]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:32 am
]]>
As for calling it "short-stacked"... fair enough. Half-stack or partial-stack is fine. The strategy is very different (at least for me).
As for the "symmetric situation", I find that a lot of the players at the 1000s are calling stations -- that is, they'll call down with any flush even if you have the nuts. This makes implied odds more valuable. On the other hand there are a lot of times in multiway pots that a river card may fall that could theoretically beat your previously made high. If you are at about 60-75% of a stack, there's usually not enough left for them to make an effective bluff (e.g., bluffing made nut low into a paired flush board) if the pot is multiway. In HU pots you can run into bluffing issues with a 70bb stack, but I have a lot of confidence in my ability to handle these situations. I guess I'm saying that I think foregoing the implied odds is more of a sacrifice than allowing yourself a slightly bigger stack that can get bluffed on scary rivers.
I'd be REALLY happy if you could give me some pointers on the "real" short-stacked strategy. PM me if you don't want it on public boards.
Thanks for your comments.
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:29 am
]]>
]]>
On Page 9 I gave an initial review of what I thought about the differences in levels. This is a continuation of that post.
400s
I am gradually having less and less respect for the 400s. These guys are just too weak tight. Great... you've figured out how to play the nuts. What are you going to do when no one will pay you off?
I'm convinced that the weak tight winners in this game have three characteristics that differentiate them from the others : 1) they're willing to let go of strong losing hands (a.k.a. trap hands) earlier, 2) they play marginal hands better, 3) they know how to fleece a LAG or sLAG player.
The players I have the most respect for, however, are the LAGs that tear this game up. HOSSSE_U is one of those players. Watching him work a table is awesome. Watching his university peer, GASSS_U work a table is even more amazing... but I'm getting ahead of myself. Anyway, HOSSSE_U seems to know just when and how to show down his marginal hands for half and when and how to put maximum pressure one the weak tighties. I know for a fact that he's stealing like a mofo, but it's REALLY hard to figure out when he's stealing and when he's got the goods. It's awesome to see him work some weak tightie into such a frenzy that they get stacked off when he has nut-nut.
600s
Sometimes these tables play like 400s, and sometimes they play like 1000s. As such, there's really no reason to describe these tables. It helps to know whether you're playing with a bunch of 400 players or a bunch of 1000 and 2000 players.
1000s
This is where the game changes.
Interestingly, I think nut-peddling actually can be a good strategy at these tables. The only catches are that: 1) you have to at least give the image of action if you want to get paid off over the long haul since most of these mofos use PTO, and 2) you won't get a lot of cheap draws, so you have to adjust accordingly.
There are three big differences I can see between the players at the 1000s and those at the 400s:
1) Villains are often betting any sort of made hand or decent draw, so you often don't know where you stand. For example, 28T with two spades falls on the flop and villain comes out betting. He could have the A3 suited, bare A3xx, T8xx, T2xx, A4xx (usu. with some other janky thing working), any set, bare straight wrap, etc. Sometimes this becomes a game of chicken, and sometimes you run into the nuts.
2) You often have to fire two barrels (at least) before villain will believe that you have what you're repping. They play a kind of sponge strategy with mediocre hands (e.g., weak flushes, overpairs on paired boards, etc.). This is both a good point and bad point of these games. At the 400s and below, you can often bet into any non-low flush board, any three wheel other than 345 or 245, any three broadway, or any paired board with air and you'll take it down unless you're up against the nuts or a draw to the nuts. There are certainly weak tight villains at the 1000s who play this way, but it seems like there are an awful lot of villains who require you to fire two barrels before they'll lay down on a scary board.
The bad part of this is that you can't bluff cheaply, and you will sometimes bluff into the nuts. The good part of this is that you can induce bluffs from these guys if you play them right. Interestingly, there's more "poker" to be played on this dimension.
3) The short stacks aren't entirely stupid... sort of. There are A LOT of short stacks playing at the 600s and higher. They make their money off of getting people to fold their winners by aggressively playing draws. The trick against these players is simply to avoid giving them action unless: 1) you have a hand with two-way potential when they raise pf, and 2) you have a hand with showdown value and/or a huge draw when they play the flop aggressively.
These mofos love to CR, so you have to take free cards when you can get them. I've bet myself off a hand twice in the past couple of days when a short stack CRed me all-in (for him) when I was on a one-way nut draw on the flop.
Sometimes they lucksack into a scoop, but you can "roll the dice" with these guys in a +EV way, imo. It's a skill that has to be developed, though.[edited for spelling]
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:32 am
]]>
]]>
OK -- honest confession time -- I don't like short stacking. There are a few reasons for this.
1) You don't have implied odds to try to hit your draws. Furthermore, you REALLY don't have enough odds to get too aggressive with your weak draws (e.g., 9-out draw to a nut straight on a high rainbow board). I realized that this is a BIG part of my game at the 100s and 200s, and I felt a bit crippled at the 1000s when I couldn't do this. I had a perfect draw to the nut flush and made second low today that was just slightly a -EV call due to my short stack. I realized that it was an EASY call if full-stacked. I'll post the HH for review -- it sucked.
2) It's too easy for big stacks and generously bankrolled opponents to look you up because you don't have the implied threat of large bets on later streets to make them fear you. There's one specific move that I have that works like a charm at the 400s and lower -- if they call, they have what I'm repping and I can comfortably fold. My experience at the 1000s, however, was that they folded a lot less. Granted, my sample size is ridiculously small, and perhaps they had enough of a hand to call me down all the way. Since I wasn't topped up, though, I think they were willing to call me down a little on the light side.
3) The psychology of having to reload after every unwon pot is not really positive. With a full stack, you can call a couple of raises and/or limp a few pots and miss the flops before you really feel the need to reload. When you're on half a stack, you've got to keep that mofo right at half a stack or a little more. If you hit your big hand and you're only on 1/3 of a stack, that's ----EV. Furthermore, the strategy for 1/3 of a stack is a bit different than for 1/2.
I find that having to hit that reload key repeatedly just makes me feel like a loser.4) That being said, it's really cool when you buy in short and build up the biggest stack at the table without reloading.
5) Peeling one off is usually a bad idea -- push or fold. This isn't so bad in and of itself, but there are a lot of times that peeling one off is the best strategy since the turn card will vastly change the dynamics of the hand. You can't afford to do this when short stacked.
With some experimenting at the 400s and 600s, I found that I liked 2/3 to 3/4 of a stack best for short stacking. You still get a lot of play for your hands, but you minimize your exposure to a big river bluff. Furthermore, you give yourself enough implied odds to take a lot of draws.
I'm not sure if I should wait until I can buy-in for 700 or so at the 1000s, but it's something to think about.
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:31 am
]]>
$200 Total Stats
Table hours: 12.75
Hands: 709
Net: +$90
After the ass-whooping I received today, I wasn't even sure if I was still in the black in the 200s. I'm glad to see that I am.
The current plan is to play up to the 200s with full buy-ins until I make about $1k. I want to do this for two reasons: 1) to restore my confidence in my game (it is a bit shaken), and 2) to rebuild the BR a bit. I might spend some time at Stars to clear off some bonuses I have stacked there -- those will count towards the 1k.
After that, I'll allow myself to play at the 400s and 600s for $300 buy-ins until I make another $1k or so.
Then it's another shot at the 1000s if/when the tables are good.
The criteria for "the project" will be the same, but at this point it's just a technicality. I'm going to play at whatever stakes I think my BR can handle.
[edited for spelling and clarification]
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:10 am
]]>
Updates forthcoming.
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:31 am
]]>
I sat at good/decent tables with some wonderful calling stations, and I just got unlucky and (perhaps) outplayed. Some of the low points (details later):
- People were floating most of my CB/steals and appropriate scarecards were hitting so that it would be tough to continue.
- My nut hands got counterfeited or outdrawn.
- My good hands in raised pots often missed the flop and/or got no action.
- My good two-way hands (e.g., second nut low and stupid end of straight) hit bad turn cards and the action looked like I could be beaten both ways (but wasn't).
- My good hands were losing small to medium pots in blind battles.
- Once I was down almost a dime, my aggression started to wane. I adjusted properly fairly quickly (I think), but I'm sure I missed a few pots that were there to be taken. This is where it REALLY pays to have an adequate BR (I don't for these stakes).
- Of course, I lost quads over quads with a low redraw that whiffed (I was actually drawing to half, but still...).
Today sucks... that's all I've got to say.
[edited for spelling and clarity]
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:05 pm
]]>
Villain is a little bit tight, but not overly so at the 200s. He's squeaky tight at the 400s and higher.
Party Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
10 players
Stack sizes:
UTG: $193
UTG+1: $51.67
UTG+2: $209.15
MP1: $271.84
MP2: $264.33
MP3: $368.64
Hero: $194.90
Button: $196
SB: $157.80
BB: $110.01
Pre-flop: (10 players) Hero is CO with
![[2h]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/2h.gif "The Two of Hearts")
![[2s]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/2s.gif "The Two of Spades")
![[4c]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/4c.gif "The Four of Clubs")
![[Ah]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/Ah.gif "The Ace of Hearts")
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, 3 folds, Hero raises to $5, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls.
Flop:
![[2d]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/2d.gif "The Two of Diamonds")
![[Ks]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/Ks.gif "The King of Spades")
![[3s]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/3s.gif "The Three of Spades")
($25, 5 players)SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, UTG+2 bets $23.75, Hero calls, 3 folds.
Turn:
![[3h]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/3h.gif "The Three of Hearts")
($72.5, 2 players)UTG+2 bets $69.5, Hero raises all-in $166.15, UTG+2 calls.
River:
![[2c]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/2c.gif "The Two of Clubs")
($404.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $404.8)Results:
Final pot: $404.8
UTG+2 shows Ad 3d 3c Js
Hero doesn't show 2h 2s 4c Ah
[edited for spelling]
Statistics: Posted by Kuso — Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:46 pm
]]>