Short Stack Strategy?

I read quite a lot about a Short Stack Strategy for cash games at the end of last year, but I haven't heard it mentioned once at this forum. It was a bit like a poker version of painting by numbers. You buy in at a cash table with the lowest possible buy-in, and then follow a set of instructions of what percentage of your stack you bet for certain ranges of hands, and which hands you go all in with. Once you build your stack to a certain level you leave the table.

1. Have any of you tried using this strategy?
2. What did you like or dislike about it?

here is an article that talks about short stacking
What's Your Opinion About Short-Stackers?
not really a strategy article but i found it interesting

That link makes me wonder if there is more than one Short Stack Strategy out there. This one involved an exact set of instructions on what you bet with what hands.

Of course there is more than one short stack strategy. I am not trying to be a jerk but there infinite ways to play any situation. Some are obviously more correct/profitable than others but you should never read something and think that is the only way to play. Most books advocates TAG play but they also acknowledge that LAG is a very profitable strategy when played properlt

Who said there was only one way to play?

^^^^

I'm trying to find out if anyone has encountered the type of short stack strategy that I tried at the end of last year, so we can discuss what we liked and disliked about it, and I hadn't seen it mentioned here at this forum

Looks as if I'm banging my head against a brick wall though, so I'll just move on and let the thread die a quick death

Try this

Four Handed SNG Strategy: Part I - Playing the Short Stack

There was considerable interest among CCers a little while ago in "rampaging". That is, in using a very aggressive shortstack strategy to try to grow one`s bankroll rapidly.

This:

http://www.cardschat.com/f43/cards-c...contest-86563/

was one of the main threads on the subject.

That system sounds a lot more fun, and a lot more flexible, than the robotic system that I tried out

I used to buy in for close to the minimum because people were a lot more apt to call me when I shoved. I thought it was a great strategy, and I was winning money with it.

Then I saw a tutorial video that said something along the lines of, "if you have an advantage at the table, don't you want as many chips as possible so you can exploit that advantage?" The more chips you have, the more you can win. That made a lot of sense to me, so I started buying in for more.

I drew a green line to show when I started buying in for whatever the big stack at the table had. (Now I just do the max buy-in)


So yeah, short stacking was profitable and minimized loss, but I had no idea what I was missing out on.

Now, I never moved up in limits. I would just buy in, double-up, and quit.

I think it "feels" safer because you're all in, so you don't have to worry about how much to bet on the flop/turn/river, and you don't lose as much when you lose. However - as you've said - you are potentially missing out on a lot of the rewards from the bigger pots

Ed Miller has a serious of excellent writings on short stack game play. Find them here.

Personally I think shortstacking at limits below nl$200 is a mistake. The vast majority of shortstackers are bad, and the better ones depend on FE as much as hitting big hands. Its a very ABC style of poker and very exploitable if you can realise hand ranges. Plays like stop and go's deny them their FE and makes hands like AK unprofitable for them. Up to nl$100 nut mining full ring with a full stack is BY FAR a more profitable way to go.

Ask Philthy, I think he was doing okay with it recently.


Me, I lost $17 to earn $7.50 in FT bonus in the last two days trying to shortstack $10NL. Enough of that for me.

Buying in minimum to 1 1/2 times minimum can be an effective chip management tool to a point. I've done this at ring games for a couple decades. I use the first hour to develop table image and reads. I limit my play at brick and mortar to once a month and view it as entertainment dollars. I always have 5X maximum buy in with me and that is never more than 1/2 my "poker bankroll'. It's not high stakes poker mind you. $1/$2 no limit. With min being 40 and maximum 200. I like the protection provided til I have some decent reads on people. And I play super tight early. Top 5 premium hands all positions. Loseninmg up to 10 ten on the button and cut off for the first hour. Mid suited and small pockets only on muti limpers if the implied odds are right and then only rarely. Usually buy for 60 and top back up if I go below 50 dollars. Once I feel I've established that tight table image and feel comfortable on most of my reads I'll top to the maximum. I like 12 hour sessions so I can afford to give away a little in the first hour to hour and a half.
As for pushing on a certain range of preflop hand. That generally works in the long run. But it sure is extremely mechanical IMHO.

Twelve hours at the same online poker table?

Yes, I think the instructions I followed were based on Ed Miller's writings

No! It says brick and mortar. Live in a casino bro. Online? Not! ROFL
It's a good thread though.