Short Stacked Play At Mid Levels vs Full Stacked Play At Micros

Let me preface this by saying that I have been having a lot of difficulty getting consistent results from the micro limits (specifically .05/.10 and .10/.25). Everyone knows the pit falls at these limits, so i'm not even going to get into the specifics here.

Being play oriented instead of result oriented, this has been very discouraging. I have looked over my hand histories, and know that I have been playing a solid game that just has not been making any head way at the lower limits.

So, the other day I read an article that advocated playing short stacked at mid levels (.25/.50 and up) because of the opportunity to have your solid play rewarded is greater.

So, I ran a test. For 2 days, I played .05/.10 with the max buy in of $10. Over 2 days, my profit was $23.78. Not a bad profit, until you consider the ammount of time (and tylenol from banging my head against the wall) that was invested in playing time. So then, I played .25/.50 for 2 days. I bought in at this level with $10 ($10 is well within my BR, and definately considered short stacked at these tables). The results were interesting. In my first session, I made $30, and my total profit over 2 days was $79.25.

Now, I like the idea of risking the same ammount of money to play in a more sane game where I stand a better chance at getting rewarded for solid play. I also like the idea of buying in to the higher limits for the same cost of a max buy in at the lower limits.

BUT...

This is just a small test sample.

AND...

Despite the results, i'm still wanting to get other peoples opinions about the long term viability of playing short stacked at mid levels vs full stacked at micros.

SO...Opinions and debate please.

Can't argue something that's working. I wouldn't necessarily say that sitting in as a short stack is a "smarter" idea, because if you're faced with a profitable all in situation early, your profits will obviously be considerably less than had you sat down with the table limit to begin with. If you ever watch a pro play (or some rich guy) at all times, they keep their stacks at at least the table max. Even if they only go through the blinds a couple times and don't lose any extra, they rebuy to the max allowed. Keep in mind though, your stack affects your play. As a short stack, you might be playing considerably tighter to ensure you're only playing with monster hands whereas if you have a big stack in relation to the blinds, you might loosen up enough to where you might consider 89 suited a strong enough hand to call a 3 bet preflop out of position. So imo, sit down with what you think you will play your best with, thus profiting the most with.

how many hands were each of the tests?

about 800

Fact is that SSing is very high variance, so it will be profitable if you are running good, but you'll also find it MUCH easier to lose 10 buy ins SS.

There are professional SSers but i'd stick to playing full stacked unless you really want to specialise in SSing.

And 800 hands is absolutely no sample size at all.

yea i think you need to play atleast 5k hands of each.

If you have a good strategy with your approach to the short stack I think it can definitely work. If your playing full ring thats your best bet 6 max I wouldn't advise that/your strategy better be good. Like you said I like the risk reward in what your doing. It'll probably be alot of people for and against this, but this strategy can work.

I used to do something similar to this, its been a while, but I would limit myself to 3 short stack by ins, I'd play fairly aggy with the first stack raising as much as I could in as many situations as I could. I would play position as much as possible and when checked to me attempt to take as many small pots down with a position bet as possible with that first stack. I would often 7-10x the amount of my original buy in with a max loss of 3 buy ins. Rarely did I ever lose the 3rd buyin, I definitely made it to 3 buyins because the image i would create with the first stack or two was so loose I knew what I was capable of doing at the table and what spots I could steal and couldn't, essentially playing tight that 3rd buy in. Many times I made it to that 3rd buy in I would still end up positive just because of the loose image I had created


All that aside, I think its all about how you approach the stakes you play with your short stack, plus this can be a good way to become acclimated to the play at the next level of stakes.

i think its a couple things to note with doing this tho. One, BRM comes first, I'm figuring if you can comfortably buy in full at the level below you probably have shortstack money for the next level, but regardless of what happens when you shortstack if lets just say the variance doesn't treat you right in the shortstack efforts, your gonna need to bring it back down to the more comfortable stakes, whether your getting unlucky or feel you can beat the higher level that doesn't matter. recoup some of your lossed buy ins at the more comfortable stakes before you go back in. You can't play scared because your a shortstacked either, and you have to understand what your trying to do/accomplish and how many buyins you plan to allot each session you do this.


If its working and you think your ready for that level i say its your best option if you think on avg your profits will be more doing this. The least you can do is try. I just say, whenever things get rough, no matter what the reason is you gotta have the discipline to know when you have to go back down in stakes. Even when you take losses tho the experience will help you in the long run, but bankroll comes before experience imo