Playing 60-75BB buy-ins in Full Ring NL

[BelgoSuisse]

Stu. Do you really think people chose to play full ring because they want to exploit nits who open very tight in ep? That's amusing...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Stu. Do you really think people chose to play full ring because they want to exploit nits who open very tight in ep? That's amusing...

Exploiting these guys has to form part of a well thought out strategy.

If you arent able to play against these positions then you arent really playing FR.

If you want to play a startagy that works best against wider ranges, then play a game where ranges are wider.

 

[tpb221]

Here's my question. Don't we play for more pots that are 100bb than 200bb? If we are at 100bb stacks how often are we playing for stacks? Now if we play more 100bb pots is in not easier to get it to 120bb pot if we have a 60bb stack? Most will call the last 10/20bb but won't call 50bb left in there stack.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[atlantafalcons0]

I'm not that smart and I'm not a great poker player, but doesn't this all come down to personal comfort level? I mean, if someone's not comfortable playing 100 bb's deep but they do feel comfortable playing 60 - 75 bb's deep, shouldn't our advice be to play with a stack that you're most comfortable with? Or should the advice be to get comfortable with a 100 bb stack because you're losing profit by playing with a short(er) stack?

Told you I'm not smart.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Here's my question. Don't we play for more pots that are 100bb than 200bb? If we are at 100bb stacks how often are we playing for stacks? Now if we play more 100bb pots is in not easier to get it to 120bb pot if we have a 60bb stack? Most will call the last 20bb but won't call 50bb left in there stack.

Hope this makes sense.

That is very true.. but when you play a hand range that needs to crack a strong range, you need to get paid big when you do crack it.

The obvious example is setmining in 3bet pots. We dont do it generally as with 100bb even when we do hit a set we dont get paid big enough to justify the call.

The same applies when we reduce stack sizes.

Which is why we cant play effectively against the nitty ep ranges with smaller stacks.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

BTW, right now it feels like I am the only one putting together a balanced argument.

If you can explain how this strategy fits in with FR EP opens, then I am definitely all ears.

It just seems that, ultimately, if the plan is to avoid these positions then the best solution is to play 6-max.

 

[WVHillbilly]

BTW, right now it feels like I am the only one putting together a balanced argument.

If you can explain how this strategy fits in with FR EP opens, then I am definitely all ears.

It just seems that, ultimately, if the plan is to avoid these positions then the best solution is to play 6-max.

Did you read this?

This fluctuates depending on the tables. Over a largest sample last year, I was running at 21/11/4. Over the past 2 months I've been running at 30/16/5.5. Seems laggy and spewy, doesn't it? But it still works, so long as you can outplay your opponents after the flop. A lot of my strategy involves maximizing fold equity and I find these stack sizers are easier to manipulate in what appears to be a pot-commited way.

He's not avoiding EP play but he's not open raising nearly as often as a standard 100bb TAG player either. He's doing a lot more limp/calling to avoid big preflop pots. This allows him to play those hands that like higher SPRs and gives him the most leverage he can get with his stack size postflop since he clearly relies heavily on FE.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Stu, I don't know where you got the idea that folding when a nit finally decides to open a hand from ep is not an exploitative strategy.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Last post till monday as I'm travelling abroad.

Stu, imagine a villain whose strategy consists of folding everything but AA and opening AA to 15bb. Do you think we can't exploit that player 100bb deep as we don't have odds to set mine him?

 

[JMcCabe]

I've tried doing this at 6max as well, but my results were not as great, mostly because 6max players are more likely to call you down light.

Again, the main reason this works so well at FR opposed to 6max is you can maximize your fold equity based on the general tendancies of FR vs 6max players. I've experimented quite a bit with both and found that my winrate is higher in FR.

If you can explain how this strategy fits in with FR EP opens, then I am definitely all ears.

Based on my stats, you've probably guessed that I do too much smooth calling of raises or limp-raising. The way I exploit FR EP opens is by generally smooth calling at a tightish table in LP (button, CO) where you will usually get HU IP while only investing 3.5BB to see the flop and have roughly 65BB behind (though I think WHV covered this). I call with a mixture of big hands and speculative hands, as I want to be able to defend myself against squeeze plays from the blinds. I'm willing to 4bet light as well as 4bet for value based on the opponents I'm up against.

I've played with a player I know is a big winner over a huge sample who plays NL200 and NL400 with 25/2/1 stats. Why? Because he keeps the pot small preflop and is a phenomenal post flop player. It's very, very difficult to put him on a hand, since his raises/steals are usually late position blind steals or squeezes.

Here's my question. Don't we play for more pots that are 100bb than 200bb? If we are at 100bb stacks how often are we playing for stacks? Now if we play more 100bb pots is in not easier to get it to 120bb pot if we have a 60bb stack? Most will call the last 10/20bb but won't call 50bb left in there stack.

This is an excellent assessment of why this works so well and goes back to some of the main points I listed in the OP. 100BB regs will stack off lighter against players with less than 100BB stacks.

The other factor is that the "fish" and "rec players" also view me as a fish and not a reg, which is good for exploiting them as well

No one has really replied to this point, which I think is important as well. Unlike most "short stacking strategies", I don't run for the hills once I double up. I also feel comfortable playing deeper stacks and so often when I double up, I remain at the table and am able to run my profits up even further. I don't change up my strategy dramatically with a deeper stack, but I do get a lot of player who have perceived me as a fish try to chase their losses, trying to "stack the fish that got lucky and built a big stack".

Stu - Why not go back to my OP and refute my main points. I didn't simply say, "This is my strategy and it works, so suck it," I tried to list the reasons why using unorthodox starting stacks works and was looking for posters to refute it point by point.