Wading back into this for some reason.
I am somewhat indifferent on the concept of whether shortstackers are good or evil. So right up front I am not defending their play as much as playing a little devils advocate.
The restated argument that micro players cannot understand how shortstackers make their money because they don't have the experience of higher limit players is a fallacy.
It's obvious to me that not all of us kiddie table players understand from the comments I read here. Some comments are ignorant.
I*think* I get it though.
Shortstackers use a mathematical edge by leveraging the power of tiny little ICM like push fold decisions in a cash game, reducing the game to a one dimensional strategy via which they can (if they are good at it, or their software is) eek out enough winrate to make a tiny amount of money usually after bonuses.
This screws up the game for players who play (what they perceive is) a more 3d form of "real" poker where their edge comes from exploiting bad players over the course of the hand. When the shortstacker comes in throwing bombs he effectively forces the deep player to play a one dimensional shortstacked game part of the time.
I get it. And I see why it sucks. I also think some of us other lowly micro players get it too.
The question some of us are asking is: "How is this not just the nature of poker"?
The problem as I see it, is this is the second big evolution of poker which has been caused by the game going online and being played on your computer screen.
The ONLY way the loathed shortstacker can make this worth his time is to play many many hands per hour. But since they can, there is a specific safe(ish) strategy for not losing.
The first giant revolution of poker was when online play allowed players to multitable in the first place. The addition of datamining and real time HUDs changed the game entirely in the same way shortstackers are changing it. They (somewhat passivlely) reduced anyone's win-rate who did not play this new form of game.
It was not too many years ago that the idea of playing more than 2 tables was anathema to most pros. "You drop your winrate" they would say. But as all good (and most bad) multitabling players now know not only can you sustain more $/hr but you even out the risk substantially. You'r edge might become finer, but that is actually safer poker in the end.
Shortstackers are just a new branch in the evolution of
online poker.
I kind of wish we could all only play 1 table (ok maybe 2) and huds didn't exist. I think the game would be far more fun, and my edge would go up greatly since this is the situation in which I am most comfortable. But nomatter how hard I wish for this to be true it most likely never will be.
Poker is going to continue to evolve. There will be the occasional bright flame who rises above the pack in savant like glory... and there will be the hoardes of dull minded robots who develop thinner and thinner edges with less and less risk using more science and less art.
Poker is going to continue to evolve. We either evolve with it, or get left behind muttering about "scumbags".
My money is on the "belgos" evolving. Some of the "cAPSLOCKS" are gonna do their best to come along too.
