt this way they could easily adapt well in 100bb game which would be more profitable for them. But for me shorts are rakeback whores who aren't clever enought to play mass mt like nanonoko
__
never played on ps or ftp, never seen good and able to quickly adapt short, don't believe in miracles

Btw - another theory stuff - before 50bb tables raise up i was a big fun of an idea to start each table with 40-50bb because none of this mothafockanobrainerreg would adapt well to your stacksize because no one plays 40bb! Imagine how they hate their life when their whole databases with their precious stats would be screwed because your game would change as soon as you get deeper (especially preflop). What I regret the most is I have never tested it before. It should be loads of fun.

u r wrong

On August 17 2010 15:22 tomson wrote: We all know that a good shortstacker on a table filled with fullstacks will inevitably show a profit (as it's in the fullstacks interest to play optimally against each other rather than to adapt to the lone shortstack). But what about a table filled with 20bb stacks and one smaller one? Do you feel it gives him an advantage or perhaps quite the opposite? Where would you place the threshold point(as in the point where you have a shallower stack than the table and sense that doesn't work in your favor anymore)?

This depends more on stakes than anything else, at micro and low stakes it would always be unprofitable because of the very high rake. The blinds are also a huge factor for a short stacker, I think they need a full table for optimal play. I personally love short stackers as almost none of them are good at micro and low stakes. They not only are dead money, but they get called by full stackers that one can force out of the pot or play a raised pot against with position.

On August 17 2010 19:26 Sadi wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 16:53 tomson wrote:   On August 17 2010 16:30 TalentedTom wrote: hmm I owuld immagine 8bb or less is no longer profitable, since your shoves have close to 0 fold equity against any opening range, your re-stealing frequency has to drop siginificanty to a point where its 100% for value + each orbit you now lose almost 20% of your stack Fair points, but you could turn those disadvantages into advantages: they're pot commited against your re-steals and have to lower their steal %. YOU may turn those disadvantages into advantages but why you assume people playing 9bb short (or whatever short) can think on such lvl? IMO if they could adapt this way they could easily adapt well in 100bb game which would be more profitable for them. But for me shorts are rakeback whores who aren't clever enought to play mass mt like nanonoko __ never played on ps or ftp, never seen good and able to quickly adapt short, don't believe in miracles

i dislike SS'ers as much as the next guy because they are bad for the games etc... but if you think the ones who beat mid-high stakes over large samples don't adjust well and think critically like this you are really naive. also i think it would be relatively safe to assume that almost anyone who beats 5/10 SSing would easily be a winner at at least 1/2 fullstacking (and a number of people who are winners at 5/10+ fullstacking also shortstack sometimes).

dogmeat whats your problem? throwing some random sentences without any arguments

I'm not that bright, but maybe it's right over the leverage point? Isn't that around like, if I make it 3bb, someone rr to around 9-11 it's perfect on the money mark, over is creating dead money, so shortstacks 14-20?

On August 17 2010 21:12 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On August 17 2010 19:26 Sadi wrote:   On August 17 2010 16:53 tomson wrote:   On August 17 2010 16:30 TalentedTom wrote: hmm I owuld immagine 8bb or less is no longer profitable, since your shoves have close to 0 fold equity against any opening range, your re-stealing frequency has to drop siginificanty to a point where its 100% for value + each orbit you now lose almost 20% of your stack Fair points, but you could turn those disadvantages into advantages: they're pot commited against your re-steals and have to lower their steal %. YOU may turn those disadvantages into advantages but why you assume people playing 9bb short (or whatever short) can think on such lvl? IMO if they could adapt this way they could easily adapt well in 100bb game which would be more profitable for them. But for me shorts are rakeback whores who aren't clever enought to play mass mt like nanonoko __ never played on ps or ftp, never seen good and able to quickly adapt short, don't believe in miracles i dislike SS'ers as much as the next guy because they are bad for the games etc... but if you think the ones who beat mid-high stakes over large samples don't adjust well and think critically like this you are really naive. also i think it would be relatively safe to assume that almost anyone who beats 5/10 SSing would easily be a winner at at least 1/2 fullstacking (and a number of people who are winners at 5/10+ fullstacking also shortstack sometimes).

maybe beating 5/10 shortstacking means they're smart enough / have the right attributes where they'd be able to learn to beat those games but I doubt someone who shortstacks fulltime knows enough about postflop play to start beating 1/2 straight off the bat.

when I realize that some short stackers are actually smart and adjusts their game fairly well it tilts me harder. Just another hit n running asshole cept that he's a lot harder to exploit ;(