Spin-ups

CaptainNemo

I've been experimenting with shortstacking an online level that I'm not bankrolled for ($2-$4 NL 6-max). I've been buying in for $100 (yes I'm one of those annoying guys). I find that the PF raising frequency is such that it seems profitcable, when you have a short stack ($100), to wait for a good hand and 3bet the raiser, getting it all in on the flop whether you hit or not, since people fail to adjust their raising ranges when there's a short stack at the table. In fact, what I've seen so far is people doing the OPPOSITE of what they should do - i.e. calling you very light, figuring hey, they can only lose $100.

So far my results have been roughly as follows, over 2 days:

Table 1: Buy in for $100, spin it up to $2400 (!), then take 2 bad beats in big pots and cash out for $1200.
Table 2: Buy in for $100, lose it. Buy in for another $100, lose it. Quit.
Table 3: Buy in for $100, lose it. Buy in for $100, spin it up to $500, cash out.
Table 4: Buy in for $100, spin it up to $300, lose it (donkey call!). Buy in for another $100, spin it up to $1200, cash out.

Results so far are encouraging. Just to be clear, when I started this, $100 was 1/5 of my online bankroll. I found that when I was playing at a level higher than I was used to, I concentrated much harder, and I only played 1 table which meant I got very good reads on most of my opponents.

I just want to know if this is a viable strategy or if I've just been lucky. I'm still not bankrolled for $2-$4 NL but intend to continue shortstacking it if these results are a reflection of reality. I also enjoy the $2-$4 game more than the lower level games as it plays more like "real poker" if you know what I mean. Or is this a recipe for going broke?

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

TheRock

CaptainNemo wrote: »

Table 1: Buy in for $100, spin it up to $2400 (!), then take 2 bad beats in big pots and cash out for $1200.
Table 2: Buy in for $100, lose it. Buy in for another $100, lose it. Quit.
Table 3: Buy in for $100, lose it. Buy in for $100, spin it up to $500, cash out.
Table 4: Buy in for $100, spin it up to $300, lose it (donkey call!). Buy in for another $100, spin it up to $1200, cash out.

Are you moving up stakes after you double up the $100, or staying at $2/$4??

I.e. if you double up to $200 do you cash out, and buyin short at $3/$6 etc?

FindingNemo

wow, and people were laughing at me for player 3/6 with 7k !!

Mellor

FindingNemo wrote:

wow, and people were laughing at me for player 3/6 with 7k !!

lol @ Both Nemos



OP: Play lower levels and play like it mans as much as 1/5 your BR or 2/4 levels. You should be rolled for take a decent shot at .50/1 or 1/2 depending on BR

CaptainNemo

TheRock wrote: »

Are you moving up stakes after you double up the $100, or staying at $2/$4??

I.e. if you double up to $200 do you cash out, and buyin short at $3/$6 etc?

No, I've been staying at the same table and playing on.

From what I've observed, I can beat this level. But I'm aware that I'm not rolled for it and that at some point some horrible cooler situation is bound to happen which could bust half my bankroll in one shot.

It's also possible I'm just running good and that some of these players have me marked as a fish who has been shortstacking and getting lucky. However it seems to me that there are as many truly terrible players at this level as at lower levels, and what's more they have more money to lose.

CaptainNemo

Mellor wrote: »

lol @ Both Nemos

OP: Play lower levels and play like it mans as much as 1/5 your BR or 2/4 levels. You should be rolled for take a decent shot at .50/1 or 1/2 depending on BR

I am rolled for .50/1 but not quite 1/2. My major problem is boredom. Playing for more money than I'm comfortable losing really makes me focus and makes me play very well, make good laydowns, etc. I've heard that playing with "scared money" makes people play bad but haven't found this applies to me. All of my biggest winning sessions online or live have been when I've been playing with a large % of my bankroll and have been VERY careful with it. When I don't care too much about dropping any 1 particular buy in then I find I make more bad calls with top pair, ship it in on a draw with much more of an "Ah feck it" attitude, etc.

Maybe playing 1/2 would be a decent compromise.

Flushdraw

CaptainNemo wrote: »

when I started this, $100 was 1/5 of my online bankroll.

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I am rolled for .50/1 but not quite 1/2

So you run good and up to about $2k after 4 days, Thats not bankrolled for .50/1 and norwhere near bankrolled for 1/2. If you're getting bored easily, just play for an hour at a time and take a break

CaptainNemo

Flushdraw wrote: »

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I am rolled for .50/1 but not quite 1/2

So you run good and up to about $2k after 4 days, Thats not bankrolled for .50/1 and norwhere near bankrolled for 1/2. If you're getting bored easily, just play for an hour at a time and take a break

Max buy in for .50/1 is $100 right? So I have 20 buy ins (25 actually, I am just around 2500 at the moment) which I thought was a sufficient bankroll.

I hate playing for short sessions because it usually doesn't give you the chance to set up plays, take advantage of reads etc.

luckylucky

The one big problem with shortstacking in Hold'Em is that it becomes hard to play hands like small pairs or suited connectors that can be profitable if you buy in for full. You can be getting blinded away before you catch a hand worth playable. Yeah sure once you get a good hand it can be tasty for the reasons you mentioned, but I think you just have been hitting a run of tasty cards.

Still I suppose it has the upsides like you mentioned, along with the downside of being restricted to what hands you play you also at least initially won't be able to maximise your EV against any table donks with lots of chips. Overall shortstacking in hold'em is not for me but if you're patient and want to go with that strategy well I wouldn't criticise. You're still under-rolled of course, but imo you might as well just continue with your initial shot at it, but don't continue with your shot taking if you can spin it up to 5 figures, shot taking can become habiot forming and if you continue to do so it almost always ends in tears - speaking from experience

Gholimoli

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I am rolled for .50/1 but not quite 1/2. My major problem is boredom. Playing for more money than I'm comfortable losing really makes me focus and makes me play very well, make good laydowns, etc. I've heard that playing with "scared money" makes people play bad but haven't found this applies to me. All of my biggest winning sessions online or live have been when I've been playing with a large % of my bankroll and have been VERY careful with it. When I don't care too much about dropping any 1 particular buy in then I find I make more bad calls with top pair, ship it in on a draw with much more of an "Ah feck it" attitude, etc.

Maybe playing 1/2 would be a decent compromise.

there is a much bigger issue with playing under rolled than just playing scared money.

it does not really matter how careful you are with it as anything can happen.
you can get you AA busted or any other beat and boom a large % of your BR is gone.

there is a short stack strategy and it can be very effective in some games.
however short stacking should not mean being underrolled for the level.

the fact remains that unless you can continue to buy back in for that $100(which means you are properly rolled) then you will go busto .

CaptainNemo

Gholimoli wrote: »

there is a much bigger issue with playing under rolled than just playing scared money.

it does not really matter how careful you are with it as anything can happen.
you can get you AA busted or any other beat and boom a large % of your BR is gone.

I learned this during my 1st session when I was up to 2400 and lost a large % of that profit (which was at the time 5x my initial bankroll) when I finally got it all in good against a donk I had been targeting and had him hit a 5 outer on the river.

Gholimoli wrote: »

there is a short stack strategy and it can be very effective in some games.
however short stacking should not mean being underrolled for the level.

the fact remains that unless you can continue to buy back in for that $100(which means you are properly rolled) then you will go busto .

If I have $2500 and want to shortstack $2-$4 NL am I underrolled? I have 25 times my intended buy in of $100.

The main purpose of my taking a shot at this level was that I was so bored at the low levels I wanted to risk 1/5 of my bankroll for the possibility of being able to move up a couple of levels.

I've now accomplished that and I would be happy to play .50/1 but I was wondering if it's a viable strategy to keep on doing what I have been doing. General opinion seems to be "You've been running good & will eventually go bust if you keep it up" but continuing to shortstack this level doesn't seem like such a bad plan to me especially now that I have more of a roll.

Gholimoli

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I learned this during my 1st session when I was up to 2400 and lost a large % of that profit (which was at the time 5x my initial bankroll) when I finally got it all in good against a donk I had been targeting and had him hit a 5 outer on the river.



If I have $2500 and want to shortstack $2-$4 NL am I underrolled? I have 25 times my intended buy in of $100.

The main purpose of my taking a shot at this level was that I was so bored at the low levels I wanted to risk 1/5 of my bankroll for the possibility of being able to move up a couple of levels.

I've now accomplished that and I would be happy to play .50/1 but I was wondering if it's a viable strategy to keep on doing what I have been doing. General opinion seems to be "You've been running good & will eventually go bust if you keep it up" but continuing to shortstack this level doesn't seem like such a bad plan to me especially now that I have more of a roll.

i dont think you should have a less roll than for 2/4 than what is needed for full buy in,just cuz you are short stacking.

remember that cuz you are infact short stacking you are already have some disadvantages.

the short stack strategy is not there to compensate for the fact that you are under rolled.

it's desinged to take advantage of some aspects and dynamics of the game where most ppl have a full buy in.

CaptainNemo

luckylucky wrote: »

You're still under-rolled of course, but imo you might as well just continue with your initial shot at it, but don't continue with your shot taking if you can spin it up to 5 figures, shot taking can become habiot forming and if you continue to do so it almost always ends in tears - speaking from experience

I think this is a key point for me. Poker is teaching me some good and bad things about myself. A couple of the "bad" things I've learned are that

a) I suffer from hypertilt
b) I have an addictive personality

b) is the reason why I've stayed away from ALL other forms of gambling so far, apart from the whole "walking down the street" thing which we all have to deal with. Your point about shot taking being habit forming has hit home with me - it's true that my initial good results have given me a rosy picture of the possibilities. It's also true that playing for larger amounts of money becomes habit forming.

I think another experiment is in order - I'm going to see if I can play the same way at .50/1 as I have been at 2/4.

meathman 007

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I think this is a key point for me. Poker is teaching me some good and bad things about myself. A couple of the "bad" things I've learned are that

a) I suffer from hypertilt
b) I have an addictive personality

b) is the reason why I've stayed away from ALL other forms of gambling so far, apart from the whole "walking down the street" thing which we all have to deal with. Your point about shot taking being habit forming has hit home with me - it's true that my initial good results have given me a rosy picture of the possibilities. It's also true that playing for larger amounts of money becomes habit forming.

I think another experiment is in order - I'm going to see if I can play the same way at .50/1 as I have been at 2/4.

wow, that is disturbing. I the exact same as you.
I can only play poker now when the money means something to me - for whatever reason i cannot play any lower that 50/1 online and build a bankroll - i think its an illness! for example, if i were to lose a buy in pot for 25 or 50 it wouldnt really bother me, so i dont play my best at those levels.
However, when i play say 1/2 and lose 200+ pots, its starts to bother me and i find i play my best at those levels.
However when you factor in my propensity to tilt and chase loses, coupled with a lack of bankroll management - ive never play 2 full consecutive months of online poker:eek:

Mellor

The money shouldn't be an issue.

Think of it as losing a buy-in, or losing 50BBs
I only really started playing online cash recently, first couple of sessions I jumped into a cooler, so I decided to start with $50 and grind it up.
I'm playing with proper BR management amd I don't think of it in money terms but in terms of BBs or BIs in the curently level. Grind it and think in BBs not $$

meathman 007

Mellor wrote: »

The money shouldn't be an issue.

Think of it as losing a buy-in, or losing 50BBs
I only really started playing online cash recently, first couple of sessions I jumped into a cooler, so I decided to start with $50 and grind it up.
I'm playing with proper BR management amd I don't think of it in money terms but in terms of BBs or BIs in the curently level. Grind it and think in BBs not $$

yea sounds good in theory, harder in practice

CaptainNemo

Mellor wrote: »

The money shouldn't be an issue.

Think of it as losing a buy-in, or losing 50BBs
I only really started playing online cash recently, first couple of sessions I jumped into a cooler, so I decided to start with $50 and grind it up.
I'm playing with proper BR management amd I don't think of it in money terms but in terms of BBs or BIs in the curently level. Grind it and think in BBs not $$

I think that's what I'm going to do now.

I do think that occasionally, if my BR continues to increase, I will take a shot at a higher level, but I think I need to prove to myself that I can grind and play properly and within my bankroll.

Mr.Plough

Mellor wrote: »

so I decided to start with $50 and grind it up.
I'm playing with proper BR management amd I don't think of it in money terms but in terms of BBs or BIs in the curently level. Grind it and think in BBs not $$

gl. its horrible

Mellor

Mr.Plough wrote: »

gl. its horrible

i'm not doing it to make money, its more an exercise than anything else, currently at 210 and .1/.2

cardshark202

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I also enjoy the $2-$4 game more than the lower level games as it plays more like "real poker" if you know what I mean. Or is this a recipe for going broke?

OMFG ROFL.

followed by:

CaptainNemo wrote:

However it seems to me that there are as many truly terrible players at this level as at lower levels, and what's more they have more money to lose.

LMAO

CaptainNemo

cardshark202 wrote: »

OMFG ROFL.

I know I know and my play was horrible on every street right?