Any advice for shortstack strategy?
Hi all,
I've found an unbelievably juicy $5/$10/$25 Omaha game. I played it last weekend and did well. However sitting do
I haven’t studied short-stack ranges that much, so I don’t have a more specific understanding of what you should include. Wazz is no doubt right about the dangers of limp-folding, so if this is happening at an intolerable frequency, then narrower ranges would make sense.
These two categories below could be trimmed by playing only double-suited hands. While nut suits are highly valued at 100bb+ maybe double-suited should be the priority, given how shallow and showdown oriented you are. So you could start by trimming them in that respect (also in the second category you could trim those combos with undesirable danglers such as 2,3,4,6 & 7).
- All unpaired hands that contain cards of rank 9 or higher.
- All hands that contain three broadways and a suited ace (note that this can include danglers and is the only hand category that can).
Maybe also look at PLO tournament strategy where playing 20bb deep is more common. I believe high cards and double-suitedness go up in value, but obviously ICM is a major factor.
A limping strategy - perfectly viable at 100bbs in a multitude of game conditions - is significantly different in that we're investing 1% of our stack rather than 5%. Investing 5% of our stack and then folding frequently is pretty disastrous. If you find yourself limp-folding a lot, you should either find the first fold more often or the second call. The fact you have a pocket full of chips isn't what matters, it's the relative haemhorraghing of chips that comes with limp-folding off a shortstack more than once or twice an hour or something.
Sure, I understand what you mean, and I won't be limp-folding much. I've been practicing on GG with $20 stacks on the $100 tables and I'd estimate the limp-folding happens less than 10% of the time.
- All unpaired hands that contain cards of rank 9 or higher.- All hands that contain three broadways and a suited ace (note that this can include danglers and is the only hand category that can).These two categories below could be trimmed by playing only double-suited hands. While nut suits are highly valued at 100bb+ maybe double-suited should be the priority, given how shallo
Sure, these are good suggestions, and I think you're right that a more nuanced selection criteria should be used. I think the strongest hands from the first category, for example AKQT with a nut suit (but no other suit) are definitely playable. I did also want to include some hands that have Ax with a low card, so that I can at least have some connection occasionally with low boards - otherwise I would be playing no hands that contain any cards from a 6 to a 2. But maybe that's not such a big deal, and it's not problematic to focus purely on having all cards be 7+ in the hands I play?
I don't see why limp-reraising with a short stack in NLHE couldn't be effective too, although as with PLO I almost have to puke in my mouth a bit to limp into any pot as it's been drilled into me so many times from so many different sources that it's the ultimate noob move (and obviously I certainly agree with that when deepstacked).
Limping in NLH is generally a bad strategy. In PLO you're not pushing equity or defining ranges that much with weak aces for example. It not getting raised might be a loss of 0.5 bb or something. Limping a high pair in NL and it ending up going limped behind or against two blinds is a disaster. You will be lost and even blinds let alone button can put a lot of pressure.
There are situations where you can limp in NL like for example a table where you can expect your limps to be raised constantly and even the original raiser getting 3-betted.
A limping strategy - perfectly viable at 100bbs in a multitude of game conditions - is significantly different in that we're investing 1% of our stack rather than 5%. Investing 5% of our stack and then folding frequently is pretty disastrous. If you find yourself limp-folding a lot, you should either find the first fold more often or the second call. The fact you have a pocket
Sure, in general I wholeheartedly agree. I just meant when short stacked at a loose table then it may be okay to limp reraise in NLHE too.
Sure, these are good suggestions, and I think you're right that a more nuanced selection criteria should be used. I think the strongest hands from the first category, for example AKQT with a nut suit (but no other suit) are definitely playable. I did also want to include some hands that have Ax with a low card, so that I can at least have some connection occasionally with low b
Yeah, agree you can make exceptions with a hand like AKQT nut suit, since it's well connected. I'm pretty sure that low cards don't really matter, given how shallow we are (e.g. having board coverage matters is a way of protecting from us from being exploited OOP post-flop, but who cares if we're AI before the turn). Hands like AQJ5ss are maybe playable, but the wheel cards don't connect to boards often enough, plus they don't make nut straights.
Yeah, agree you can make exceptions with a hand like AKQT nut suit, since it's well connected. I'm pretty sure that low cards don't really matter, given how shallow we are (e.g. having board coverage matters is a way of protecting from us from being exploited OOP post-flop, but who cares if we're AI before the turn). Hands like AQJ5ss are maybe playable, but the wheel cards don
Sounds solid to me.
ok I'm gonna shortstack plo at gg for a bit, and see how we get on. does PT4 work at gg?
problem issues {discuss}
defending blinds; hand range much?
playing 40bb deep
defending blinds 40bb, 20bb is easy.
ok I'm gonna shortstack plo at gg for a bit, and see how we get on. does PT4 work at gg?
problem issues {discuss}
defending blinds; hand range much?
playing 40bb deep
defending blinds 40bb, 20bb is easy.
Sure thing, I might see you at the GG tables, what's your handle? No PT4 or any HUDs allowed I'm afraid.
I'm playing off 20bb stacks and have not looked in-depth at BB defence beyond the obvious preflop adjustment of playing hands that suit low SPR situations postflop (again with emphasis on high cards), as well as simply 3betting a linear range and then potting the vast majority of flops.
I was a very successful short stacking pro in NL for multiple years. PLO is not the game you want to play short.
1) Being a 60% or 55% favorite sounds nice but the reality is there is such a massive amount of variance involved in doing this you need to have a bigger bankroll then you would think you would need.
2) PLO is full of gambling degens who are mostly terrible at poker. Playing normally and working on your game is going to create less variance spots and way more profit.
3) My main thought going through my head when shortstacking PLO was "my edge would be way higher than taking constant 60/40 flips".
If you even have a PLO game around you its a blessing let alone a higher stakes game.
Sure thing, I might see you at the GG tables, what's your handle? No PT4 or any HUDs allowed I'm afraid.I'm playing off 20bb stacks and have not looked in-depth at BB defence beyond the obvious preflop adjustment of playing hands that suit low SPR situations postflop (again with emphasis on high cards), as well as simply 3betting a linear range and then potting the vast majorit
I can't get used to the software at gg I'm afraid, I'll ss over at stars instead I think.
if its a juicy live game - it just depends on the players tbh, but blind defense is all you need. and good SPR. I try and keep my handle the same....
Going to need a massive bankroll for that game, and possibly some insurance to X% and get a stake... just depends how you play 40bb-250bb, one good sessions can make or break u if your not gonna play a million hands in this game
I was a very successful short stacking pro in NL for multiple years. PLO is not the game you want to play short.1) Being a 60% or 55% favorite sounds nice but the reality is there is such a massive amount of variance involved in doing this you need to have a bigger bankroll then you would think you would need.2) PLO is full of gambling degens who are mostly terrible at poker. P
Hmm, well - a lot of people appear to think that short-stacking PLO can be a very profitable strategy. For sure there is going to be some variance (but it's lower with 20bbs than it is at 100bbs, as detailed earlier in the thread). Yes, I will require a bankroll - but certainly not as large of a bankroll as I'd require if I was buying in for 100bbs.
There is certainly more skill in playing deep-stacked, and if my bankroll permitted it I would certainly be buying in deep for this game (it's uncapped) - but for now I'm going with short-stacking for 20bb ($500) bullets.
I am indeed very thankful to have such an epic game available to me. Thus far short stacking online has been going well, and next weekend I'll be able to try it for the first time live.
I can't get used to the software at gg I'm afraid, I'll ss over at stars instead I think. if its a juicy live game - it just depends on the players tbh, but blind defense is all you need. and good SPR. I try and keep my handle the same....Going to need a massive bankroll for that game, and possibly some insurance to X% and get a stake... just depends how you play 40bb-250bb, o
Ok. Just note that Stars only allow you to short stack for 40bbs (IIRC), whereas GG allow 20bbs buy-ins.
What are your thoughts on blind defence when short stacking?
I've got enough of a bankroll to support short-stacking for 20bbs in this game for a long while, so that's not a major concern.
fml - looks like I'm learning blind defense in plo at 40bb...... someone build me a Time Machine. honestly. asap
I think id rather just play 2000bb deep games, do they exist?? on stars
Hmm, well - a lot of people appear to think that short-stacking PLO can be a very profitable strategy. For sure there is going to be some variance (but it's lower with 20bbs than it is at 100bbs, as detailed earlier in the thread). Yes, I will require a bankroll - but certainly not as large of a bankroll as I'd require if I was buying in for 100bbs.There is certainly more skill
I'm not sure there's a consensus that shortstacking is lower variance. As we've discussed, you're getting it in far more often than as a deep stack, and with far less of an equity advantage in general. You also can't rely on some low variance deep stack edge that comes from stacking a fish. You've got me explaining why it's higher variance and then another guy coming in and saying he's experienced it being higher variance and all you have is a few arguments the other side from a 'name' player.
To make it clearer why it ends up being higher variance, imagine buying in for 5 bbs. Now your edge is much smaller, and you'll have to be allin far more often.
I'm not sure there's a consensus that shortstacking is lower variance. As we've discussed, you're getting it in far more often than as a deep stack, and with far less of an equity advantage in general. You also can't rely on some low variance deep stack edge that comes from stacking a fish. You've got me explaining why it's higher variance and then another guy coming in and say
Getting your stack in more often does not mean it's a higher variance situation my dude. As I mentioned previously, variance is the sum of the squares of the differences between each data point in a set and the mean. This means that variance at 50bb is approximately half that of variance at 100bb, and so on. If you were playing in a 100bb game with a 100bb stack and getting that all in as often as a short stack does, then you would be in a higher variance situation than average. It's virtually impossible for a 20bb stack to experience the same amount of variance as a 100bb stack unless they are getting all-in far, far more often than they should.
I had a look through 2+2 for further information on this, and you can see it discussed in some detail here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32/be...
Some examples:
"If you're full stacking NL100, it's possible and semi-normal to downswing 10 buyins ($1000). If you're short stacking with 20bb, it's almost impossible to lose $1000 unless you bad."
"Variance is lower in cap games in terms of standard deviation. That is a fact, just as variance is higher in NLHE vs LHE".
In other words, the vastly reduced dollar value swings up and down when playing with 20bbs in comparison to 100bbs equate to vastly reduced variance, and the cap that you are effectively putting on your game (20bb stacks) greatly reduces the standard deviation from the mean.
what's your plan when you finally double/triple up? are you going to rack up and leave and wait an hour?
Getting your stack in more often does not mean it's a higher variance situation my dude. As I mentioned previously, variance is the sum of the squares of the differences between each data point in a set and the mean. This means that variance at 50bb is approximately half that of variance at 100bb, and so on. If you were playing in a 100bb game with a 100bb stack and getting tha
There's 26 posts in that thread, I don't recognise any of the posters in it, it's specific for NLHE, and I don't see what we need to settle this argument-based tie: data. I've shortstacked PLO live cash games for maybe ~5-10% of my live play the last 20 years. I've been on some swings you wouldn't believe. 50 buyins in a session? You may well be right overall, but to find out the answer, we can't just stack our arguments up against each other, because these arguments don't have numbers attached.
Swings are not variance. Swings have two knobs, both winrate and variance. I'm sure this is obvious.
There's 26 posts in that thread, I don't recognise any of the posters in it, it's specific for NLHE, and I don't see what we need to settle this argument-based tie: data. I've shortstacked PLO live cash games for maybe ~5-10% of my live play the last 20 years. I've been on some swings you wouldn't believe. 50 buyins in a session? You may well be right overall, but to find out t
Finding data will be tricky, since it's difficult to calculate standard deviation accurately, but I understand that it can be estimated (see a recent Mason Malmuth interview on the the Poker Zoo podcast:
). I have zero background in statistics, aside from reading stuff on 2+2 (of course), but the gist is that you'd need to log your results for every hand you play (e.g how many bb you actually win or lose in the hand, not an average). I believe most poker results apps that provide you with SD are giving a rough estimate only. So if I play one session of 4 hours and win 16bb and another session of 6 hours and lose 30, we generally say in the first session I won 4bb per hour and in the other I lost 5bb per hour --- but using these 4bb and 5bb hourly figures as your data points, which you then use to calculate a deviation from the mean, is misleading because they are averages.
Telemakus' essential point is valid IMO, since with a short stack you will nearly always have smaller deviations (e.g. the most for a loss will be 20bb and for a win around 60bb, whereas if you're playing 100bb effective the equivalent range would be 100-300bb). What you're saying, I believe, is that because you are AI way more often playing a short-stack you will experience a larger number of 20bb-60bb deviations in a session, than the occasional 100bb-300bb deviations if deeper. There will be hands where a short stack experiences a 20bb deviation where a deeper stack might only experience a 4-10bb deviation because the deeper stack can fold on the flop, given the higher SPR and low probability of realising their equity.
If you mapped BBs won or lost per hand of a short-stack and compared it to 100 of a deep stack, in the SS case you might begin to see a pattern like 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 20, 0, 1, 44, 0 ... , whereas for the DS would might see 0, 0, 1, 0, 10, 0 ,100, 1, 0, 270. Maybe a more practical, rough guide could be the number of AIs per session of a 20bb player versus a 100bb player. You might find that the 20bb player is AI say 5 times as often, in which case, at a guess, their SD might be higher than the 100bb player.
Or maybe Telemakus could record bb won or lost for every hand in a particular session and thus calculate his SD for that session. While the sample of 1 session is tiny, it could be somewhat indicative.
Btw: I recognised only one name on that thread, but, yeah, it is from 2012, so not surprised.
Finding data will be tricky, since it's difficult to calculate standard deviation accurately, but I understand that it can be estimated (see a recent Mason Malmuth interview on the the Poker Zoo podcast:
). I have zero background in statistics, aside from reading stuff on 2+2 (of course), but the gist is that you'd need to log yourGood post, but I'd have thought online database analysis should be able to answer this question for us definitively. I doubt live samples would give us an answer - too few hands, there'd be variance in the variance. Ideally we'd take the same player playing the same games and stakes but half the hands as ss and half as dsd.
My post will not be nearly as technical but still holds true. The street with the most fold equity is the river followed by the turn. Playing short removes these 2 streets. It is very hard to get players to fold pre or on the flop which are the 2 highest variance / equities run closest together parts of the hand. I am not saying that playing short is not profitable but its not nearly as easy as it is in NL.
Id also question your 20bb strategy for live play since in most PLO games Ive played you can get a 100bb stack in pretty easily on the flop and 40ish bb preflop. Playing at 20bb pretty much guarantees everyone is going to call for a multiway pot and if you want to ride the 35-38% equity train in constant 3 way pots I am sorry but its not as easy as it sounds and you wont last.
what's your plan when you finally double/triple up? are you going to rack up and leave and wait an hour?
I was thinking of setting the quitting point at a $2000 stack (i.e. when up $1500 from my $500 starting stack - it's convenient because it's two double ups). I won't rack up right away, but wait perhaps a half hour. If I get some big hands in that half hour, I'm prepared to play some big pots.
