Why do I get caught up in these things? I tell myself to stay out of it -- I don't need the abuse, but I can't help it. I have to comment on things I don't agree with.
Do you have any clue about risk of ruin? Do you have any idea about the variance of shortstacking vs. fullstacking? Do you have any clue how BRM requirements were actually decided? Didn't think so. Google risk of ruin and do a bit of research.
I don't think you are listening to what I'm saying. If my
bankroll can't support buying in deep, I just shouldn't play? Or I should play with less of my bankroll on a table at once? I think it's the latter.
I know you're too high up to understand people just starting out at the lowest levels, but they have to start somewhere. Is that a crime?
lol this is entertaining. Do you not realize that when you are HU against a shortstack you are essentially a shortstack as well? Yet shortstacking is boring but playing against them is just part of the game you deal with? Also if it is boring you can bet fish will notice it. They are playing to have fun and if they are playing a boring style (which you admit shortstacking is and by extension playing against a shortstacker is) I'm sure they can find something else more fun to do.
Of course I understand effective stack size. That doesn't mean that I can't find it fun to play against other players with a couple shortstackers thrown in, while not finding it fun to play shortstack myself. Occasionally the shortstackers will effect a hand, make it harder for you to steal, etc. But it doesn't happen nearly as often as you make it out to be. I don't think the fish find it boring to gamble their small buy-ins -- it's probably the opposite for them, they like it.
I have yet to see proof that shortstacking lowers risk. If you are 1-tabling or something and have a 1 buy-in stop loss I agree with you. However most normal poker players actually play quite a few hands and since the variance is so much worse shortstacking you really don't have that much less chance of going bust. Again read up on risk of ruin and maybe you'll understand a bit more.
If you don't put the money on the table, you can't lose it. Of course it lowers risk, especially against strong players that can threaten you with their large stacks. The variance of any given hand or session may be higher, but that's not what I'm talking about.
hmm, maybe because in the original form (live) of the game the minimum buy-in is usually 40-50 BBs? Maybe because buying in deep quite simply is not exploiting the rules at all? A deepstack simply can not exploit a shortstack any more than a shortstack can. To the shortstack all other stack sizes are the same. A shortstack on the other hand can exploit the deepstack because to the deepstack the shortstacks and deepstacks are different. So that's how I can say that.
Again, the rules are what they are. If you are going to play, and the rules say a player can buy in anywhere from 20 - 200bb deep, why bellyache about someone following the rules? If you don't like the rules, don't play. If you can get the rules changed, fine.
Since they shove top of their range the only way to counteract them is to not steal as much which is pointless because your profits when the deepstack fish calls and the shortstack folds will be a lot more than when you have to fold to the shortstack shove.
I can see that this is why it irritates players; it takes away one of their biggest money-making strategies. I guess you just need to watch out for SSers on your left; if you get one, move. A pain, I know. Or don't try to steal with garbage. They'll still be reraising wide if what you say is true, so wait for a better opportunity and take their stack.
Well yeah, they don't have to think much so it's quite easy to play a ton of hands and they probably have tens of thousands of hands on most regs. Not sure what that has to do with anything though.
I'll bet the best SSers study up against particular players they see over and over. If they can devise a strategy to win under the rules, what's wrong with that?
lol you're kidding right? This is just plain wrong from a theoretical point of view and realistically. The big winning shortstackers that play the mid-high stakes (not so much high because they almost always are playing deep tables to avoid shortstackers) all re-steal extremely wide. It's a fact. Just because the shortstackers at your games wherever you play are exploiting the moron regs doesn't mean that at higher stakes nitting it up as a shortstacker is profitable.
Why do you insist on upping the stakes? I'm just talking about basic $1-$2 nl players. Everyone of those I've seen plays tight and pushes their good
hands hard. Can you give me an example from Table Ratings? I'd like to see what you mean, because I haven't run into that, either in my own games, or studying higher limits by watching hand replays.
lol because they're playing at lower stakes. Show me a solid winning shortstacker at 400nl+ who is a nit. Oh wait that's right you can't. Some of the rakeback pros are nits but the real winners are the ones re-stealing well and adjusting to the re-stealing ranges of regs.
Show me one that isn't, but you don't have to go 400nl+. Just your basic $1-$2 nl player will do. I've never studied 400 nl players; they're a bit over my bankroll! My target is 1-2 nl, the point where people can start thinking about making a living.
Just couldn't help myself on this one! Aside from being pointless to play against. The people who sit with the table minimum are in reality hurting themselves. The point is playing cards with money is to make money and you sure as shit aren't gonna win anything sittin with the table minimum