Buying in short as a legitimate strategy under normal circumstances

Hectorjelly

Myself and El Rifle both sit down to play poker. Well assume that we are both the best players at the table, and we both are tilt free. If either of these arent true then this subject is pointless.

The first hand I sit down with 100bbs. Im on the button. Utg raises and there are a few callers. Im call with 55. I call here because its profitable for me to do so.

El rifle sits down with 20 bbs. He folds. I win.

BrokenArrows

So what are you saying?

That its not a good idea to sit down with a short buy-in.

DeVore

Does El Rifle have 52o?

Is the fact that he's in Oz and might have been playing through the night in order to be playing on the same table as you significant?

I, too, am a bit baffled about this, but the general topic (of sitting in with a deep stack in a cash game) is one I'm very interested in discussing.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054882103

Sorry probably should of explained myself.

wayfarer

I dont know if that argument is enough to say that buy-in in for the maximum is definitely better. What about a situation where a small stack goes all-in (about pot-size) from SB position on the flop and its folded around to you on the button. You have no draw but a made hand. What hands would you call with here? And would you call with the same range if the SB had a big stack?

I think there is respect that a big stack will get that a small stack won't which will make it +ev to a degree.

a-k-47

hes buys in with 20bbs you 100bbs, u won the hand cos you can afford to call and paid off, but it also could have cost you 20bb's, where el rifle still has 20bbs to play with, then double up on you in the next hand leaving you with 60bbs and him 40bbs, amazing what 3 hands COULD do .

only taking the piss i just read that thread, two different strategies both of you totally disagree with the style of play but at the end of the day , whatever your into and what ever makes you the most money at the end of the day.

Ste05

Tomorrow I'll give my 0.03c worth, but I have a theory behind buying in short and how it can be good......

EDIT: I'll let HJ rip it apart then when I'm sober and can back up my argument properly.

Scotty #

Hectorjelly wrote:

The first hand I sit down with 100bbs. Im on the button. Utg raises and there are a few callers. Im call with 55. I call here because its profitable for me to do so.

El rifle sits down with 20 bbs. He folds. I win.

Am I missing something? You make it sound like he only lost because he had 20BB's and nothing to do with his cards?
and just out of curiosity...why start a new thread and not stick to the one it was already being discussed on?

Hectorjelly

wayfarer wrote:

I dont know if that argument is enough to say that buy-in in for the maximum is definitely better. What about a situation where a small stack goes all-in (about pot-size) from SB position on the flop and its folded around to you on the button. You have no draw but a made hand. What hands would you call with here? And would you call with the same range if the SB had a big stack?

i dont really get this example. The chances of the blinds waking up with a better hand than you doesnt change because of how big your stack is. I call if I think I have sufficent equity in the pot to make my call profitable, and as long as the pot is small I dont worry about the blinds having a hand.

Hectorjelly

Scotty # wrote:

Am I missing something? You make it sound like he only lost because he had 20BB's and nothing to do with his cards?
and just out of curiosity...why start a new thread and not stick to the one it was already being discussed on?

Yes you are missing something, my fault though I wasnt clear.

I can call the raise in the 1st hand because I have the implied odds to try and break one of the big stacks. This is a profitable situation for me. El Rifle cannot call here because its an unprofitable situation given that if he does make a set he cant get paid off. This is a clear cut example of why buying in short is less profitable than buying in for the max, there are many others but I thought this was the most concise. I win referred to the argument rather than the hand.

I started a new thread because the other one was a few weeks old.

Imposter

Can we summarise who has what advantage in what situations? I know this can never be done 100% correct as we don't have all the info but lets try to do it the best we can with only stack info, assuming both are relatively ok players.

SmallStack
- If on a draw he can go all-in as he'll get to see hand to SD relatively cheaply
- Preflop he can gamble all-in on marginal hands as people are likely to call him also with marginal hands
- Same goes for raise preflop and all-in on flop when he hits something and there's a better than average chance that noone else has hit anything.

Max buy-in
- Ability to extract the max from good hands - would he get any more though if a flush draw hit?
- Can put more pressure on medium/large (and possibly small) stacks when you read them for nothing or draws later in hand - from turn onwards.

So basically the large stack can outplay his opponents on the turn or river while the shortstack should be pushing his advantage preflop and on the flop.

Am I wrong with any of this? Surely there are more situations too.

hotspur

The player who buys in for 20BB isn't going to fold 55 here most of the time, they are going to raise all in. And remember it's 6 handed we're talking about because that's what Rifle plays, at 2/4 if UTg made it $12 and there were 2 callers then the all in to $80 has a decent chance of making $36 uncontested and is a favourite to make $104 against a single big slick caller, the max buy in players won't be calling with the all in with 77 most of the time.

Hectorjelly

hotspur wrote:

The player who buys in for 20BB isn't going to fold 55 here most of the time, they are going to raise all in. And remember it's 6 handed we're talking about because that's what Rifle plays, at 2/4 if UTg made it $12 and there were 2 callers then the all in to $80 has a decent chance of making $36 uncontested and is a favourite to make $104 against a single big slick caller, the max buy in players won't be calling with the all in with 77 most of the time.

No the max buyin player will push all in and take all the dead money as well as the buttons. Or he will call and then so will some of the others, all of which whose range dominates 55.

Going all in with 55 after a raise and a few callers is typical idiotic shortstack play and is - EV under normal circumstances.

Hectorjelly

Imposter wrote:

SmallStack
- If on a draw he can go all-in as he'll get to see hand to SD relatively cheaply

ive seen this a few times, and techically its correct. But if your idea of poker is to get into neutral EV situations in which you can call all in with draws then its likely you are a losing player and so this discussion irrelavent. There are also situations in which you have to fold draws because that you could call if you had enough to win bets later in the hand. A definite advantage is that you can get to showdown cheaply, which elliminates the need for complicated decisions, but again this shouldnt really be a concern of a good player.

Imposter wrote:

- Preflop he can gamble all-in on marginal hands as people are likely to call him also with marginal hands

Again having a shortstack makes it easy to get your money in in neutral EV situations. Is this a good thing?

Imposter wrote:

- Same goes for raise preflop and all-in on flop when he hits something and there's a better than average chance that noone else has hit anything.

? A bet from a big stack is a lot more threatening than a shortstack setting himself all in. I often fold hands im pretty sure are best on the flop because im out of position and dont want to call bets on the turn and river, I would never do this against a shorstack.

Imposter

In the first example do you not think that the folding equity of doing this makes it a marginally +EV situation for the shortstack?

In the 2nd one if the players range is slightly tighter for this move than your average shortstack fish then it too could be +EV especially against players at the lower levels who view all shortstacks as the same which again may swing this into a +EV move. Again would folding equity be important?

Hectorjelly wrote:

? A bet from a big stack is a lot more threatening than a shortstack setting himself all in. I often fold hands im pretty sure are best on the flop because im out of position and dont want to call bets on the turn and river, I would never do this against a shorstack.

But you'll also fold draws and overpairs to shortstacks where you are not getting the implied odds to call because they are all-in and the hand is going ot showdown which increases the shortstacks folding equity!

Hectorjelly

Imposter wrote:

In the first example do you not think that the folding equity of doing this makes it a marginally +EV situation for the shortstack?

No I dont and one of the disadvantages of playing as a shortstack is that you should NOT be playing any drawing hands bar AK AQs, so its not even a situation which should arise very often.

Imposter wrote:

In the 2nd one if the players range is slightly tighter for this move than your average shortstack fish then it too could be +EV especially against players at the lower levels who view all shortstacks as the same which again may swing this into a +EV move. Again would folding equity be important?

There are plenty of + EV situations a shortstack can get into, in fact I think its possible a good player could make a killing buying in short and playing well. My only point is that he could make more by buying in for the full amount.

Imposter wrote:

But you'll also fold draws and overpairs to shortstacks where you are not getting the implied odds to call because they are all-in and the hand is going ot showdown which increases the shortstacks folding equity!

I bet you didnt mean overpairs! Im more likely to call with a draw from a shortstack because I know exactly what Im going to have to pay and i can tell instantly if its going to be a profitable call.

Imposter

Hectorjelly wrote:

No I dont and one of the disadvantages of playing as a shortstack is that you should NOT be playing any drawing hands bar AK AQs, so its not even a situation which should arise very often.

There are plenty of + EV situations a shortstack can get into, in fact I think its possible a good player could make a killing buying in short and playing well. My only point is that he could make more by buying in for the full amount.

Surely OESD's and flush draws should be played? If not why not?
I think there is situations where a shortstack has an advantage but how often these situations arise compared to the cases where the large stack has an advantage is what the grey area is and what i'd like ot understand a little better.

I bet you didnt mean overpairs! Im more likely to call with a draw from a shortstack because I know exactly what Im going to have to pay and i can tell instantly if its going to be a profitable call.

Sorry yes I meant overcards Yes you know whether a call is profitable or not against a shortstack but against a large stack your calling range is wider because of implied odds. So then you fold more against a shortstack but only call in +EV situations meaning value for the shortstack comes from a bigger folding equity?

Hectorjelly

Imposter wrote:

Surely OESD's and flush draws should be played? If not why not?
I think there is situations where a shortstack has an advantage but how often these situations arise compared to the cases where the large stack has an advantage is what the grey area is and what i'd like ot understand a little better.

Shortstacks should not be playing the types of cards that lead to draws. The less blinds you have in any game the more you are just playing to make high pairs.

Imposter wrote:

Sorry yes I meant overcards Yes you know whether a call is profitable or not against a shortstack but against a large stack your calling range is wider because of implied odds. So then you fold more against a shortstack but only call in +EV situations meaning value for the shortstack comes from a bigger folding equity?

No, technically if I ever make a call for implied odds I am deliberatley making a mistake on that street in the hope that my opponent can be tempted into making a bigger mistake on another street, so my opponents should always want me to call with draws if Im not getting the odds to call. Remember we are only talking about when you are the best player at the table, so this scenaro isnt really relevant.

breadmonkey

I often fold hands im pretty sure are best on the flop because im out of position and dont want to call bets on the turn and river, I would never do this against a shorstack

If you think you are ahead, why don't you push, thereby eliminating the need to make any more decisions and possibly taking the pot there and then? Or is it the case that you can't be sure that you are ahead enough of the time to make this play a good idea in the long run?

Hectorjelly

breadmonkey wrote:

If you think you are ahead, why don't you push, thereby eliminating the need to make any more decisions and possibly taking the pot there and then? Or is it the case that you can't be sure that you are ahead enough of the time to make this play a good idea in the long run?

There are plenty of situations that arise in which allthough you think you are more than likely to have the best hand you should still fold, because its going to be unprofitable to play the hand. In the case you are alluding to its because in most cases the pots are so small (inrelation to the stacks) that a push will only get called if im behind so will be unprofitable.

DeVore

breadmonkey wrote:

If you think you are ahead, why don't you push, thereby eliminating the need to make any more decisions and possibly taking the pot there and then? Or is it the case that you can't be sure that you are ahead enough of the time to make this play a good idea in the long run?

If you are ahead you want to get paid off by hands that are weaker then you. If you push, you are winning the pot there and then (no further profit) or you are getting called by a monster who has been stalking in the long grass.

Either way you win a small pot or lose a very big one.

Hector, you say: "Im more likely to call with a draw from a shortstack because I know exactly what Im going to have to pay and i can tell instantly if its going to be a profitable call."

Surely you only call against a shortstack who is giving you the correct odds or better. You can't use implied odds to justify a bad call here because you havent got any.

Though much of the rest of what you say makes good sense, this bit seemed rocky....

I think there are pros and cons of both but in my game I now sit in with 100-150 times the BB, sometimes more if that doesnt cover all stacks at the table. I've found I win more but that could be cause and effect or effect and cause. ie: I could be doing this because my game has improved (or more likely the Fitz cash games have disimproved!) so much that I'm a winning player (which it seems I am now from my records this month). Or it could be the CAUSE of my winnings in Cash games. I dunno.

I find short stacks in tournies can be fun to play, Rory C will confirm the rampage I went on with a short stack in the SSF game but when I had a big stack I was far more cautious.

DeV.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

Hector, you say: "Im more likely to call with a draw from a shortstack because I know exactly what Im going to have to pay and i can tell instantly if its going to be a profitable call."

Surely you only call against a shortstack who is giving you the correct odds or better. You can't use implied odds to justify a bad call here because you havent got any.

Though much of the rest of what you say makes good sense, this bit seemed rocky....

When a shortstack goes all in on the flop I know Im going to see the turn and river, when a normal player bets i can normally assume im only going to see the turn. So if a shortstack goes all in on the flop for the pot I will call with any reasnable draw, but I wont even call a 2/3 pot bet from a normal player unless there is a compelling reason to.

hotspur

Hectorjelly wrote:

No the max buyin player will push all in and take all the dead money as well as the buttons. Or he will call and then so will some of the others, all of which whose range dominates 55.
Going all in with 55 after a raise and a few callers is typical idiotic shortstack play and is - EV under normal circumstances.

Which max buyin player is reraising the 55 all in, the Utg raiser? Why? Because he must have such a great hand to have raised UTG in 6 handed that he need not worry about any of the other callers? Or why will several other players call the 20xBB raise if their hands weren't good enough to put in a raise themselves yet somehow they all dominate 55? I'm not having a go but I just don't see why you think the players are going to play like that or that the average flat caller of a 3xBB raise in a 6-handed game will happily call an all in 20x BB raise because they have the PP dominated due to their range. You also say:

Hectorjelly wrote:

Shortstacks should not be playing the types of cards that lead to draws. The less blinds you have in any game the more you are just playing to make high pairs.

So you think that small buy in players shouldn't rock and roll with small pairs or draws that aren't to AK or AQ but sit there in a 6-handed game with 20BB's paying blinds until they see these hands? That's not how they play, and it would be insane for them to play that way. Are you sure you're talking about 6-handed play? That's where the decent small buy in player lives.

Bozzer

If we assume that you are the best player at the table then you generally want to buy in to cover your opponents. This is basic stuff.

There can be situations, against a particular lineup at a table, where you figure your EV is highest if your initial buyin is less than the maximum, even if you figure to be the best player there. Some players will give excessive action to shorter stacks and play more correctly against a full stack, which gives you a much better opportunity to double up when you buyin short. The amount you buyin for would depend upon the average stack size on the flop given the expected preflop action, but it would typically be > 20bb’s.
I know of a couple of very good multitablers who don’t buyin in for the max(100bb’s) because they feel that the pot is very often at an uncomfortable size relative to their stack, taking into account the game conditions.
But situations like these are pretty much the exceptions to the norm.

It’s very possible that El Rifle’s winrate is higher playing his short stack strategy at higher levels, as opposed to buying in full at lower levels(higher winrate in the immediate sense - perhaps the skills he would acquire/hone playing deeper would yield a higher winrate at some stage down the road). But this is without knowing his relative skill level. If we assume he is one of the best players at his level/at a specific table, then he is almost certainly better off buying in for the max.

I don’t want to talk about all the pros and cons of large and short stacks because they have been mentioned before, but it’s important to appreciate the large edge a good player can get over a bad player when stacks get pretty deep, say 200+bb’s. This is because the mistakes your opponent’s make on the turn & river are larger in terms of EV. Think about how much bigger the overlay a good player can get on the turn is in comparison to the flop.

bohsman

This forum is great. Recently I have learned that I should fold an overpair in a tournament to an all in preflop if they have me covered and I know that they have an underpair because I will go bust 20% of the time so should wait for a better opportunity.

In cash games I should buy in for the minimum and fold aces if all my chips are at stake preflop because bad beats can happen.

Hectorjelly

hotspur wrote:

Which max buyin player is reraising the 55 all in, the Utg raiser? Why? Because he must have such a great hand to have raised UTG in 6 handed that he need not worry about any of the other callers? Or why will several other players call the 20xBB raise if their hands weren't good enough to put in a raise themselves yet somehow they all dominate 55? I'm not having a go but I just don't see why you think the players are going to play like that or that the average flat caller of a 3xBB raise in a 6-handed game will happily call an all in 20x BB raise because they have the PP dominated due to their range. You also say:

Thats how I play because I play against shortstacks every day. The odd time it back fires when someone has flat called me with a big pair but I still do it because its profitable. If I make it 5bbs to go and there is even 1 caller then the shortstack has absolutely no folding equity against me because the pot is going to lay me better than 2:1, so im only going to fold any pairs bigger than 55.

hotspur wrote:

So you think that small buy in players shouldn't rock and roll with small pairs or draws that aren't to AK or AQ but sit there in a 6-handed game with 20BB's paying blinds until they see these hands? That's not how they play, and it would be insane for them to play that way. Are you sure you're talking about 6-handed play? That's where the decent small buy in player lives.

I play almost exclusively 6 handed, and I cant think of a single player who buys in short regularly whose play I have ever respected from 50 1 to 5 10.

Shortstacks have no business playing marginal hands like JTs 67s/o etc so are going to be flopping less draws than normal players who are playing a medium stacked game in which these hands can be profitable. Its hard to talk about this subject because it seems obvious to me that its possible to win whilst buying in short, but the type of players who buy in short are bad examples because they tend to be the worst.

RoundTower

Hectorjelly wrote:

There are plenty of situations that arise in which allthough you think you are more than likely to have the best hand you should still fold, because its going to be unprofitable to play the hand. In the case you are alluding to its because in most cases the pots are so small (inrelation to the stacks) that a push will only get called if im behind so will be unprofitable.

This is why you would like to have a short stack. Situations where you are probably ahead, but the hand will be too difficult to play, especially out of position, if there is money behind. One of the advantages of playing with a short stack is that you're not at a big disadvantage playing out of position.

That said I always buy in for the maximum (or 200BB+ in an uncapped game). I think overall it's more profitable, because so much of your profit comes from big pots.

DeVore

Hectorjelly wrote:

When a shortstack goes all in on the flop I know Im going to see the turn and river, when a normal player bets i can normally assume im only going to see the turn. So if a shortstack goes all in on the flop for the pot I will call with any reasnable draw, but I wont even call a 2/3 pot bet from a normal player unless there is a compelling reason to.

Thanks for that Hector... now is we can return to the question I asked??


You still have to have the correct 2-card odds (I presumed the bit about seeing both cards and the consequent odds calc). You cant, for example, call the all in of a short stack thats 1.5 of the pot with a bare flush draw.

Basically I think I'm aggressively agreeing with you
I would buy in with the max or about 150BB at least if I can. What I'm saying is that there are unconsidered powers of a small stack that don't warrant the response El Rifle's suggestion got. I don't think they are enough, I prefer big stacked play but I think a far worse mistake is buying in for a medium amount where you have the best of neither strategy.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

RoundTower wrote:

This is why you would like to have a short stack. Situations where you are probably ahead, but the hand will be too difficult to play, especially out of position, if there is money behind. One of the advantages of playing with a short stack is that you're not at a big disadvantage playing out of position.

I dont think it comes up often enough to warrent much thought, and all it implies is that you dont trust yourself to make less mistakes on later streets than your opponents. When you buy in short you are effectively making the rest of the table buy in short when in pots against you, most of the time any advantage you have is going to be shared by your opponent.

RoundTower

Hectorjelly wrote:

I dont think it comes up often enough to warrent much thought, and all it implies is that you dont trust yourself to make less mistakes on later streets than your opponents.

I don't! Not when they have position on me and they are decent players.

Here's a hypothetical situation -- suppose you had the opportunity to bin chips between hands and put them back on later. Would you consider playing with a very short stack out of the blinds or in early position, and then put them back on in the later positions? I think there are games where this would be profitable, because you are effectively making the game bigger when you are in position.

Bozzer

DeVore wrote:

I prefer big stacked play but I think a far worse mistake is buying in for a medium amount where you have the best of neither strategy.

This is generally true but I definitely know of one excellent nl player who could be found buying in for $2500-$3500 in the UB 25/50 nl games.

pokypoky

bohsman wrote:

This forum is great. Recently I have learned that I should fold an overpair in a tournament to an all in preflop if they have me covered and I know that they have an underpair because I will go bust 20% of the time so should wait for a better opportunity.

Who taught you that? Whats his name on stars? I always wanted to bluff someone off aces preflop:)

NickyOD

I can't believe this is still being argued. It is very black and white. As a good player it is less profitable to buy in short because your implied odds go out the window. The flip side pf this is you don't pot commit yourself when behind. You maximise your profits by having more money in front of you. End of discussion.

Ste05

I was going to write a long reply yesterday, but just couldn't motivate myself, and still can't really. But my quick thoughts on this are:

A short stack needs a different strategy to playing with a Full tank. If you play a short stack the same was you would if you had a Full Tank, 2 things will happen (a) you won't make as much as you could if you had a full stack; and (b) you won't make as much money as you could if you played with a proper short stack strategy. i.e. it's never good.

However, If you realise that as a short stack you must utilise a different type of strategy it can prove to be more profitable to sit into a bigger game short stacked, than it would be to sit down at a smaller game with the same buy-in but a stack that covers the table.
Basically BR management, and is more $ based than BB based.

Basically IMHO to play with a short stack you need to realise that you only really have 2 moves and you're basically playing SledgeHammer poker. There's no real latitude for tricky plays or intricate bluffs, etc.

My thoughts on the main distinctions is that with a full stack you basically have 4 moves, Pre-Flop, Flop, Turn and River, you can check, bet, raise, re-raise on most streets to allow you to win the pot or to maximise your winnings. However with a short stack you only really have 2 moves. I'm probably not explaining my thoughts clearly at all here. But basically I draw a distinction between regular cash play and short stacked cash play, the same way as there is an obvious distinction between tournament play and cash game play.

I realise there will be loads of people who will completely disagree with me, and this kind of thing isn't good for a newbie's development, etc. etc. and I wouldn't be advocating this a long term strategy but I use it occasionally when I get the urge to sit down at a higher game, but can do so without risking too much of my BR. This is kind of a contradictory point as this style of play has much higher variance but so many people look down on a shorty because the vast majority of players who sit down with a Short Stack are just the fish that they appear, but if you realise the strengths and weaknesses involved in being a short stack and exploit them correctly then it can be a profitable proposition.

How this whole thing stacks up EV wise, I couldn't tell you, would the EV be greater for a solid player to sit down fully tanked at a lower level as opposed to the same person sitting down shortstacked at a higher level??

Actually that turned out longer than I thought, :rolleyes: but I was just scratching the surface of a topic that I think has legs if we were to get into it.

Rnger

I've only read the first post....

He has sacraficed implied odds to sit down shortstacked. You can afford to make these calls, he can't. As your both the best players there, you should both sit down with the maximum amount to get the most out of your good hands.

Playing shortstacked is only suitable to weak players imo

I hope I'm not repeating other people.