RING: Why do people NOT like short stackers?

[nevadanick]

No calling them scumbag is not right they are Arseholes, they dont play poker, they play Bingo, but they are a good source of cash anyway. :smile:

Z says: They are a good source of cash.

Belgo says: "They are strictly parasites on the deep stack games who cannot survive by themselves".

Trigga says: "they are newbies and will soon learn why SS is -EV".

Why would anyone NOT want...

1. A good source of cash ?
2. Parasites who cannot survive ?
3. SS players who live by -EV ?

 

[TPC]

I have called a SS at a live table a "scumbag". Although, I prefer to call them all in idiot moron because my post flop game it terrible douche bags!!! Not afraid to say exactly what I think to anyone live or online.

 

[vanquish]

Z says: They are a good source of cash.

Belgo says: "They are strictly parasites on the deep stack games who cannot survive by themselves".

Trigga says: "they are newbies and will soon learn why SS is -EV".

Why would anyone NOT want...

1. A good source of cash ?
2. Parasites who cannot survive ?
3. SS players who live by -EV ?

1. they're not a "good source of cash"
2. because they can survive as long as they have hosts (hosts being non-SS players), and there will always be hosts
3. uh...

 

[S93]

Z says: They are a good source of cash.

Belgo says: "They are strictly parasites on the deep stack games who cannot survive by themselves".

Trigga says: "they are newbies and will soon learn why SS is -EV".

Why would anyone NOT want...

1. A good source of cash ? Cause at the lowest stakes SS are veryvery bad, and dont know how to play prober SS strategy.
2. Parasites who cannot survive ? Cause they can survive if there alowed to play with 100bb+ players but if the sites where to make a rule that every SS could only play with other SS they would most likly ALL end up losing
3. SS players who live by -EV ?
Cause there are actualy SS that are unbeatable, you wont find them at the micros and i dont think if ever played with one but there are 100nl+ SS that play a unbeatable game, there not making alot of money by doing it but masstabling and grinding up thouse FPPs and rackback means there making decent money.

Above.

 

[RichKo]

I don't usually play alot of ring games, but when I do, I love shortstackers. They usually only play decent hands and fold everything else, so if you raise and they reraise fold, and most of the times they are the ones folding. And when you do make a monster, they will usually pay you off if they have any ace or paint for that fact. And of course you will lose occassionally, but I've won more than lost against th ss'ers.

 

[nevadanick]

I don't usually play alot of ring games, but when I do, I love shortstackers. They usually only play decent hands and fold everything else, so if you raise and they reraise fold, and most of the times they are the ones folding. And when you do make a monster, they will usually pay you off if they have any ace or paint for that fact. And of course you will lose occassionally, but I've won more than lost against th ss'ers.

THIS .. ^^^^^ makes the most sense to me, so far.

and I lose 'occassionally' no matter WHAT game, levels or stakes I play.

 

[zachvac]

Define good. I seem to find loose ones I can punish.

The ones who don't make many mistakes?

How's that?

next answer should explain.

What's their edge?

From their point of view they are playing at a table full of shortstacks while you have to handle a table with deeper stacks and shortstacks. When you're playing against shortstacks such as in a turbo or just other sng when lots of people have like ~20 BBs you're looking to play hands that flop pairs and have good high card value. 67s 20 BBs deep is trash. On the other hand if you're 200 BBs deep 67s is an awesome hand to play especially in position. The difference is you can apply a lot of pressure with draws and make the nuts. On the other hand if you're 20 BBs deep you want to be pushing hands like AT, KQ, hands that are likely to flop top pair or possibly even just be good for their high-card value.

So let's do this situation, you're on the button and you have a pro shortstack in the SB and a fishy deep stack in the BB. What's your raising range? On the one hand you want to play a ton of hands against the fishy deepstacker but on the other hand if you open wide the shortstacker can exploit this and resteal on you. Compare that to a pro deepstacker and a fishy deepstacker. The pro deepstacker can still 3-bet you but you can be flatting 3-bets with a hand like 67s or 4-bet him light. Neither of these options are available against a shortstacker and even if he shoves 100% of his range you still can't call with 67s. On the other hand the hands that play well against the shortstacker are going to suck 200 BBs deep. You open raise A9o and the pro shortstacker folds, now you're playing a deep pot with A9o, not the best situation. So you're forced to go one way or the other. Most people choose to still open 67s and just let the shortstacker gain that bit of ev for the ev they gain when the shortstack folds and they play a deep hand against a fish. But the point is the shortstacker is taking away value and it has nothing to do with his skill.

Now to further this analysis say you're shortstacking and have the same situation on the button. Folded to you pro shortstacker and fishy deepstacker in the blinds. Do you still have that dilemna? Nope. You can open hands like A9 and if the fishy deepstack calls you can be stacking off if you hit an A and not even think twice. You now are essentially facing two shortstacks which is a lot easier than having to deal with a shortstack and a deepstack which require different strategy.

See what we mean about it having nothing to do with them being good? Most players don't hate shortstackers because they're good, they hate them because they have the mathematical advantage of effectively playing at a table with all similar stacks while the deeper stacks now have to deal with the variety of stack sizes and different strategies against each of them.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

A few things:

Anybody ITT who thinks that deepstacked players can profit from shortstacked ones in NL games is either playing microstakes or delusional.

SS are not a problem in live games because they can't rathole. And usually they can't buy in for 20bb either. Also, you can't SS professionally live as the edges are too small. You can do it professionally online at 200nl and above by multitabling.

Deepstack players keep on asking the sites for anti SS measures. The sites offer some (FTP deep tables, PS 50bb min tables) but not too many. Mostly because by reducing the edge good players have against fishes, the SS increase the variance of the game and the time it takes to move money from fishes to regs, and therefore increase the rake the rooms get.

 

[Zorba]

1. they're not a "good source of cash"

What I meant is very well answered by sindri below

1. A good source of cash ? Cause at the lowest stakes SS are veryvery bad, and dont know how to play prober SS strategy.

The main reason I don't like them is that I mainly play poker for relaxation and enjoyment, and while having an enjoyable game with ppl that have brought in at the table limit up pop's a SS who then proceeds to shove almost every hand, which changes the mood of most players at the table, the good source of cash comment was made as alot of these type of SS's are shoving with rubbish more than 50% of the time, Ive had them stacking off with 79os and lesser cards.

****Edit****
After reading Belgo's last I just want to clarify that I am not delusional, I am though a Micro player, at 25nl most of the time.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

No, I've seen these comments regularly by Belgo. His opinion never changes. I don't play nlhe ring at any stakes, so it doesn't affect me 'personally' one way or the other. But calling any player who buys into a table according to the rules and requirements "a scumbag" is not right.

Move up to 200nl, play 50k hands at non-deep, non-50bbmin tables while buying in for 100bb and then we can talk. You will realize "scumbag" is actually a really pleasant term to describe shortstackers.

It's easy to have grand principles when you're playing freerolls. Try playing against pros like vanq, zach or I do every day.

 

[Tygran]

I don't usually play alot of ring games, but when I do, I love shortstackers. They usually only play decent hands and fold everything else, so if you raise and they reraise fold, and most of the times they are the ones folding. And when you do make a monster, they will usually pay you off if they have any ace or paint for that fact. And of course you will lose occassionally, but I've won more than lost against th ss'ers.

Bolded, font increased and turned red for extra emphasis. This is the problem with your entire post. I'm in belgo's camp that (good) short stackers are basically parasites playing an unimaginative and boring game and that there edge only exists because a large percentage of players want to play full/deep stacked instead. Not to knock you or single you out, but there is alot of misinformation running around in this thread i think.



HOWEVER, one thing that's worth pointing out...This only applies to good short stackers... and many who are posting in this thread have little to no experience with good short stackers.

GOOD short stackers are actually fairly rare at the micros. They exist, but they are outnumbered by braindead moron short-stackers who are buying in for $11 for god-knows-what reasons...then either play scared fit-and-fold or like a maniac and will stack off with almost ATC every time... these types are easy to beat AND most likely what many of the people in this thread think of when they think of "short stackers".

A good shorty is basically playing a push/fold strat that is pretty rigidly definied and gives them a slight mathematical edge... They are also usually massively multi-tabling (think 25+ tables). Basically what they are doing with their push/fold strat is they are trying to flip a slightly weighted (in their favor) coin as many times as humanly possible. They also gain some edge by intelligently exploiting and screwing up some plays that would be +EV for a deep stack play (and pissing off said deep stack player).


I really hate the style cause it makes it that much harder to play deep stack poker and because it's a fairly basic strat that could be programmed into a bot fairly easily...


DISCLAIMER: The Ambien is kicking in so if when I reread this in the morning and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... I'll know why

 

[KoRnholio]

Some of you are making the mistake of thinking that short stackers are bad just because they don't buy in for the max. Truth is, there are bad players, both full and short stacked. They aren't mutually exclusive.

A solid short stack strategy is very hard to beat. One of the biggest things about it is that while everyone else is playing a deep stacked game, the SS can pick profitable spots simply due to having less money at risk.

For instance, a deep stacked player will make a call or raise with a good deep stack implied odds hand like T9s or 44. The deep stacked player isn't doing anything wrong, as his/her aim is the other deep stacks at the table. But the SS player can get way the best of this by playing their premium hand heads up against the wider range of the deep stacked player.

Personally, I am a tourny donk and don't have much experience with deep stacked and slow paced poker. When I do play NL cash online I usually short stack. I'd like to get better at deep stacked poker, but online it is terribly boring playing the set mining deep stacked game at tight tables. At most sites even the 100NL games are a total rockfest.

 

[Stick66]

Good stuff, guys.

So it seems like it's all about the limited rewards the shorties offer combined with the threat of the other deep stacks capitalizing on the adjustments in your play towards the shorties.

Ok. I'm gettin' it. Seems like the only way to truly capitalize on a less-than-solid short stacker is to sit on his left and isolate him in late position to go HU for his stack. That chance only comes once or twice per round and his presence can actually hurt my play at other times against the other deeps.

I guess my mistake has been considering their skill more than the other more important factors.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

So it seems like it's all about the limited rewards the shorties offer combined with the threat of the other deep stacks capitalizing on the adjustments in your play towards the shorties.

usually it's the other way round. Apart from very specific situations, you don't really adjust to the presence of shortstackers because most your edge at the table comes from outplaying the other deep stacks, and adjusting to SS play would kill that edge, so you just let the SS steal from you from time to time.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

A good shorty is basically playing a push/fold strat

good ones actually also need to steal quite a lot with minraises (or 2.5bb) and know when to commit on the flop or not. But yeah, most of their edge comes from knowing when to 3bet push profitably.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

If you want to see the kind of game decent shortstackers play, watch the hand replays for these players:

http://www.pokertableratings.com/fulltilt-player-search/tougherfish

http://www.pokertableratings.com/fulltilt-player-search/dhde1328

 

[FTPHeHaTeMe]

if you come in with a short stack, depending on how short it is that would be. If i have $167.00 and you come in with $26.00 then obviously people wont like having to be in the shove or fold mode. In this sitution if you raise with like 77 then I have found that the short stack always tries to push to take your raise. That is the only real reason I could see

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I have always had a feeling the main problem people have with shortstackers is that the mess up a particular view of "the perfect game". It's just several levels up from the problem of the maniac at the table for new players. The new player doesn't know how to play against the maniac so he often tilts and loses. I do think this situation is far more complicated because it disturbes a more 3 dimensional aspect of the game than the simple problem of the chip hydrant maniac. But essentially it is a more complex version of the same problem.

In my experience any time folks passionately hate something about a particular sort of play it is because they either do not know how to adjust and exploit, or do not want to go to the trouble of changing their game. Or is takes away some of the edge they may have against those players, or even the table in general. But this is how poker works!

I'll use myself as an example.

I used to complain that the advent and use of HUDs and multitabling have destroyed poker by changing it at its very core.

And there is some truth to this. At least insofar as *I* get to define the word "poker".

Really what it has done is challenge what *I* think is the purest form of the game and created a situation in which I am uncomfortable.

But that's just how the game works. I look at the statement "They are ruining the game" and the like as a slightly more advanced version of the "Rigged!!" claim. It is a way we allow our brains to fool us into thinking the pain we feel from being beaten by a player we do not understand, or are unwilling to change in the face of, is not our fault.

Poker will continue to evolve and make players uncomfotable... If it doesn't we will all be sad, because then the game is just solved, and won't be worth playing any more.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

In my experience any time folks passionately hate something about a particular sort of play it is because they either do not know how to adjust and exploit, or do not want to go to the trouble of changing their game.

This is bullshit.

I know how to play their game. I know how to adjust to their game. It does not prevent me from suffering from a lower win rate because of them, because they exploit a mathematical edge in mixed depth games.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

This is bullshit.

I know how to play their game. I know how to adjust to their game. It does not prevent me from suffering from a lower win rate because of them, because they exploit a mathematical edge in mixed depth games.

You might have missed the part I added shortly after posting.. the third thing which is evidently your complaint.

Or is takes away some of the edge they may have against those players, or even the table in general. But this is how poker works!

The fact this issue makes you so passionately mad kind of weirds me out as I see you as being a pretty damn smart guy who can probably in against most of the people on this board.

If shortstackers can drop your winrate then they are exploiting something about they way you play.

I mean this makes me mad too... but it is what it is. I don't like the idea that as I move up the ranks I am going to run into more and more savvy technical multitablers like you who might have even bought enough of my stats online to know more about my own play than I know about it myself. (Not saying you buy hands).

The more guys like you I face the lower my winrate will be.

But that doesn't make you a illegitimate player or a scumbag does it?

In fact... doesn't that make you a good player... or smart to have found a way to exploit fish like me?

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Its often stated on here that SS players under 100NL are hit so hard by the rake that their overall profit is very small.

Its not surprising that deep stacked players get annoyed by SS players when they reduce the DS win rate and yet make very little for themselves.

The good DS player still makes more money, but the figure is reduced by the presence of the SS.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

It's easy to have grand principles when you're playing freerolls. Try playing against pros like vanq, zach or I do every day.

Only one last thing.. then I will skulk away to my kiddie tables.

That sort of thing is terribly frustrating to me.

I have respect for your game and what you post here. I consider you to be an asset to this forum, you won't find me disrespecting your play. I am also willing to assume I just don't get it because I know that poker always looks different from different skill levels.

But hyperbolic ad hominem insults dilute your argument.

Respect...

 

[zachvac]

To people who don't see the problem with shortstackers, would you have a problem if the poker sites made minimum buy-in 1 BB? If so why?

 

[bob_tiger]

Hate to repeat what already has been posted, but really SS ruin the edge good deep stacked players have against other deep stacked fish. zach did a pretty good job explaining why so read above. many regs try to gets the sites to get rid of short stackers but it will never happen because they create action and help generate rake. also being a SS doesnt take skill, just understanding basic math and you can make a living multi table shorstacking 100nl+ easily from FPP, rakeback and the small winrate.

So all of you that think you have an edge against a shortstack and can "bully" them around, you really don't, you can't double barrel, you can't float, you can't bluff raise or any of that stuff, because SS will commit with top pair like everytime while you can make those kind of plays against deep stacked players and bluff them off hands.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

If shortstackers can drop your winrate then they are exploiting something about they way you play.

That would be fine, but they don't. They exploit having a smaller stack size in a deep stack game, regardless of how i play.

If everybody bought in as short as they do, they would become losers (everybody would be) and stop playing. So they are truely parasitic in the litteral sense of the word and deserve every single ounce of hatred they receive.