Pot Limit on a Budget (misc replies)
Dan Kimberg
Thanks to all who replied to my questions about playing pot-limit
short-bankrolled against a table full of live straddlers. I have a
few follow-up questions, comments, some half-baked numbers, and points
to summarize (I did read the four replies carefully, and I thank the
respondents -- these are just the points I wanted to follow up on).
First, to summarize whether or not sitting down with $200 at a 2-5
pot-limit game is a good idea if there's a $20 blind straddle every
hand. It seems like the value of sitting down short-stacked at a game
like this depends mainly on the opposition. Jazbo observed that
without odds to hit the flop with pure drawing hands, you have to play
extremely tight, and that as a result you likely won't get paid off
when you play a hand.
The other three respondents (Greg Raymer, Ramsey, and Peter Secor) all
suggested that in a wilder game, to some extent the other players will
have to ignore your short stack, even if they knew the raise
represents a premium hand. Presumably the idea is that these players
aren't worried about my hand because they're expecting company for the
bigger bets long after I'm all-in. In a sense, they're willing to
give up some EV to me in order to compete with each other for higher
stakes. This is actually an interesting take on the situation,
because it implies the opposite of what I originally guessed (that a
table full of blind straddlers represents a form of collusion against
weaker, short-stacked players).
I did a few half-baked calculations on the back of a metaphorical
envelope to see if I could roughly calibrate what it takes for this to
be a good proposition. I have the vague sense that someone's posted a
better analysis of this recently, but I thought I'd work up a few
half-baked numbers anyway, because I'm trying to avoid working on
something.
So let's say the hands you play include AA, KK, QQ, AKs, and AK (a
hair more than 2.5% of the hands you're dealt). And let's say half
the time you get one player worth of action with on average a 55-45
advantage, and half the time you get two players with on average a 45%
chance of winning, on your $200. This means you expect to win $45 for
every time this situation comes up, or $1.15/hand. Subtracting the
blinds at 2-5 ten handed brings this to $.45/hand, and subtracting a
$.33 time charge (assuming 30 hands/hour) brings it down to $.12/hand.
A tip here and there will bring you down to a dime/hand, or $3/hour.
Not a tremendous rate, and an exceptionally boring way to play poker
(not that there isn't still a little room to improve your results by
making some decisions). Also, this is probably substantially more
action than in the games Jazbo was thinking of, and things get worse
quickly if you blind off a few chips before you hit. All of which
tends to validate his contention that you might as well play craps if
they're not going to pay you off.
However, if in a wilder game you can count on a better average edge
than what I guessed (or more action on average), things get a lot
better quickly (because you've already paid the house, additional
profit goes into your pocket). Assuming it's still one player half
the time, two the other half, but with the percentages hiked up to
60-40 on the heads-up, and 55-45 on the three-way hands, the equity
runs to $85 each time this comes up, or $2.18/hand, minus the $1.05 in
charges, which comes to $1.13/hand, or close to $34/hour. That's a
lot better than you'll do at craps, although it still might not be
much fun, at least not until you double up once or twice and get to
play some real pot limit.
Well, if I get bored some afternoon I'll plot out this parameter space
in more detail and try to cook up more accurate parameter estimates.
Or maybe just double-check the numbers I've already posted. :)
Anyway, this suggests that to an even greater extent than usual, when
buying short into a pot-limit game with live straddles, you want to
find an action table. That is, while in a small limit game a few wild
players can make the difference between hugely and marginally
profitable, in a pot-limit game like this, it can make the difference
between profitable and costly. So it seems to come down to a question
of judgement. If the other players are playing much worse cards than
you are, and are going to ignore your raise because you're so
short-stacked, you don't have to worry about whether or not you'll get
paid off, and you can sit down with some confidence. This was
probably not the case at the game I saw at the Mirage a few months
ago, but I gather it often is.
Okay, on to other replies.
Following up on Jazbo's observation about getting odds to hit the
flop, I was wondering if getting all your chips in early alleviates
some of the playing difficulties of certain hands. For example, if
you open raise on or next to the button with AJ or TT (I'm not
commenting specifically on whether or not this is a good idea), and
get a re-raise from one of the three blinds, it seems like a call
would be a much better idea if you're short-stacked, since you're not
going to have to worry about reading the other player post-flop. On
the other hand, the re-raise might represent a bigger hand at the game
Jazbo was thinking of than at the wilder games the other folks were
thinking of.
Greg Raymer made another comment I'd like to address, in replying to
my suggestion that playing a small limit game (e.g., 10-20) would be
better than playing severely short-stacked at a pot-limit game. His
comment was:
> But if you know that you can go all-in about once per half-hour with
> a big margin in the PL game (say 10% or more), then your hourly rate
> is higher in the PL game. Of course, you can't just keep going
> all-in for 100. per shot, as you will have more money than this
> after you win initially.
One of the reasons I thought the small limit game might be a better
choice for me was that the straddle would increase the variance hugely
at the pot limit game, making it much more likely for me to suffer a
net loss with a series of positive EV propositions (the short buy-in).
Ramsey also wrote:
> My approach has always been the second one and have never felt at
> any disadvantage providing that I have enough for at least 3
> buy-ins. So if you can lose $1000 dollars without losing sleep I
> would say that you have plenty enough to tackle these games.
Well, naturally how much sleep I lose depends on why I lost.
Seriously, though, $1000 is more than I'd be willing to put on the
line regularly, which is why you're not going to see me at a regularly
spread pot-limit game in the near future (sorry!). Although if I
thought conditions were favorable for a $200 buy-in, I'd consider
sitting down with a buy-in on the table and two in my pocket.
Lastly, Peter Secor suggested:
>Come on to ATLARGE this spring & join the "baby" pot limit!
1-2 blinds, 5 to go is about my speed. I might even throw in a
straddle or two if it gets boring.
dan
ps i'll probably be at the taj sometime early saturday afternoon
(labor day weekend). look for the guy at the pink game who keeps
eyeing the higher limits enviously.
Warren Sander
re: discussion on possible win limits on short buy-in pot limit game..
You missed one important detail.. You said you would only play AA, KK, AKs,
maybe QQ, AK (very tight etc). Your calculations talk about expected wins etc
but you forgot something. Assuming that the players in the pot limit game also
don't automatically fold when you bet or call the $20 or whatever the bet is
when its your action then it's logical to assume that you will 'blow' or
'multiply' your bankroll on the first hand you play.
If you blow your bankroll you either have to rebuy or your out of the game
If you don't totally blow your bankroll you will/could the next playable hand
or need to re-buy.
If you 'multiply' your bankroll or just increase it then you have a larger
bankroll for the next hand. If everyone respects your bet then you get
a few bucks maybe 2-3 bets and the blinds so maybe $50-60 for the hand. But
if your in a game like Peter discribed and get 3-4 people following you to
the river then you end up with $800-1000 bank roll after the game (your $200,
and the $200 from the callers). At this point you become their 'equal' and
you are out of your 'short bankroll' mode.
It may be good to do a short buy-in to this sort of a game because if you hit
you get to multiply your bankroll at a very low cost to yourself. And can then
play with the increased bankroll
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Sander OpenVMS Marketing
Digital Equipment Corporation Work: san...@eng.pko.dec.com
129 Parker Street PK03-2/T20 Personal: san...@ultranet.com
Maynard, MA 01754 (508) 493-5470/5576 voice/fax
My opinions are my own and I only speak for myself
Read http://www.openvms.digital.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Secor
kim...@universe.digex.net (Dan Kimberg) wrote:
<snip Dan's interesting discussion of PL earning rates>
>Not a tremendous rate, and an exceptionally boring way to play poker
>(not that there isn't still a little room to improve your results by
>making some decisions). Also, this is probably substantially more
>action than in the games Jazbo was thinking of, and things get worse
>quickly if you blind off a few chips before you hit. All of which
>tends to validate his contention that you might as well play craps if
>they're not going to pay you off.
Of course, I love craps :), but seriously, the other thing you get to do is
watch the other players! This is anything BUT boring, if you get to sit with
some really good players. Even if I'm losing a few dollars an hour, the lessons
are well worth it. Certainly this was true at BARGE, where all the players in
the game I was in were pretty tough (just ask them! :).
Hopefully we'll see you in March.
foldem
Mike Caro
Among equally skilled opponents and no other information, the shortest
money ALWAYS has the best of it, assuming at least TWO opponents have
more chips. In other words, if the stacks are 100 -- 100 -- 100 -- 100
-- 50,000,000, nobody has an edge, and all are playing effectively
with 100. One player has $49,999,900 in extra chips to impress the
waitresses with.
However, if it's $200 -- $1,800 -- $14,000 -- $500 -- $1,200, then the
$200 has a provable advantage. Why? Because he can go all-in while
others knock each other out of the pot. In that case, he'll see a
showdown and occasionally win a pot when he would have been forced to
throw the hand away had he owned more chips.
The discussion changes, though, and becomes arguable if you factor in
skill. Then we can talk about whether you are better off being able to
put other opponents all-in if you get a monster hand. Can you use
these chips (beyond what you're short stack would have been) more
effectively than your opponents? I've seen arguments in favor of
bigger stacks, arguments that don't center on skill, but they are
convoluted. A short stack in a typical ring game has a mathematically
(and logically) supportable advantage. But if the player with the
short stack has great skill, he may do even better with a huge stack.
Of course, heads up it doesn't matter who has the most chips. You each
have the same liability (equal to the smaller stack).
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Randy Hudson
In article <322dd197...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com>,
Mike Caro <74146...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Among equally skilled opponents and no other information, the shortest
> money ALWAYS has the best of it, assuming at least TWO opponents have
> more chips.
This point was discussed extensively in rec.gambling about two years ago.
Perhaps Steve Jacobs could send you archives of the "magic glasses"
argument.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com>
Mike Caro
Randy --
Thanks. Not sure what "magic glasses" means, but I'll assume the
conclusion was consistent with what I said, because, well... because
what I say has historically been true. :)
jc21a20f0-Kent
In article <322dd197...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com>, 74146...@compuserve.com (Mike Caro) writes:
|>
|> However, if it's $200 -- $1,800 -- $14,000 -- $500 -- $1,200, then the
|> $200 has a provable advantage. Why? Because he can go all-in while
|> others knock each other out of the pot. In that case, he'll see a
|> showdown and occasionally win a pot when he would have been forced to
|> throw the hand away had he owned more chips.
|>
Mike,
To clarify what you said - the small stack has an advantage because he
can go all in when others are battling for the pot? Then probably one
stack will scare the other(s) out of the pot without a showdown, leaving
the short stack with excellent pot odds?
Or did you have another advantage in mind?
Burton
Mike Caro
By the way, I want to thank everyone who sent me private email
explaining the "magic glasses" thread from years ago. Although I've
been explaining the advantage of short stacks among equally skilled
opponents for at least 15 years, I've never said it quite so
powerfully. That's a very good way to explain the concept.
Thanks to everyone who sent me private email about "magic glasses."
Apparently the discussion took place a couple years ago on
rec.gambling. I've pointed out the advantage of short money for many
years -- assuming equally skilled players. "Magic glasses" says it
best. It explains the concept better than I have ever explained it.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
On 5 Sep 1996 15:03:06 GMT, bur...@ihgp232f.ih.att.com
(jc21a20f0-Kent) wrote:
Burton --
Looking it from the perspective you're presenting it, the all-in stack
has PERFECT pot odds. He gets to try to draw out for FREE. Yes, you're
saying it right. Others surrender their chances to draw out by
throwing their hands away, but the short stack gets to ride along no
matter what.
By the way, I want to thank everyone who sent me private email
explaining the "magic glasses" thread from years ago. Although I've
been explaining the advantage of short stacks among equally skilled
opponents for at least 15 years, I've never said it quite so
powerfully. That's a very good way to explain the concept.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Dennis Yelle
In article <322f309a...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com> 74146...@compuserve.com (Mike Caro) writes:
>By the way, I want to thank everyone who sent me private email
>explaining the "magic glasses" thread from years ago. Although I've
>been explaining the advantage of short stacks among equally skilled
>opponents for at least 15 years, I've never said it quite so
>powerfully. That's a very good way to explain the concept.
>Apparently the discussion took place a couple years ago on
>rec.gambling. I've pointed out the advantage of short money for many
>years -- assuming equally skilled players. "Magic glasses" says it
>best. It explains the concept better than I have ever explained it.
>
>Straight Flushes,
>Mike Caro
The "magic glasses" argument was a powerful one, but I think
most or all of its power was demolished by the "magic earplugs"
argument.
Here is the oversimplified "magic earplugs" case:
Player one (short stack with "magic glasses") goes all in for 200.
Player two raises 600.
All other players fold.
Player two "told" the rest of the table he had a great hand
so they folded. Some of them would have called if everybody
had only 200, because player two could not have "told" them
what he had by raising. So player one wins "only" 200.
It is as if player two told everybody else to fold, but
player one, with the "magic earplugs" couldn't hear what he said.
--
den...@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Mike Caro
Dennis --
Thanks for filling me in on the opposing argument to "magic glasses."
I guess I missed an interesting discussion on rec.gambling.
It's true that if there's no dead money already in the pot and the
first player to act keeps others from putting anything in, this is not
necessarily favorable to the all-in player. Neither is it necessarily
unfavorable.
Just between you and me, "magic earplugs" doesn't make much sense to
me in the context that I'm talking about. Maybe there were other
factors in the discussion that made it more reasonable.
Of course, you might be dealing with an alien mind here, because that
Eleanor Roosevelt quote doesn't make sense to me, either. :)
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:01:58 GMT, den...@netcom.com (Dennis Yelle)
wrote:
jac...@xmission.com
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com> writes:
> In article <322dd197...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com>,
> Mike Caro <74146...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > Among equally skilled opponents and no other information, the shortest
> > money ALWAYS has the best of it, assuming at least TWO opponents have
> > more chips.
>
> This point was discussed extensively in rec.gambling about two years ago.
> Perhaps Steve Jacobs could send you archives of the "magic glasses"
> argument.
Unfortunately, I don't have any archives. I remember posting what I felt
was a solid refutation of the "magic glasses" theory of short stack play,
but now I don't remember what my argument was. Growing old sucks ;-)
I agree that playing a short stack gives you the highest possible
expectation PER DOLLAR WAGERED. However, maximizing EV/$$ is not
the same as maximizing your rate of income. So, I still feel that
the magic glasses argument is somewhat misguided, and I feel that
the disadvantages of short stack play might outweigh the advantages.
--
Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ The Good EdgeKeeping Seal: This post
"Expectation isn't everything..." \ *NOT* endorsed by Doug Grant (or clones)
Mark Rafn
>Mike Caro <74146...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Among equally skilled opponents and no other information, the shortest
>> money ALWAYS has the best of it, assuming at least TWO opponents have
>> more chips.
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com> wrote:
>This point was discussed extensively in rec.gambling about two years ago.
>Perhaps Steve Jacobs could send you archives of the "magic glasses"
>argument.
This discussion is apparantly old enough not to be archived at altavista
or dejanews. If someone saved it or is willing to summarize, please
post it.
As I understand it, the advantage from being short-stacked (in both
limit and big-bet poker) is that you don't have to worry about expected
odds for bets you're gonna have to call later to see a showdown. For
example, in a game where four or five see the flop, but it gets heads-up
on the flop or the turn, the player with just enough to see the flop
gets 4:1 on his money without having to make the even-money bets/calls
heads-up later.
Of course, this is an advantage only if the all-in player is of equal or
lesser skill than his opponents (which, as Mike points out, there must
be two or more with bigger stacks. If there's only one with a bigger stack,
you're both effectively all-in). If you think you've got the best of
it, bring enough money to take advantage of your post-flop play.
--
Mark Rafn da...@halcyon.com <http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/> !G
Abolish the IRS! <http://www.harrybrowne96.org>
jc21a20f0-Kent
In article <322f309a...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com>, 74146...@compuserve.com (Mike Caro) writes:
|> By the way, I want to thank everyone who sent me private email
|> explaining the "magic glasses" thread from years ago. Although I've
|> been explaining the advantage of short stacks among equally skilled
|> opponents for at least 15 years, I've never said it quite so
|> powerfully. That's a very good way to explain the concept.
|> Thanks to everyone who sent me private email about "magic glasses."
|> Apparently the discussion took place a couple years ago on
|> rec.gambling. I've pointed out the advantage of short money for many
|> years -- assuming equally skilled players. "Magic glasses" says it
|> best. It explains the concept better than I have ever explained it.
|>
|> Straight Flushes,
|> Mike Caro
|>
Would anyone mind (re)posting a short explanation about "magic
glasses?" If Mike thinks it's good stuff, then I'm sure
I will too.
Burton
PSBC GPR
>By the way, I want to thank everyone who sent me private email
>explaining the "magic glasses" thread from years ago.
For those of us not around years ago, would somone please post the
conclusion of the "magic glasses" thread?
Thanks, Greg Raymer
Randy Hudson
> Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>> In article <322dd197...@NNTP.IX.netcom.com>,
>> Mike Caro <74146...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Among equally skilled opponents and no other information, the shortest
>>> money ALWAYS has the best of it, assuming at least TWO opponents have
>>> more chips.
>>
>> This point was discussed extensively in rec.gambling about two years ago.
>> Perhaps Steve Jacobs could send you archives of the "magic glasses"
>> argument.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have any archives. I remember posting what I felt
> was a solid refutation of the "magic glasses" theory of short stack play,
> but now I don't remember what my argument was. Growing old sucks ;-)
>
> I agree that playing a short stack gives you the highest possible
> expectation PER DOLLAR WAGERED. However, maximizing EV/$$ is not
> the same as maximizing your rate of income. So, I still feel that
> the magic glasses argument is somewhat misguided, and I feel that
> the disadvantages of short stack play might outweigh the advantages.
OK. My own archives are out on a tape, and I'm not even sure I can locate
them. My recollection is that there were two rebuttal arguments to the
magic glasses argument. The first is that if the larger stacks implicitly
or explicitly collude, they can eliminate the short stack advantage; and
it's in their mutual interest to do so, because when they don't, they all
share the tall stack disadvantage. This implicit collusion is most apparent
when the big stacks just check it down in a tournament after a player goes
all-in; by checking it down they maximize the likelihood that the all-in
player gets eliminated. This collusion can be taken even further; the
"magic earplugs" theory points out that by using the extra chips as a
signalling method, the larger stacks can arrange to play "best hand"
against the short-stacked player, putting him at an actual disadvantage.
The second argument, and the one to which Steve refers, is that in a ring
game, the skilled players are there because they seek to make a profit.
While being short-stacked may create a mathematical advantage, it also
deprives these players of some of the opportunies to exercise their skills,
and overall, reduce their profit rate.
I find the first argument mathematically sound (unless the short stack is
less than the big blind), but not significant in practice; what collusion
occurs seems to be implicit, and far too weak to overcome the built-in
short stack advantage.
The second argument depends on the game and the opponents, and cannot be
refuted mathematically. A quantification of the small stack advantage
would let us determine how significant it may be in practice.
--
Randy Hudson <i...@netcom.com>
Dan Kimberg
There is a source for at least one Magic Glasses article.
For those who aren't aware of it, Michael Maurer and I maintain a site
with some of the best articles from the past of rec.gambling(.poker),
called the BORG (Best Of Rec.Gambling). It's a web-based resource,
and you can find it at:
http://www.universe.digex.net/~kimberg/borg/borg.html
The magic glasses thread is only represented in the archive by one
article (which somehow got a second article smushed onto the bottom,
probably a glitch with our automatic formatting software), a lucid,
well-presented redux of the magic glasses thread by Andy Latto. If
you want to go directly to Andy's article, try.
http://www.universe.digex.net/~kimberg/borg/poker/magic-glasses/0000.html
Incidentally, while we haven't done quite as thorough a job as we'd
have liked (of course, many more great things are still coming!), the
archive does contain lots of good material, and is both fun and
interesting reading.
I do have a bunch of other replies to other points posted in response
to my message, but I thought enough people seemed to want some
original magic glasses material to make this worth posting right now.
More to come.
dan
Jeffrey B. Siegal
In article <50pijv$m...@news1.halcyon.com>, da...@coho.halcyon.com (Mark
Rafn) wrote:
> This discussion is apparantly old enough not to be archived at altavista
> or dejanews. If someone saved it or is willing to summarize, please
> post it.
Look at Best of Rec.Gambling at
Robert Copps
In article <imeDxB...@netcom.com>, i...@netcom.com (Randy Hudson)
writes:
>
>
> OK. My own archives are out on a tape, and I'm not even sure I can locate
> them. My recollection is that there were two rebuttal arguments to the
> magic glasses argument. The first is that if the larger stacks implicitly
> or explicitly collude, they can eliminate the short stack advantage; and
> it's in their mutual interest to do so, because when they don't, they all
> share the tall stack disadvantage. This implicit collusion is most
> apparent
> when the big stacks just check it down in a tournament after a player
> goes
> all-in; by checking it down they maximize the likelihood that the all-in
> player gets eliminated. This collusion can be taken even further; the
> "magic earplugs" theory points out that by using the extra chips as a
> signalling method, the larger stacks can arrange to play "best hand"
> against the short-stacked player, putting him at an actual disadvantage.
Here's an amusing example that resonates with another thread. I'm in a 5-10
purgtory the other day and it's getting late. Stuck 380 with 20 I get JJ in
third position and make it 10. "Come on," I say, "I want to go all in."
Another guy raises and I cap it. Someone else goes all in for 3/4 of the
pot. There are six of us in the hand. The flop comes 10 high rags and
everyone checks it down to the river!
I don't think I've ever before seen this outside of a tournament. Usually
at least one other player has the cards and fortitude to try to get
isolated against the all in guy, who may well be on a draw, and there
weren't two players in the hand who were conscious enough to deliberately
collude. Still, it happened.
Trivial denouement: Anyway, hero's Jacks stood up, and in the next few
minutes he got AA twice and cashed out 420.
>
> The second argument, and the one to which Steve refers, is that in a ring
> game, the skilled players are there because they seek to make a profit.
> While being short-stacked may create a mathematical advantage, it also
> deprives these players of some of the opportunies to exercise their
> skills,
> and overall, reduce their profit rate.
>
> I find the first argument mathematically sound (unless the short stack is
> less than the big blind), but not significant in practice; what collusion
> occurs seems to be implicit, and far too weak to overcome the built-in
> short stack advantage.
>
> The second argument depends on the game and the opponents, and cannot be
> refuted mathematically. A quantification of the small stack advantage
> would let us determine how significant it may be in practice.
>
In general, when low on chips I go all in in a loose game with 6-7 players
limping in pre-flop. In a tougher game, I'd rather buy more chips and try
to win more net equity with sharper play. I don't know if this is a good
strategy (though it feels right) and would appreciate it if someone were to
quantify the matter as Randy suggests.
--
--Bob.
Zagie
Of course, the magic glasses argument overlooks the even more powerful
force that makes sure that whenever I am all in pre-flop, I will
invariably have the nuts and I watch the second and third nuts get into a
raising war in the huge side pot.
Zag
------------------------
Couldn't think of a clever sig
James Morgan
The following is ONLY in refernce to limit poker. I cannot claim this
extends to PL or No limit poker, but I suspect it does.
It assumes we are capable of accurately deterniming whether or not we
are in a game with inferior, equal, or superior opponents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I understand the basic arguments behind "magic glasses", and
the counterarguments, I think that in the real world of poker, it is
almost always correct to have enough chips to cover all bets and raises.
The magic glasses argument has a very basic assumption. It claims
that you are playing against equally skilled opponnets.
We all (I hope) know better than to continue to sit in a game that we
have determined is full of equally skilled players. (When we first sit
down, we don't know for sure, but that only lasts a few hands.) As a
result, we are going to be playing in games with players who are weaker
than we are for the vast majority of times we play.
Now that we have decided that we are playing with weaker players, we need
to look at the magic glasses argument with that constraint.
The most common and most costly trait exhibited by fish is that they
call too often. They call too often pre-flop and post-flop. Playing in
weak games, you make most of your money in 2 ways. The first is simply
by gaining the EV they surrender by playing 85s (and worse) under the gun.
The second way is by flopping a big hand and getting paid off. When you
flop a decent hand, you will be drwoned by the river often enought to make
your earnings with such flops rather minimal when facing weak players.
As a result, flopping a monster and running out of chips is going to
cost you much more in missed profits when you do this against weak
players. You will still have a +EV from the weak pre-flop calls, but you
get that gain when you have a big stack too. Missing calls from fish (or
better yet raises from hyper-aggressive fish) who are drawing vitrually
dead with their bottom pair vs your middle set or flopped straight costs
a lot of money. I just cannot imagine gaining that money back by getting
infinite implied odds to be able to see the river when I am a big
underdog.
In my view, this is by far the biggest problem with playing limit
poker with a short stack. However, there are some other problems with
short stacks. These are not, IMHO, not as important as the above point,
but they also point towards avoiding playing with a short stack.
One problem with a short stack is that manipulating the number of
players is much harder. If you go all in for 5$ in a 3-6 game with JJ,
hoping to play against 1 or 2 callers, it will not work. Even if you
would have isolated the blinds normally, your all-in raise will get less
respect than a "normal" raise.
Furthermore, the ability to play a flop like K72 to the river will be
somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that you will not get a hand like
KQoff to fold or pay to draw when it does miss. You will get to play to
the river, but you will not get to make players who are behind put money
in the pot. You will be giving infinite implied odds when you are
ahead, and getting infinite odds when behind. Since you will be playing
better hands than the opponents, you will be ahead more than your "fair
share" and will therefore be more likely to want to stay away from giving
infinite implied odds.
Another (related) problem with short stacks is that they remove
decisions. If you are all-in with JJ against 2 playres, it is very easy
to know what to do when the flop comes Ks7d6d. Of course, the flip side
is that you cannot force the opponents to make decisions either. Since
we are assuming weaker opponents, we can assume they will make poorer
decisions than we will, if provided a chance to do so. However, when we go
all-in, they will get to make fewer decisions. Reducing our decisions and
their decisions is bad, since we are assuming we will make better decisions
than they will.
In conclusion. I will not play with less money than needed to cover
all bets in a limit game. The only exception would be if I don't have
access to the money needed to do this. I belive that failure to have
this amount of chips on the table will cost you money. I believe that
intentionally playing/buying in with less money than this in a limit game
is a mistake that will cost you money in the long run. Of course, this
is a statement that is virtually impossible to prove, but it is what I
believe, given what I know now.
Jim Morgan
Robert Copps
In article <516s2v$d...@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>, jsmorga@sun3 (James Morgan)
writes:
>
> [...]
>
> As a result, flopping a monster and running out of chips is going to
> cost you much more in missed profits when you do this against weak
> players. You will still have a +EV from the weak pre-flop calls, but
> you
> get that gain when you have a big stack too. Missing calls from fish
> (or
> better yet raises from hyper-aggressive fish) who are drawing vitrually
> dead with their bottom pair vs your middle set or flopped straight costs
> a lot of money. I just cannot imagine gaining that money back by
> getting
> infinite implied odds to be able to see the river when I am a big
> underdog.
>
>
I understand it somewhat differently. The neat thing about going all in is
that you can do it with significantly weaker hands than you can normally
play. And the more weak players will see the flop the weaker hands you can
play that have a +EV. Thus, a hand like Kxs is probably profitable in a
loose game if you can go all in before the flop. In fact, so many more
hands are profitable that their cumulative expectation is much greater than
the (cumulative) expectation you would get from the much smaller number of
big hands you would get in any given time frame.
Put it this way, would you rather play in an ordinary game with big stacks
or in a game that you could buy into with 1 SB and take all the money but 1
SB off the table every time you win a hand?
--
--Bob.