Anyone playing NLHE cash with 40bb?

[Keith_MM]

since when did stars ever worry about the rake affecting the profitability of games for the player. You only have to look at the ongoing perpetual pleas for rake reductions in the small stakes and lower PLO games as the games are unbeatable except for VIP programs. All stars worry about is the profitability to them. As long as people continue to play they will continue to rake . Once there bottom line starts to get hit they quickly change things to restore their profitability. Just as they did when they dumped the 40 bb tables.

 

[btc87]

They just know that with high rake there will be less people playing as most get eaten too quick, that's why they reduced the rake at low stakes. Long term profit > quick profit.

They removed the 20-50bb tables because of the 20bb guys, made cap for them and forced the 40bb guys to play with the 100bb players and we have a similar problem now. I hope they see the benefits of 40bb cap, because imo there would be tons of SNE chasers and stars would profit a lot.

 

[Mase31683]

People are gonna give you crap because that's what they've been told.

Here's a confession, I started playing NL as a shortstacker, and I think shortstacking has its merits.

A lot of people will tell you, Oh you're missing value!!!!! blah blah blah. What they should really be saying is, "You're missing value if you're a better poker player than the other deep stacked guys.

Shortstacking has some strong advantages. Most of your opponents are used to playing ~100bb effective stacks, well every hand against you is going to be 40bb stacks, so you're moving them out of their normal zone.

A LOT of players will give no credit to a short-stacker. Oh he jammed? That guy was sitting on 40bb, he's an idiot, I'll snap him off.

You can't be outmaneuvered postflop. With a short stack you're either committed or you aren't. There's no threat of future bets because the chips are getting in or they aren't.

Along this same line, you're dealing with earlier commitment decisions, and shorter hands. This makes your strategy more cut & dry, you want to hit big pairs and put the chips in the middle. I would add flush and straight draws that happen to occur, but I'm not playing suited connectors, those things need lots of implied odds and we've reduced implied odds significantly by playing a short stack right?

So if you feel you're playing in games in which the players outclass you a bit, there's no shame in short stacking. However I would urge you to seriously read up on proper shortstacking strategies. Please don't sit on 40bb then play poker based on how you've read on forums you should play, because you'll be throwing away money.

You will be giving up an edge if you are the better player, or if players are calling wide. If you can value bet someone for three streets with top pair, then you're giving up some expectation.

Also you've handcuffed yourself a bit, because just as your opponent cannot scare you with a big bet looming on the next street, so too is your threat removed. Your opponent knows you only have 40bb total to bet, so your ability to force a laydown based on future betting is hampered.

Like I said, if you're going to do it, learn to do it right. And once you feel you have the edge on the other guys, you should definitely go full stack.

 

[BenjiHustle]

How is it that you guys know the reasoning behind pokerstars' moves?

The point still remains the same, even if you did know why this one particular move happened (which is, most likely, a combination of those reasons stated). The only real questions that exist are as follows:

1) Can you maintain and/or grow a bankroll by doing this?
2) Can you enjoy your poker this way?
3) Will a game stay together when you show up (do others refuse to play against you)?
4) Are you okay with admitting that you're an incompetent player every time that you sit down (because everyone sees your stack size)?

Honestly, I lick my chops when I see short stackers. I don't *hate* short stackers and think they're scum, I just know that they're bad players. They are a sort of annoying, because it is often the case that they "suck-out", given the relative ease with which they end up all-in. Then, once they suck out, they have a tendency to leave, and this is where the hate comes from with others. I know that when they win, though, I can still take it all back in a single hand. I just have to see them again, and I'm very likely to and 99% of the time, I'll win. In the moment, it sucks, but I always know I have an advantage against anyone with <100bbs.

 

[btc87]

The only real questions that exist are as follows:

1) Can you maintain and/or grow a bankroll by doing this?
2) Can you enjoy your poker this way?
3) Will a game stay together when you show up (do others refuse to play against you)?
4) Are you okay with admitting that you're an incompetent player every time that you sit down (because everyone sees your stack size)?

Kind of strange questions you ask, obviously all of the answers are positive. Yesterday I sat to play for fun, regs were calling my all in squeezes with hands like KQo. That example alone can answer your questions And it's mostly because regs have the same "I have an advantage against anyone with <100bbs" thinking.

 

[jjsevillados]

Its easy to play short stacked poker as if we have a good hand we will never large bet on the river in most cases we ill be already be all in by then most players wont play small pairs or suited connectors against us so less chances of getting a suck out. If you play good poker it can give you good profits as well.

well lets talk about profit is it a good idea to play 40BB we all know that most of the times it end it up as a flip , but is it profitable?