What percentage do you sit down with at a cash table?

[PokerVic]

Ratholers are just bad players looking for a quick 20BBs IMO and have no poker skill.

Man, what's with all the short-stack hate? I love playing against short-stackers, especially multi-tabling, because it makes my decisions that much easier. It's difficult to play short-stack correctly, which is why most of them are just bad players. But, if you know what you're doing, I'm sure it can be a good way to build a weak bankroll.

As for ratholing, if a short-stack comes in, doubles or triples up and leaves, I really don't care. There's always another one to take his place. In a casino, it's a different matter, but online I wouldn't worry about whether others are bitching about you in chat. If it makes them play worse when you eventually run into them again, all the better.

 

[lektrikguy]

Are you playing deep tables? No limit or pot limit?You really should have the max in case you hit a monster hand. I usually look for tables that have stacks around the max. If the max buy in is $5 then I don't want someone in there with $20. I also like to watc h the table for a few minutes to get a read on the players-see who is aggressive and who I can exploit.

 

[RogueRivered]

It's too much, BR management suggest max 5% of your BR at table at same time, all table combined.

I don't believe this is correct. The amount should be per table, not all of them combined. I like no more than 2% per table, and then play a lot at once. That seems safe.

 

[VerbalKint]

Short stackers used to bother me because every hand they were in had the possibility of them pushing no matter what they had. After a while I learned that as long as you be patient and stick to good solid poker decisions, then it doesn`t matter who you play against or how much they have in front of them. If you concentrate on making the correct play and if you take the correct line of thinking as it pertains to each situation, then the odds are in your favor in the long run. Short stacks are just another variation in the game that you must take account of, just like position, type of player, size of bets and such. In other words just learn to deal with it.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I don't believe this is correct. The amount should be per table, not all of them combined. I like no more than 2% per table, and then play a lot at once. That seems safe.

2% sounds alright.

You need less than 5% because you may be having an off day or get tilted and not realise it.. with 5% and 10 tables thats half your BR at stake.

5% is fine for a single table though

 

[Syfted]

Can anyone comment on this strategy? I want to buy in for 5% of my roll at a game, let's say a .25/.50, and I have a bankroll of $800. So I buy in for $40... let's say I do that and blow it. I buy in for another $40... lose it again. Now maybe I just quit for a bit, maybe I buy in again- but my roll is now at $720.

Should I buy in for (720)(.05) = $36, so that I'm only in for 5% of my roll? Or should I buy in for $40 again (5.5%) or even the table max (7%)?

This is a spot where I think buying in for $36 is okay. It will mean building my roll back up a little slower, but will only put 5% of my roll on the table, rather than 6% or 7%. It allows you to play the same players, table, and stake.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

There are a few misconceptions in this thread.

First of all, multitabling does not really affect BR management. As long as it does not degrade your win-rate, it does not matter at all whether you play a single table or 24 of them. You use bankroll management to protect against the variability of the cards, and that's independant from one table to the other, so really it does not matter if you are playing several tables in parallel or one after the other.

Secondly, you cannot cheat BRM buy buying in less than full at a table. The less big blinds you buy-in for, the higher the variance of your game will be, because it becomes correct to play for stacks with more and more marginal hands when your stack size decrease. So when we say that you need 20 buy-ins to play at a given stake, what we really mean is that you need 2000 big blinds.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Your strategy says, I'm a weak player. My post flop play is terrible, if I'm lucky enough to double up or tripple up, I must leave cause I will give you all my money back.

It sounds like you are waiting for priemium hands, and if you are like most short stackers you just go all in preflop and hope you win the race. Learn to play with a stack and you will make more money, more quickly on a more consistant bases. Your strategy is like playing tag with a 4 year old, everything is the base when they are about to get tagged. Learn to play with the big boys!!!

Obviously this should be their long-term goal but perhaps they're not a strong player and are not comfortable playing deepstacked play. If so then why would they choose to play where they're not comfortable and will be easily exploited??
If you can adopt a decent short-stack strategy and it's working for you.. then great.. go for it.
Your orginal question seems a bit blurred to me. What is it exactly that you're asking here.... 'how much of my total bankroll do I want to be playing with on any one table?' (answer will vary.. but more often than not, you want to have approx. 40buyins at the level you're playing.. some say 20). OR is your question "how many bb's do I buy in for on a table?" If this is the question, than I'd heed the advice above... if you're going to buyin short.. then go with the min. at 20bb's, otherwise buyin for the full amount.
There are some decent articles written about playing short-stacked buyin for online cash tables. If this is your approach I'd suggest reading up on them.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Can anyone comment on this strategy? I want to buy in for 5% of my roll at a game, let's say a .25/.50, and I have a bankroll of $800. So I buy in for $40... let's say I do that and blow it. I buy in for another $40... lose it again. Now maybe I just quit for a bit, maybe I buy in again- but my roll is now at $720.

Should I buy in for (720)(.05) = $36, so that I'm only in for 5% of my roll? Or should I buy in for $40 again (5.5%) or even the table max (7%)?

This is a spot where I think buying in for $36 is okay. It will mean building my roll back up a little slower, but will only put 5% of my roll on the table, rather than 6% or 7%. It allows you to play the same players, table, and stake.

I don't see any benefit in doing something like this at all... actually the opposite.
The BRM suggestions are to be rolled well enough for the level you're playing at but also to be playing at a level where you're playing profitably.
If the 'full buyin' on one table is just over 5% of your total roll.. no biggy. Don't keep this from having you buyin for the full amount.
If you want to drop down a buyin level until you have 20+ buyins, then do so.. but don't short yourself on a table just because you lost a buyin and now fall below the suggested 5% (or 20 buyins for the level you're playing at)

 

[zachvac]

Man, what's with all the short-stack hate? I love playing against short-stackers, especially multi-tabling, because it makes my decisions that much easier. It's difficult to play short-stack correctly, which is why most of them are just bad players. But, if you know what you're doing, I'm sure it can be a good way to build a weak bankroll.

As for ratholing, if a short-stack comes in, doubles or triples up and leaves, I really don't care. There's always another one to take his place. In a casino, it's a different matter, but online I wouldn't worry about whether others are bitching about you in chat. If it makes them play worse when you eventually run into them again, all the better.

The hate is because good shortstackers exploit a mathematical edge. Sorry but most people in this thread haven't played against good shortstackers. They make their money from re-stealing mostly and if you're not calling them down with hands like A5o, 66, etc. either they're not a very good shortstacker or you're not making the correct adjustment, my guess is the former though.

The theory is this, that from the shortstacker's point of view, everyone at the table has 20 big blinds. From your point of view however if you have 100 BBs, some have 100, some have less, and the shortstackers have 20. Now think about how we play 20 BBs deep vs. 100 BBs deep, take tourneys for example. With 20 BBs we are restealing but in general our range should mostly be the top, because we're going to be getting AIPF a lot and there won't be much postflop play. With 100 BBs deep we want hands that can flop big and can flop big draws that we can play aggressively. One pair probably won't win a stack so we either need something like a set or a combo draw to be playing for stacks with. This leads to us playing hands like suited connectors. So say the 100 BB stack raises from the cutoff, we have 78s. This is a pretty standard call (some people like to 3-bet a bit here but I think default play in general should be a call). Then the shortstack from the blinds shoves his 20 BBs in. What can we do? He's shoving a very wide range, but our 78s doesn't even beat a range of ATC. Sure we have a very good hand to play postflop with lots of money behind, but the shortstacker by shoving wide negates that and picks up free money.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Sorry but most people in this thread haven't played against good shortstackers.

+1.

people who don't complain about shortstackers are people who don't play high enough stakes to face good ones. Adjusting to the presence of good shortstackers at your table is possible, i.e. you can deny them their edge, but that means giving up on a lot of your edge on the other big stacks, which is terrible.

 

[zachvac]

I`d be interested to hear some details of your thoughts on that, Zach.

Well do you agree (take tourneys for example where we all get to play with all sorts of stacks) that playing with 50 BBs is different from playing with 100 BBs? If you buy-in for 50 and most have 100, you can play a style that is best for a 50 BB stack while the deeper players will be making minor mistakes in relation to you, very similar to the way a 20 BBer exploits the deeper player, just the 50 BB player can't exploit it quite as much.

I am not convinved of that. I do, and I am sure you do, but there are still lots of players who react with confusion and dismay when faced with shortstackers.

Well I'm talking about good regular players who play a ton of hands. There are enough bad shortstackers and good shortstackers that most regs can classify a player and know how to play against them (to take the bad ones' money and minimize the edge the good one has). Not many buy in for 50 BBs. What happens when you have TPTK against one and he looks ready to stack? Against a 100 BBer it would be an easy fold, against a shortstacker easy call. 50 BB it's a bit on the edge and is a much tougher decision. The 50 BBer will be used to it but the 100 BBer not so much, so this is an edge the 50 BBer has.

I can`t recall having seen a sensible discussion of the matter here, either, because threads that start discussing shortstacking usually descend into wailing and moaning about it, rather than actually analysing. Example:-

That's not wailing and moaning, simply stating facts .

 

[PokerVic]

I agree that most haven't played against good short-stackers. At 10NL (where I'm playing primarily), the vast majority of the SS players are just underfunded nits. When I find a player who is playing an aggressive short-stack strategy, then I'll adjust my calling range or simply find another table if he/she is sitting to my left.

But, I take an awful lot of notes on short-stackers for just this reason.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

At 10NL (where I'm playing primarily), the vast majority of the SS players are just underfunded nits.

At 200nl, the vast majority of SS players are 24-tabling rakeback pros.

 

[chefjimmy]

Unfortunately i dont care what the "regulars"or anyone else thinks,i,m only in this to increase my bankroll....this is what i,ve noticed over time.If i join a table where i,m way understacked...eventually if i sit long enough i will lose my winnings...its just the percentages...but if i set a goal,i reach the goal..i leave and bank the winnings and enter another or the same table{i could care less}with the original buy in...then my losses should i have any arent as severe...call me a rat or whatever...i could honestly care less....all i care about is reaching the next goal i,ve set for myself...this isnt my home game,these arent my friends,i,m only there to get a set amount and bank it...this is just good bankroll mgmt...like it or not.

 

[BuggyX]

i do the maximum buy in especially on those low NL tables

 

[dj11]

Unfortunately i dont care what the "regulars"or anyone else thinks,i,m only in this to increase my bankroll....this is what i,ve noticed over time.If i join a table where i,m way understacked...eventually if i sit long enough i will lose my winnings...its just the percentages...but if i set a goal,i reach the goal..i leave and bank the winnings and enter another or the same table{i could care less}with the original buy in...then my losses should i have any arent as severe...call me a rat or whatever...i could honestly care less....all i care about is reaching the next goal i,ve set for myself...this isnt my home game,these arent my friends,i,m only there to get a set amount and bank it...this is just good bankroll mgmt...like it or not.

I don't know where I stand as a shortstacker or not, but I seldom bu-in for the max. Keep in mind that I'm mainly playing limit, NOT no-limit. But Jimmies points are valid. I don't care either. While the full stackers bemoan the shortstackers, and probably are better players (how does one really define better?) at least in their own minds, isn't the ultimate scorecard our bankrolls?

In ring the fullstackers have to deal with the shortstackers, and in tourneys, the TAGS have to deal with those gawd damn agro maniaical fubar azzholes.

I am, by far, much better at tourneys than ring, but I need ring. Not sure exactly why, but I need ring........

 

[Egon Towst]

Well do you agree (take tourneys for example where we all get to play with all sorts of stacks) that playing with 50 BBs is different from playing with 100 BBs?

Definitely. I am mainly an MTT player (as I am sure you know), and well accustomed to playing with differing stack sizes. Relative stack size has a great bearing on play, particularly on pre-flop hand selection.

If you buy-in for 50 and most have 100, you can play a style that is best for a 50 BB stack while the deeper players will be making minor mistakes in relation to you, very similar to the way a 20 BBer exploits the deeper player, just the 50 BB player can't exploit it quite as much.

Agreed but, if most have 100, I`d suggest that my best course is to buy in for 20 and impose my game on them to the maximum extent. This is the main reason why conventional players dislike short-stackers. Their presence changes the nature of the game.

 

[zachvac]

I don't know where I stand as a shortstacker or not, but I seldom bu-in for the max. Keep in mind that I'm mainly playing limit, NOT no-limit. But Jimmies points are valid. I don't care either. While the full stackers bemoan the shortstackers, and probably are better players (how does one really define better?) at least in their own minds, isn't the ultimate scorecard our bankrolls?

In ring the fullstackers have to deal with the shortstackers, and in tourneys, the TAGS have to deal with those gawd damn agro maniaical fubar azzholes.

I am, by far, much better at tourneys than ring, but I need ring. Not sure exactly why, but I need ring........

In limit stack sizes are generally irrelevant. And shortstackers are far different from different player types. A shortstacker has a built-in advantage, plain and simple. An agro maniaical fubar azzhole can be adjusted to and exploited just like any other player type. The only adjustment to make against a shortstacker can lessen his edge and probably hurt your edge over the other deeper stacked players. And generally the deeper-stacked players win far more and in fact the shortstackers use their edge to beat rake but that's usually about all they can do. Rarely do their bankrolls grow faster than the solid deepstack players.

 

[zachvac]

Agreed but, if most have 100, I`d suggest that my best course is to buy in for 20 and impose my game on them to the maximum extent. This is the main reason why conventional players dislike short-stackers. Their presence changes the nature of the game.

Well the other thing is you can still exploit the fish for 50 BBs. So you still have a small built-in edge against deeper-stacked players, plus on top of that you can keep them off-balanced with a style they haven't seen so much before, and against fish you can still win 50 BBs when the idiots stack off with K8o all-in preflop.

 

[Pat Riot]

I don't believe this is correct. The amount should be per table, not all of them combined. I like no more than 2% per table, and then play a lot at once. That seems safe.

5% per table is too much

10 table and 50% of your BR is on table...
20 table and all your BR is on table...
Some play 24 tables on PS at same time so...

5% combined is the rule for cash game
2% is for MTT or SnG

 

[pokermatch]

I think you should stay in the stacks your playing right now. Usually people who play in low stacks arnt pros, and the bigger stacks you go to the better players you will find. Right now you have a technique that seems to be working for you. Keep it up and improve yourself at the position you are in right now. Later on when you feel confident enough then you can go up a table, and make sure you have a big enough bankroll to do about 25 buyins on that table. If you feel that the people are too good you might consider going down a stack, but if you see your income raising, stay there untill you feel confident enough to go to the next level.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

5% per table is too much

10 table and 50% of your BR is on table...
20 table and all your BR is on table...
Some play 24 tables on PS at same time so...

5% combined is the rule for cash game
2% is for MTT or SnG

this is just plain wrong.

 

[SONIC589]

5% per table is too much

10 table and 50% of your BR is on table...
20 table and all your BR is on table...
Some play 24 tables on PS at same time so...

5% combined is the rule for cash game
2% is for MTT or SnG

This just dosn't seem right...I wouldn't recommend this strategy
some parts made sense and other parts were off

 

[Poker Orifice]

5% per table is too much

10 table and 50% of your BR is on table...
20 table and all your BR is on table...
Some play 24 tables on PS at same time so...

5% combined is the rule for cash game
2% is for MTT or SnG

aiiiight yah... 'some' play 24tables at the same time.. BUT pretty sure none that are playing super micro limits.
So according to what you're saying here, if the guy was playing 20tables he'd need an $800 roll to plaly 2NL??? This seems more than a bit extreme. Seriously... and that's coming from a HUGE bankroll nit.