Playing against SSers: yes or no?

[Juniorsdaddy]

I have read multiple posts recently talking about how players do not like playing against multiple short stackers. At the limits I play (.05/.10), I have found that it is easy to push a SS around, or catch them making a bad decision. I may not win as much, but it is such easy pickings with minimal risk.

So, I ask whether you agree with me or not. If you don't, then explain why.

 

[KyleJRM]

The odds that a shortstacker is a bad player are huge. I like playing against bad players

 

[GeoffLacey]

yeah but at 10nl you can find a bunch of players that are bad but have bigger stacks. at 10nl i don't think there's really any reason to be at a table with a ss'er

 

[Poof]

I hat playing with SS'ers.

 

[slycbnew]

When regs complain about ss's, they're not talking about guys who buy in short and are bad players - disappointing that they only give up a few bb's at a time (+1 to Geoff), but such is life.

What the regs are complaining about are the guys who follow ss'ing strategy intelligently - nobody's using smart ss strategy at 10nl, it's not worth it, you start seeing it at 50nl+.

The "smart" ss's are playing a strategy that:

1. forces all in decisions preflop or on the flop - the better the player, the more they're paying attention to your opening ranges by position, fold to 3bet %, etc. when deciding whether to shove or not
2. they rathole when they double up (so the money lost to the ss disappears from the table)
3. makes it difficult to play deepstack poker against other players on the table (hard to play at BB from CO when BTN is a ss that shoves all in pf when you open the BTN, even if you're ok calling, BB probably folds)
4. relies on mass multi-tabling to generate acceptable hourly winrates - so they're playing 12+ tables, and when they double up on one table, they go find another table, which means they're popping up on the regs' other tables.

 

[Poof]

^^^^^ This there is a difference to SS'ing and buying in short.
I do not mind playing ppl who buy in short, I hate playing ppl who are using the SS strategy.

 

[itlegacy]

I love it when folks chase my short stacks ... they presume I'm dumb; but I'm simply waiting them out. They get so caught up on bullying with their chips, they lose track of the play. Can pick alot of chips that way [smile].

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I have read multiple posts recently talking about how players do not like playing against multiple short stackers. At the limits I play (.05/.10), I have found that it is easy to push a SS around, or catch them making a bad decision. I may not win as much, but it is such easy pickings with minimal risk.

So, I ask whether you agree with me or not. If you don't, then explain why.

You will not find a winning SS player under $200NL because under that the are not beating the rake.

Under $200NL the SS pays 5% rake on every pot over $200 it begins to hit the cap.

SS winrates are tiny because its a high variance game and the can only win a max of 20BB so beating the rake is important.

You cannot push a SS around, they shove or fold if you can convince someone to fold after they have gone all in then maybe you can push them around if not, I dont understand what you mean by pushing them around.

 

[GeoffLacey]

I love it when folks chase my short stacks ... they presume I'm dumb; but I'm simply waiting them out. They get so caught up on bullying with their chips, they lose track of the play. Can pick alot of chips that way [smile].

i'm gonna give what should be the standard answer whenever a ss'er reveals themselves...

gtfo pos ss'er

 

[Zorba]

Me no likey SS POS

 

[Wes747]

Stu pretty much has it covered. You guys are right that a lot of times at lower limits the players that are short stacked are often "bad" players, but when we say we hate SSers its the ones that actually know what they are doing. I don't see it much at 25NL, but I do see it quite a bit at 50NL. There are actually some SSer regs at 50NL where I would avoid sitting at their table, because its so annoying to play against them. I haven't seen it much at FT since they raised the minimum buy-in, but I do run into it occassionaly. IMO everyone should have to buy in for 100BB. No more no less.

 

[zek]

I don't mind having the $2 tighties mixed into the table at $10NL.

You know they are shoving with AA-JJ, AK, sometimes AQ-J.

Do you feel like racing them? With nothing you can min raise them.

If they ave shoved you can make the decision as to if you are ahead, 50%, or probably dead.

I figure it's less decision making. i don't avoid them.

But I do look to get my good hands in against the donks not the races.

-Raymond

 

[Marginal]

I like playing 200bb deep, so no, I dont like ssers.

 

[Kasanova King]

I don't "prefer" them. But usually having one (most of the time they are horrible) is ok. I'm not as anti-ss like some around here, lol....I would say a safe guess is that they typically bust out and give their money away about 80 - 90% of the time so it's ez money imo.

 

[jdeliverer]

At the top levels, nobody likes shortstackers. If they play with the proper strategy, they are actually unbeatable because of the different strategies you need to assume when playing against them and other deepstacked players.

 

[Pantheon]

Playing against bad SSers - sure

Playing against "good" SSers - err no

Obviously the ideal situation is to be playing against lost of deepstacked bad players though.

At $10NL shortstackers will be almost always of the bad (that is "bad at poker") variety of course.

 

[Juniorsdaddy]

You cannot push a SS around, they shove or fold if you can convince someone to fold after they have gone all in then maybe you can push them around if not, I dont understand what you mean by pushing them around.

Here is what I mean by "pushing them around":

When someone is playing SS, I automatically assume all their chips are going to go into the pot. So, I include that when I imply pot odds. When I act first with a +EV hand, I 3-bet/shove first and leave them to make the decision to call or fold. More often that not, they tend to fold. This does on occasion lead to multiple SSers jumping in, but in my opinion this is just potential for a bigger win with minimal investment.

Granted, this is at 10NL. I can certainly see how this would not work at 200NL, since at that point the investment is too great for the return.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Here is what I mean by "pushing them around":

When someone is playing SS, I automatically assume all their chips are going to go into the pot. So, I include that when I imply pot odds. When I act first with a +EV hand, I 3-bet/shove first and leave them to make the decision to call or fold. More often that not, they tend to fold. This does on occasion lead to multiple SSers jumping in, but in my opinion this is just potential for a bigger win with minimal investment.

Granted, this is at 10NL. I can certainly see how this would not work at 200NL, since at that point the investment is too great for the return.

How are you both acting first and 3-betting?

Are you comfortable open shoving non-premimuim hands in non blind vs blind battles, i.e. when there is still another deep-stack left to act in the pot either before or after the SS?

 

[Juniorsdaddy]

How are you both acting first and 3-betting?

Are you comfortable open shoving non-premimuim hands in non blind vs blind battles, i.e. when there is still another deep-stack left to act in the pot either before or after the SS?

I apologize for the confusion. There are times when a SS will raise the pot several times consecutively as opposed to a straight shove. This would be when I would 3-bet back at them. If I act first, I would shove if (for example) there are 2 SSers and the blinds left to act. True, there is always a risk of another deep stack playing back at me. But, at this point, I still only have a minimal amount invested, and I have even more leverage if the hand is premium.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I apologize for the confusion. There are times when a SS will raise the pot several times consecutively as opposed to a straight shove. This would be when I would 3-bet back at them. If I act first, I would shove if (for example) there are 2 SSers and the blinds left to act. True, there is always a risk of another deep stack playing back at me. But, at this point, I still only have a minimal amount invested, and I have even more leverage if the hand is premium.

Short stack strategy relies on a combination of 2 factors.

1. Fold equity

2. Showdown Equity (and the fact that most hands a SS will play against your range have 25%+ SD equity preflop)


When a SS raises and its not a shove FE is not maximised. If called, the SPR is low enough post-flop for decisions to be very simple.

Therefore a SS who is not simply folding or shoving is not employing a SS strategy and therefore is not the type of player that we are talking about.

In layman's terms, there is never a time a SS strategy requires a standard raise rather than a shove.

 

[ItsMe]

I see a great many now buying in shortish and then playing like they must win every hand. Obviously, they could have the nuts or more likely not much when they shove. It's the short stacked = maniac style I don't care for. I find I keep having to make marginal decisions with say mid pair when playing suited connectors. I also don't like the hit and run tactics i.e. double up and leave.

I have nothing against responsible play by short stacked players - well I can't because that's how I play if I buy in short.

 

[IcyBlueAce]

I love short stackers, at the microlimits I seem to be profiting the most from them. They are so predictable its not even funny, I see them as easy money.

I'm guessing at the higher limits they are actually good but I don't play those limits..