RING: Why do people NOT like short stackers?

[bob_tiger]

Come on. You should know that shortstacks in MTT and cash are entirely different issues. In MTTs, ICM makes the last chips of a shorty a lot more valuable in $ than the equivalent chips for a deepstacked player, and that changes entirely who bullies and who gets bullied.

Also, you can't rathole MTTs, you can't buy-in half stacked for $100 in the sunday million, none of the scum tactics used by SS parasites apply in MTTs.

i guess belgo is a steap ahead of me

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

I think that shortstacking is a valid strategy, especially for people that are just moving into ring games and want to "test the water" with minimal risk.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I think that shortstacking is a valid strategy, especially for people that are just moving into ring games and want to "test the water" with minimal risk.

How so?

SS strategy is different to DS strategy.

How does a person get DS experience by playing SS'ed?

 

[Egon Towst]

I play cash games also, Olivier, and I understand the issues. I am not trying to suggest that Ring and MTT are the same. Obv they are not.

Perhaps I am explaining myself poorly. I am trying to say that the table conditions are what they are. They are given. As a player, one`s task is to find the optimum line in the existing conditions, not to cry and wail that one would prefer them to be otherwise. I suggest that MTT players necessarily become more used to working within different (sometimes sub-optimal) environments and don`t see the difficulty.

Since short-stacking is allowable (and common-place on some sites), that is the environment within which one must play. Railing against it is pointless. Rather like saying that you don`t care to be wet, so you demand that it should never rain again.

You would do better to save your emotions and buy an umbrella.

 

[bob_tiger]

I think that shortstacking is a valid strategy, especially for people that are just moving into ring games and want to "test the water" with minimal risk.

shortstacking takes less skill than playing deepstacked and if you don't have an edge against other players than yea it is the best strategy if you understand what to do but if you don't then "you" (not talking about you specifically) are just another bad player to us.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

this thread tilts me immensely and i don't even play ring games.

seriously how/why is there even a debate going on here?

 

[pantin007]

this thread tilts me immensely and i don't even play ring games.

seriously how/why is there even a debate going on here?

beat me to it

 

[BelgoSuisse]

I think that shortstacking is a valid strategy, especially for people that are just moving into ring games and want to "test the water" with minimal risk.

Then I want to have the same ability to try out tournaments. Let me buy into a $100 tournament for $20 and give me 20% of the starting stack.

 

[switch0723]

fwiw, shortstacking isn't 'the game evolving' since shortstackers are ever so slowly killing the games, so its more 'the game dieing'

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

How so?

SS strategy is different to DS strategy.

How does a person get DS experience by playing SS'ed?

I can't see anything in what I said which could give somebody the impression that playing short-stacked could somehow magically give experience of playing deep-stacked. I said it minimised the risk.

 

[pantin007]

I can't see anything in what I said which could give somebody the impression that playing short-stacked could somehow magically give experience of playing deep-stacked. I said it minimised the risk.

tbh, it doesnt minimize the risk as a good ss strategy is quite high in variance

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I can't see anything in what I said which could give somebody the impression that playing short-stacked could somehow magically give experience of playing deep-stacked. I said it minimised the risk.

You also said 'test the water' which implies that a person is able to gauge their DS ability at a higher level by playing a SS game.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Then I want to have the same ability to try out tournaments. Let me buy into a $100 tournament for $20 and give me 20% of the starting stack.

Everyone is free to do whatever the poker site they play on decides is acceptable. Maybe you should lobby them not to allow short-stackers, by increasing the minimum buy-in.

 

[pantin007]

You also said 'test the water' which implies that a person is able to gauge their DS ability at a higher level by playing a SS game.

test the water as in try ring games?

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Since short-stacking is allowable (and common-place on some sites), that is the environment within which one must play. Railing against it is pointless. Rather like saying that you don`t care to be wet, so you demand that it should never rain again.

You would do better to save your emotions and buy an umbrella.

Yes and no.

There's a continuous adjustment between the poker rooms and the regs about this. The rooms obviously favor high variance/low edge games, so they profit from lowering the minimum buy-in as much as possible. The regs obviously want to play high edge games, so they want the tables to be as deep as possible.

Railing against SS - and sometimes threatening the rooms to move you 4+ figures monthly MGR somewhere else - is what prevents the rooms from totally screwing this up. Might not matter much over here at CC, but it does when we do in some threads of the arithmetic forum.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Everyone is free to do whatever the poker site they play on decides is acceptable. Maybe you should lobby them not to allow short-stackers, by increasing the minimum buy-in.

i do.

i actually withdrew my entire bankroll from FTP a month and a half ago when their latest update had screwed up the deep tables. Those came back a few days later, because clearly i was not the only reg who had reacted that way.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

You also said 'test the water' which implies that a person is able to gauge their DS ability at a higher level by playing a SS game.

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. I think it's fairly obvious (to most people) that playing short-stacked isn't going to give them experience of playing deep-stacked. It is one way of tournament players gaining experience of cash games, and a lot of the SS strategies that I have read up about have claimed that it minimises the risk. If it doesn't, then I bow to Pantin's experience in these matters.

 

[vanquish]

I play cash games also, Olivier, and I understand the issues. I am not trying to suggest that Ring and MTT are the same. Obv they are not.

Perhaps I am explaining myself poorly. I am trying to say that the table conditions are what they are. They are given. As a player, one`s task is to find the optimum line in the existing conditions, not to cry and wail that one would prefer them to be otherwise. I suggest that MTT players necessarily become more used to working within different (sometimes sub-optimal) environments and don`t see the difficulty.

Since short-stacking is allowable (and common-place on some sites), that is the environment within which one must play. Railing against it is pointless. Rather like saying that you don`t care to be wet, so you demand that it should never rain again.

You would do better to save your emotions and buy an umbrella.

so let's say there was a slew of people who wanted poker sites to reduce the minimum buy-in for standard rings games from 20 BB down to 5 BB, otherwise they wouldn't play on the site. this would allow the site to make, say, 5% more money per year. the sites say, alright, well it's a valid strategy, let's allow it, and players who don't like this can just "buy an umbrella."

what would you say to these claims?

 

[eNTy]

Everyone is free to do whatever the poker site they play on decides is acceptable. Maybe you should lobby them not to allow short-stackers, by increasing the minimum buy-in.

The question of this thread was why do people hate shortstackers.
I think we have now sufficiently established why we hate shortstackers.

Why hasn't this thread ended yet.

 

[Dwilius]

would you have a problem if the sites lowered the min buy-in to 1 BB? 50nl players could now choose to buy in for 50c etc. Would you have a problem with it? They would have the ultimate edge mathematically and if you can understand that hopefully you can extend that to understand why 20 BBers have an edge and it has nothing to do with skill.

I don't understand this, wouldn't that be the ultimate disadvantage since you'd be immediately forced all in with a random hand while the rest of the table decided whether their hand was good enough to put money on. I guess you mean dead money would more than make up for that? That would depend how often people vp$ip/fold before showdown at these new minbuyin tables.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. I think it's fairly obvious (to most people) that playing short-stacked isn't going to give them experience of playing deep-stacked. It is one way of tournament players gaining experience of cash games, and a lot of the SS strategies that I have read up about have claimed that it minimises the risk. If it doesn't, then I bow to Pantin's experience in these matters.

You have two conflicting ideas going on here.

1. that SS strategy is a viable means of gaining cash game experience whilst minimising risk.

2. that SS strategy bears no resemblance to the DS play encountered at cash tables.

How does playing SS actually give a player any experience of playing in a DS cash game? Surely it just gives them experience of playing SS stratagy in a cash game. How does this ease the transition. If or when they decide to play DS, how will their SS knowlege aid them?

 

[pantin007]

You have two conflicting ideas going on here.

1. that SS strategy is a viable means of gaining cash game experience whilst minimising risk.

2. that SS strategy bears no resemblance to the DS play encountered at cash tables.

How does playing SS actually give a player any experience of playing in a DS cash game? Surely it just gives them experience of playing SS stratagy in a cash game. How does this ease the transition. If or when they decide to play DS, how will their SS knowlege aid them?

wat

 

[Egon Towst]

so let's say there was a slew of people who wanted poker sites to reduce the minimum buy-in for standard rings games from 20 BB down to 5 BB, otherwise they wouldn't play on the site. this would allow the site to make, say, 5% more money per year. the sites say, alright, well it's a valid strategy, let's allow it, and players who don't like this can just "buy an umbrella."

what would you say to these claims?

I would say that if my uncle had tits he`d be my aunt.

Fortunately, he doesn`t and is never likely to, so that is a pointless flight of fancy.

 

[vanquish]

I would say that if my uncle had tits he`d be my aunt.

Fortunately, he doesn`t and is never likely to, so that is a pointless flight of fancy.

you're basically saying "well this is the way the site's built, so too bad, better learn to deal with it." my point is that if it's bad for the games, it's legitimate to be enraged and demand changes. remember when 10nl on FT was unbeatable due to rake? did the players "buy an umbrella," or did they stand up in rage and have the issue resolved? that's right, it was the latter.

for midstakes 100 BB regs, those 20 BB shortstackers are the same parasites that 5 BB players would be to a person like you, who doesn't care if there's shortstackers at the table. our stance is valuable and massively important, as we're the ones paying the site most of the rake.




belgo's point on buying into a tournament for 20% of the buy-in fee for 20% of the starting stack stands unanswered as well

 

[Stick66]

this thread tilts me immensely and i don't even play ring games.

seriously how/why is there even a debate going on here?

Yep. I was just wondering about the technical specifics. I learned all that on the 1st page. I haven't learned much since though (except maybe what exactly "parasitism" is ).

The question of this thread was why do people hate shortstackers.
I think we have now sufficiently established why we hate shortstackers.

Why hasn't this thread ended yet.

My fault. I should have asked "What is it technically about cash game short stackers that takes away a deep stacker's edge?". Though it IS interesting to see the passion that the subject of cash short stackers brings out in some people. Another thing I learned, I guess.