Traffic Growth at Poker Sites.
---
I've always thought that there was no EV difference between playing a short stack and deep stack. But this post seems to argue that shortstack play results in higher winrates. I'm not sure if I believe it. There are some winning shortstack players, and playing a shortstack style has its merits.
Still, I don't believe there's an inherent advantage to playing a short stack instead of a deeper one. It's just different.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i hate short stackers, as they tend to be hit and run artist to boot. Especially the ones that buy in for 20 to 40 BB. That being said, I often buyin at 60 to 70 buyins for the first 3 or 4 orbits to get a feel for the table.
I do see the merits of short buyins, and I have brought in for 40 bbs solely to put it all in early to get a crazy image, then i tighten up and complete a full load.
I prefer to sit down with 50 BB and will top up if the table conditions look good. But against a table full of solid players or tight players, short-stack play can really dominate.
You know the expression "Don't go broke with top pair."? Or have you ever heard that short-stack players are donkeys, fish, or playing too high for their bankroll? These are just two reasons why solid short-stacked play and a knowledge of stack-to-pot ratios can crush many games.
As for the players who buy-in for 20 - 40 BB, I think they're just donkeys or fish playing in games too big for their bankroll...
Actually I think there can be value in playing many different stack levels. Some 20 BB buy-in players do very well. And Wes previously pointed out in response to a previous post that he's done well short-stacking at higher limits.
So I think it's a matter of style and situation what stack you want to use.
What I'm not convinced of, though, is that there's a real EV difference in stack sizes. Of course they're played differently, but I don't believe you automatically have a bigger monetary edge by downwardly adjusting your buy-in.
Post a Comment