shortst. vs fullst. profitability on blinds.

The shallower the stacks the less important post-flop position becomes. The blinds are a very good position pre-flop, but a very bad position post-flop. Therefore can it be assumed that a good shortstack (push/fold 20bb poker) player is going to be, in general, more profitable on the blinds than a good fullstack player in, say, your average online 5/10 game? Does anyone have any datamines that we can use?

Discuss.

its been said that u should buy in short and top up when u get to the button when you first sit down. (credit to Tjbentham for reminding me)

people are too lazy!

no, any game ur in it should be assumed that you have, on average, a significant edge over your opponents. As stacks get deeper, position matters more, but your edge is also being multiplied.

Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, setmine, or use other strategies that good players with full stacks can use to exploit weaker players.

On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: no, any game ur in it should be assumed that you have, on average, a significant edge over your opponents. As stacks get deeper, position matters more, but your edge is also being multiplied.

Yes, but on the blinds you will inherently lose money. So, rather than being concerned about utilizing your edge to make a profit (which won't happen unless your competition is horrible), you should look for ways to minimalize your loses.

What I would love is to get my hands (or preferably have it done by somebody else) on some datamines to prove my theory.

On August 02 2008 16:46 DooMeR wrote: its been said that u should buy in short and top up when u get to the button when you first sit down. (credit to Tjbentham for reminding me)

Precisely the reason why I made the topic. He picked it up from Rolf Slotbooms book, right?

On August 02 2008 16:46 DooMeR wrote: its been said that u should buy in short and top up when u get to the button when you first sit down. (credit to Tjbentham for reminding me)

:O true, but not worth it multitabling imo

On August 02 2008 16:46 DooMeR wrote: its been said that u should buy in short and top up when u get to the button when you first sit down. (credit to Tjbentham for reminding me)

this is a really interesting idea

On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff,

wat?

Tom is the man. (TJBentham, sorry talentedtom.)

Short stackers need to be shot.

/rant

On August 02 2008 22:17 BigRed0000 wrote: Tom is the man. (TJBentham, sorry talentedtom.)

Tom is a hero

Also, I don't think it's the best idea to discuss how to maximize a short stacks profitability. They tilt me enough as it is and they are terrible.

tomson you don't automatically lose money from the blinds discounting of course the cost of posting. I think people just psychologically hate playing out of the blinds because it generally forces you to check/decide 3 streets with a lot of marginal hands. If you can routinely fold top pair hands when u think ur beat, u can play a decently sized range without a problem. I know a lot of regs are absurdly nitty out of the blinds, to the point where its profitable to raise any 2 from the button. Generally they're mass multi-tablers who won't have the concentration needed to play hands like KJo, and it their case, you might be right that shortstacking would be better for them.

On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat?

cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it.

On August 02 2008 18:29 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: no, any game ur in it should be assumed that you have, on average, a significant edge over your opponents. As stacks get deeper, position matters more, but your edge is also being multiplied. Yes, but on the blinds you will inherently lose money. So, rather than being concerned about utilizing your edge to make a profit (which won't happen unless your competition is horrible), you should look for ways to minimalize your loses. What I would love is to get my hands (or preferably have it done by somebody else) on some datamines to prove my theory.   On August 02 2008 16:46 DooMeR wrote: its been said that u should buy in short and top up when u get to the button when you first sit down. (credit to Tjbentham for reminding me) Precisely the reason why I made the topic. He picked it up from Rolf Slotbooms book, right?

I agree with this.

I dont like the term "minimizing your loses" because it premotes a wrong idea about playing out of position. Since its very hard to show a profit toward strong opponents by being out of position we often practice a stratagy that avoids profitable circumstances against your opponents.

Playing a correct range of hands out of position depends on our opponents opening(or limping) frequencies. Basically loosening up according to how loose our opponents are playing. Often a mix stratagy of polarizied 3 bets and flatting a tighter range is profitable.


Personally I find the deviation of skill amongst the strongest players come from positional play or style.

I think this is the stinkeypete rathole theorem

technically it's +EV to do in a lot of situations for who can be fucked, honestly

Repeat after me:

MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION MAXIMIZE EXPECTATION

Edit: Tomson and McNasty should stop giving good advice for free.

On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it.

can also open shove sb with a giant range when folds around. im sure i get reshoved on more than you and have seen some more suspect hands turn up so i guess some of them are shoving player dependant

beast didnt you just give out good advice for free?

it doesn't matter what ur edge is, shortstacks im 97% sure make more money from the blinds (by losing less mind you) than fullstacks

EDIT-i should add in, this is all assuming you can shortstack decently LOL else yea just fullstack. I dont personally do it cuz i forget/too lazy but im sure it would increase my winrate slightly

On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it.

calling with KQ or 44 si def EV-

However if we consider that when they double up they open up a slot from a possible fish it might open up a bit the calling range.

On August 03 2008 09:10 sOah wrote: I think this is the stinkeypete rathole theorem technically it's +EV to do in a lot of situations for who can be fucked, honestly

stinkypete sighting

On August 03 2008 13:29 PoorUser wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it. can also open shove sb with a giant range when folds around. im sure i get reshoved on more than you and have seen some more suspect hands turn up so i guess some of them are shoving player dependant

The open shoves from the SB aren't exactly bluffs, its more of a matter of putting Sklansky-Chubukov numbers to use. Open shoving K9o or A2o for 20 BB is generally impossible to exploit.

On August 03 2008 15:25 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it. calling with KQ or 44 si def EV- However if we consider that when they double up they open up a slot from a possible fish it might open up a bit the calling range.

from the button or cutoff u absolutely have to call KQ+ and 44+, and usually a wider range. Against real tight shortstackers u can just play AJ+ and 77+ if you open from middle position, but I would only do that if I was pretty confident in what their default shove is. Plenty of shortstackers always shove 22 and KQ, and there are also a few bad ones that mix in stupid bluffs or shove AT, so folding your 44 and kq would be a pretty significant mistake.

bleh, its basically just a math homework problem :

On August 03 2008 15:56 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2008 13:29 PoorUser wrote:   On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it. can also open shove sb with a giant range when folds around. im sure i get reshoved on more than you and have seen some more suspect hands turn up so i guess some of them are shoving player dependant The open shoves from the SB aren't exactly bluffs, its more of a matter of putting Sklansky-Chubukov numbers to use. Open shoving K9o or A2o for 20 BB is generally impossible to exploit.

i get that, i was talking about complete airballs like q6o / 62o 92s (three that happened today)

On August 03 2008 01:16 Bigbobm wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2008 22:17 BigRed0000 wrote: Tom is the man. (TJBentham, sorry talentedtom.) Tom is a hero Also, I don't think it's the best idea to discuss how to maximize a short stacks profitability. They tilt me enough as it is and they are terrible.

.. isn't this post a little ironic since I *think* TJbentham has done a fair share of shortstacking ? Unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

whos slotboom?

On August 03 2008 18:15 PoorUser wrote: Show nested quote + On August 03 2008 15:56 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 03 2008 13:29 PoorUser wrote:   On August 03 2008 06:57 NMcNasty wrote:   On August 02 2008 20:10 PoorUser wrote:   On August 02 2008 17:14 NMcNasty wrote: Shortstackers cant 3bet bluff, wat? cuz opponents calling range is going to be 44+, KQ, AJ+ already since all shortstackers always value-push about at that range, so a shortstacker cant bluff with something like 56s like a deep stacked player can, where he can frequently get hands as good as AQ and 88 to fold since many opponents don't want to play big pots deep with marginal hands. I'll concede that a shortstacker can sometimes shove something like QTs to a button raise, but thats about it. can also open shove sb with a giant range when folds around. im sure i get reshoved on more than you and have seen some more suspect hands turn up so i guess some of them are shoving player dependant The open shoves from the SB aren't exactly bluffs, its more of a matter of putting Sklansky-Chubukov numbers to use. Open shoving K9o or A2o for 20 BB is generally impossible to exploit. i get that, i was talking about complete airballs like q6o / 62o 92s (three that happened today)

lol, thats really terrible :|

Its just automatically unprofitable since ur already calling with a third of ur range

I wouldn't say it's terrible. Shoving any two bvb for 20bb's is probably +EV against the majority of people.

A random hand is 39-61 against top 33% according to pokerstove. So on average you're only losing 0.5bb by shoving any two against a person who calls w/ top 33% (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And you say you're calling w/ a third of your range there, but in the heat of the moment do you really click call w/ hands like Q7s, K4s, J9s? So what can be said about the average reg who's probably folding some of his weak Ax and half of his Kx?

shoving any 2 as ur entire range might be profitable against some tight players, but the bottom half of that range will still be unprofitable on its own.

My autocalling range is A2+, 22+, K9o+, K6s+, and QTs+ but I'll play a little looser sometimes, either cuz i think they might be retarded, cuz i would rather have a fish at their seat, or they might have a stack slightly less than 20 BB.

On August 04 2008 09:14 NMcNasty wrote: shoving any 2 as ur entire range might be profitable against some tight players, but the bottom half of that range will still be unprofitable on its own. My autocalling range is A2+, 22+, K9o+, K6s+, and QTs+ but I'll play a little looser sometimes, either cuz i think they might be retarded, cuz i would rather have a fish at their seat, or they might have a stack slightly less than 20 BB.

im gonna sit on all of your tables directly on your right and shortstack you. brb

interesting read so far

fwiw when i did a bit of shortstacking i would really look forward to the blinds
i don't have enough stats to make any sort of accurate judgment but at the very least it felt better.