Are Short Stackers Almost Always Donks?

I think that short stcking is a poor strategy in cash games and in general players who do this are weak.
The deeper the stacks the greater the edge to a skilled player.

http://www.cardschat.com/f46/bodog-c...-up-1k-166376/ (http://www.cardschat.com/f46/bodog-cash-tables-up-1k-166376/)

No, not always Donks, but they are always the lowest form of poker player, as soon as they win a hand they run.

Depends on the stakes. 50nl and below, yes. 100nl and 200nl, you'll find a mix. Some are quite good. 400nl and above, they are mostly pros making quite a bit of money. Imsakidd comes to mind.

Some short stackers are very good. By shortstacking they can take some moves away from their deeper stacked opponents because the implied odds for drawing hands are much lower. Its tougher to beat a shortstacked opponent. If they double up, they leave before you can get your money back.

I will play short stacked sometimes, depending on the table. I'm not your typical short stacker who buys in for the minimum amount though - typically, I will buy in for 1/2 the max buy in and no, I don't run after I hit a pot - typically I won't leave the table until I triple up.

Now there are a number of reasons I do this. The first is because at the lower limits there are way too many donks that can bad beat you early in a game and bust you out. It seems that whenver I buy in for the max at micro stakes I'll get dealt a hand like KK then get busted out by some donk that played A-4 off after 3 and 4 bets all the way to the river and catches an ace.

Now the 2nd and more important reason is what was mentioned previosly in this thread. By having a short stack, I take implied odds away from the hyper-loose aggressive players - so they won't chase gut shots to the river after a pot sized bet....lol.

KK, these are all really really bad reasons to buy in for 50bb...

buy in full and just price out people playing A4o...

You don't get it - they still call you - just yesterday I was dealt KK as a matter of fact, the flop came 3 rags - I DOUBLE BET THE POT - some donk called me all the way to the river with A-8....and guess what, he caught an ace on the river. Ok, don't get me wrong, I've made a ton of money off these people but the reason I was able to do so is because of my short buy ins. We're talking micro stakes - I would never buy in short anything over $1-$2or live for that matter.

Like I said in my other post, I would never buy in short at a "real" table $1-$2 or above or ever playing live. I found that buying in short is a rather very effective way to counter donks, fish and hyper-loose-aggressives in micro stakes - I've profited from doing this over the past 6 months - much more so than buying in full.

I think you really have this backwards, especially if your playing micro's, you want a full stack to punish the donks.

You're playing micros where a majority of players have no concept of position/odds, where the only thing that looks good to them are the cards in their hand and bet sizing is not a concept they know.

My point is that you should always buy-in for the full amount, you seem to be buying in short as if your scared to lose to a donk and going into a ring game with that mindset is just wrong for your overall game.

You can't take away Implied odds from a micro player when only a small majority of them understand the concept.

The thing is, it's worked out rather well for me - and the vast majority of the time I'm usually up to the full buy in amount within 30 - 60 minutes of play. As for the implied odds - I would say that I usually do find 2 - 3 decent players on a 9 max table that do understand the concept and 1 -2 on a 6 max, even at micro stakes.

OK, so it works out well for you, so what is the big problem when you put a full buyin?

What I'm trying to get at is if you shortstack for say half and about 30-60 minutes later your up to one full buy-in, double what you came to the table with, then by this reasoning if you came to the same table with a full buy-in you should have double your chips within the same timeframe.

All very true - in theory anyway. I guess that would be the case for most players but for some reason it works out better for me this way. Let's put it this way - I have a huge problem controlling my tilt.

It's much easier for me to absorb a bad beat early in a game by buying in short - say going broke losing half the max buyin than the full - then I can easily rebound and in most cases get my money back and then some.

To each their own.

I usually don't play short stacked, if though someone keeps throwing his bigger stack around and making me fold, if he keeps winning with a suck out. I will come back as a short stack, that way I don't have to worry about him sucking out a huge stack. I can take a double up easier.
Like some have mentioned, I would most likely double and run. If they would let you subtract from your table chips instead of just add. There wouldn't be as many players who hit and run. If you want to get back on the same table, you either have to come back in with the same stack you left with, or wait a certain amount of time and come back short stacked again.

some is true i think. short stacks are most likely to get bullied. still pretty much have to risk it all. short stacks means suckouts

If you are playing at the .05/.10 tables like I am, you see about 25% of the players buy in for the $2 table minimum. They usually bet .40 or .50 when they get dealt AK, KK, AA, QQ, or JJ. Sometimes they only have 9's or 10's, but usually its As, & K's. When the flop comes and they are first to act, they will ALL IN if they hit or check if not. If you bet small, they might push back ALL IN to put you to a decision.

I admit, like KK, I buy in for 1/2 the table max and then will leave when I get close to the triple up mark. I hate playing against the all or nothing style. I was thinking about starting a thread about the $2 buy in types, but this conversation seems the discuss the same point.

I don't think the min. buy in player is a donk, but the stragety employed by this type of player is not conducive to quality poker.

Although I havn't played enough to say for sure the tables with 50BB minimum which excludes short stackers seem to be harder to make money on, and the general level of play seems higher.
The short stackers frequently seem be happy to go all in preflop on marginal hands like AJ or 88 with about 20BB in their stack, which makes it very easy if you pick up some AA,KK,QQ or AK hands.
When they're not playing hands very aggressively they're normally very passive and its easy to their steal blinds.

you're a nit

Some are just broke I think. Or they haven't learned the rules for the buy ins,in which case they'll be broke soon enough.

Short stacking is certainly a valid form of play. However, calling it dumb is not exactly wrong. It is simple. That is the natural result of smaller stack sizes. Fewer, simpler choices. The upside to them being that they can massively multitable easily. That being said, a shorty can really complicate life for a full stack who does not know what they're doing against one (which I would say is many) or who is stuck with one creating messy side pots.

I short stacked for a time because they were giving me a real hard time messing up hands (I was also a jackass who had somehow at some point filtered out the 50BB tables, thanks again Pooffy) and what better way to learn how to defend against them than to put on their shoes? I smashed 25 and 50NL's faces in for a time, paid some bills, got my roll up, and then magically lost the ability to win while short stacking. However, I now can understand what they're doing and counter them more effectively. And while I disagreed with Bellagio that they are all donks at the 25 and 50NL levels for a time, I think thats pretty much true now that I'm not among them

KK if you manage to smash them up that good, you really should be going for max buy in right away. I understand you have tilt issues, which could actually be making that method more profitable for you, but math and logic agree, this is a suboptimal approach if you're playing correctly. You wouldn't leave a big leak you saw in your play in the traditional (ie: shoving 72 every time) sense alone, so don't leave your tilt issues alone. Work on fixing them so that you can take full advantage of the money spewing fools around you without needing to build up psychological steam first.

The reason a shorty hits and runs is simply because they are no longer a shorty after they hit, and so would have to play a more intricate game which they cannot typically do, either for knowledge, or massive multitabling reasons. Really this makes them no harder to beat as many people have said, its simply that they'll wind up stacking off sometimes and wind up doubling up through you sometimes, if you're choosing your spots wisely you're beating them, regardless of any individual hand/session's outcome.

The general level of play at the 50BB tables is going to be somewhat higher, because when you sit at one you're doing it to ensure that you're playing deeper stacks to more fully take advantage of weaker opponents flaws. Many others are doing the same thing. So you miss out on some of the hardcore donation stations, but gain the ability to make plays on players who often don't know about plays or how to recognize/make them properly yet, and don't have to deal with tables perpetually filling up with shorties on you. This has the advantage of spending more time at a table before its time to move on allowing you to get better reads, build an image, exploit said image, since people are actually paying enough attention for you to build an image, and NO SHORTIES!!!! WOOOOH.

Umm yeah, sorry about that. I haven't slept and needed to distract myself when my Megavideo time limit expired since there were only 5 worthwhile tables. I think I responded to everything I wanted to. I love that I'll be clicking a button that says "Post Quick Reply" in a few seconds. Silly button.

THE END

I appreciate the good advice. Let me be clear in saying that I never play the typical "short stack strategy." I always play "my" game - whether short or not - which is based on playing "real" poker - not just shove or fold, lol. The only time I get into shove or fold mold is if I'm down to about 10 - 15 bb, which rarely happens as well as I will usually add on to 50 bb.

Just give you guys an update, recently I have been buying in for the max buy in and doing ok but I'm not seeing nearly the % of profit than from buying in short - I think it's because I tend to be a little less aggressive knowing that I'm playing with my money and not theirs - lol.

lol...I know, because it's so easy just to pick up AA, KK, or QQ.....lol

It doesn't matter if they understand the concept of implied odds or not. The odds don't change just because someone doesn't understand them.

Another advantage of short stack poker is that is has a lot less variation, when played correctly. I believe this is what KK has noticed when he shortstacked.

Solid Shortstacking is solid ABC poker which reduces post flop decisions. It is easer for newbies, but is profitable because deepstacks don't change their play style to account for the short stacks. Trying to set mine a short stack is never worth it.

I know people who multi 24-table 10nl, shortstacking.
Other than that the Valencia shortstackers are infamous.
And Mark Vos of course (professional player on FullTilt).
But I have a question. Are those people hated cause they hit and run? Or is it because they take all the money from the fish?

I have been researching this issue the last few days and it seems full stack players are upset because the game changes dramatically from post flop play to pre flop play with a small stack shove before/after the flop.

Full stacks are also limited in there pre-flop selection of hands because they never have odds to to play suited connectors ect against SS.

Full stack players also get caught in a position that they either fold to a short stacks push after raising the pot,or play a multiway pot with other full stacks with a high % of there chips in before the flop.In other words the Full stack player has to fold more marginal hands due to the risk to thier stack from Full stackers.

It completely changes the game for full stackers and takes the fun/play out of the game.

Im sure someone can give more insight

Snow

Snow, I'd say you nailed the reason for the hatred. You can correct for them and adapt to them, and table select to put them in less obnoxious table positions, but there's no denying a couple shortys in the wrong seats can mess up your SC's and a lot of plays you'd normally be able to tear up a full stacked table with.

KK, you may want to take into consideration that your current play style, perhaps due to your preflop raise sizes, or flop bet sizes, or both, is geared towards generating aggressive and favorable SPRs with your medium stacks. Maybe this is generating an image that carries over into the time when your stack is deeper? Just a guess at what the results might be illustrating, also a common mistake is being a bit too willing to stack off while full stacked, remember the deeper your stack the better your holding will typically be when you want to get all in. Sounds like you're on track, but just some thoughts that might lead you to some sort of gain. I say this because you should be adjusting your play based on your stack sizes, check out information on SPR's for more info on this recommended reading is Professional No Limit Holdem by Miller Mehta and some other guy. Also remember, when you have the money, its yours. Period. I'm sure you "know" it, but it helps to KNOW it, if you get what I mean there. If you're looking at % returns instead of direct dollar or BB/100h, then you shouldn't expect an amazing pick up in the short run by starting stacked, or at all perhaps? As your initial investment is much larger, so stacking up to 3x max buy in as a half stack means a 500% increase as opposed to a 200% increase as a full stack. Also, many of your oppoenents won't have full stacks, so when you stack them, maybe you'd have them covered when you're half stacked, or just weren't leaving all that much on the table, but in the big picture you'll make more the times your big hand happens to come up early on and you have the full stack to stack a full stack.

Sorry for the derailment, but that is to be adressed in a new thread to be started soon.

I only play SS at my current bankroll @ 100NL because I don't have the money to buy in full - obviously I have over $100 but I try to keep the $50 buy in to help deal with variance. I'm going to belgo suisse here and say 50NL and below, yes. I've never seen a good 50NL SS be a good player. I'm sure there are, I just haven't seen them. The only reason I go in short stacked (I buy in 50 BB in 100NL) is bankroll management. I'm still a successful player at 100NL with my short stack.

it does seem most short stacks are in their for one hand to shove and see if they hold or not this does make play for most normal stacks a lot harder

If you get into a heads up situation with a shortstack donk, you are profiting more often than not. Just keep stacking them off.
When there is more than one calling station in a hand throw your cards away unless you got some nuts cause someone probably hit.

It's funny--only since reading the posts on this site(lurking for a while, and now joining) have I even become aware of the short-stacker, as specific entity, and the scourge they are on a full-stacked player. I always buy-in full. They've always been an annoyance, but I didn't realize how many there were OR that they were deliberately buying in short. Didn't realize that their strategy was so pervasive to my full-stack play.

But now that I've been made aware of their nefarious ways and means, I find myself taking measures against them... Mostly, if there are more than two or three at a 9player table, I'm gone. Even if I've been crushing the table.

If I do stick around, and one of them is in position to "do their thing", I'll take the action away from them by betting their full stack. I wouldn't, of course, do this with garbage(as a steal) because we know they will call with marginal hands... But if I have a hand that I want to play, i.e. a nice middle suited connector, or a middle pocket pair, well, let THEM have to make a decision. I'm sick of 3betting in early position, only to have to fold my JTsuited to a $22 reraise because I MIGHT be behind preflop(the SS WANTS me to fold--hates the showdown...just knows that a good player will protect his stack and not recklessly abandon reason). So if there's no likely caller between me and the villain, and I wanna see a flop, I'm gonna push the action myself for his whole measly stack, rather than wonder if he's pushing with his own mediocre poop. It's the difference, for me, between playing scared(which NEVER works for me) and playing my own thoughtful, confident, tight/agg game.

Just my two cents.

M

I love when people try and avoid people stacking off with A4o pre-flop. If you could just herd all those players to me that'd be great. I'll take my odds all day.

its not a horrible way to play as loads of players would call off 20BB pre flop with a weak hand as they think its not that much, but in terms of skill, there's virtually none as all decisions are already made for you e.g - what hands to raise with in what positions and what hands to move allin with if you're reraised.