Dropping to Full Buy In Analysis (7.20.2010)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 11:32AM I didn’t fall asleep until 4:00 a.m on Monday morning. My sleep schedule was screwed up from the weekend and I was extremely restless thinking about my direction with poker. I survived Monday in zombie mode on 3 hours of sleep, but I feel ok now.
Overview of Play
I’m really questioning my path online and want to lay things out here as much as I can. I know I don’t have a profitable “playing style” in comparison to the elite short-stackers at my stakes. I think I’m at a level going forward to play around break mass tabling in a variance free world. However, my stats aren’t at a level where it would have been feasible for me to win .3BB/100- 1BB/100. The big pots I lose are destroying me because I’m simply not winning enough small pots. Perhaps this is why variance kills me to a point where I flip out and question my life (aka last weekend). I don’t have enough that’s helping me make up for the variance and cover my losses (aka 3-betting higher, or increasing the VPIP and PFR enough).
Comparison of Different Styles (Short Stack)
By style I’m referring to VPIP, PFR, and 3-bet%. Playing a different style from the “norm” will not necessarily kill you. Your style should generally help play to your strengths. However, if you vary drastically from the norm you have to recognize that you could be playing less than optimally. For example, there is no amount of skill that is going to save your ass if you play a 30/20/10 style on a full ring micro-stakes game.
I have always been more of a nit player, I recognize this. I like the idea of simply waiting a little longer to get in a dominating position based on hand strength alone. It took me a lot of time and study to up my style to a level that is still completely nit even by full ring short stack standards.
Next I want to compare some styles to put things in perspective. I want to compare some very solid short-stackers styles, then some full-ringers. I also want to compare my style to cross reference.
Short-Stackers:
Regular 1) 3 million hands. 11.0/10.8/5.7. Win-rate = 0.31 BB/100
Regular 2) 2 million hands. 11.5/10.9/5.8. Win-rate = 0.25 BB/100
Regular 3) 1.3 million hands. 11.4/10.8/5.9. Win-rate = 1.38 BB/100
Regular 4) 2 million hands. 13.5/11/6. Win-rate= 0.72BB/100
Regular 5) 3 million hands. 9.8/8/5. Loss rate= -.5BB/100
Regular 6) 4.2 million hands. 8.8/6/4.8. Loss-rate = -0.16BB/100
What it Means?
Every known short-stacker who is consistently beating 100NL full ring on Stars has a shockingly similar style. As shown above an 11/10.8/5.7 style is standard. Notice every winning regular above had a 3-bet% of 5.7-6.0% in their millions of hands played. Also, they all had a minimum VPIP of 11% with a PFR% of 10.8%-11.0%. Math can be pretty sick wow. Here we have regulars 1-3 playing millions of hands with nearly identical styles. You will notice this with every short-stacker who has a rate of above .2BB/100 with tons of hands played. Not sure where they all learned this identical 11/10.8/5.7 style, but these players in every sense of the word are: an army of fucking clones.
Meanwhile, I’m around a 9.0/7.8/4 and I have to push myself hard to get my numbers that high. I played on the last few months knowing I was tighter than optimal. I thought I could make up for it with superior table selection. I’ve also been mixing in a hybrid full stack strategy, which makes me tighter. But I can’t find one short-stacker with comparable stats who solidly beats the game. THIS IS A HUGE RED FLAG!
(INSERT RED FLAG HERE)
I found one known short-stack regular with a close style to what I’m playing right now. He is regular 6 above: 8.8/6/4.8 lifetime. He’s played over 4 million hands and has a loss-rate of -0.16BB/100. Is that really the life I want to live during the next year or so? Seriously? The life I want to strive for? I guess 4 million hands proves you can make a decent living doing it, certainly stressful as hell though.
My Options.
1) JOIN THE ARMY OF CLONES? Take a serious step back after hit Supernova in 9 more hours of play. I need to drop tables and teach myself a style that is comparable to the army of clones if I want to continue short-stacking. 11/10.8/5.7
2) Drop to full-buy in poker. Start with $50 buy ins on 20-50BB 100NL tables and 40-100BB 50NL tables.
3) Continue suffering along with a style that MIGHT yield break-even results in the long run.
It is important to note that I am at #3 as I type this sentence. Unfortunately #3 is not an option; it just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. I think rather than choice #1 I would actually be better off dropping to full buy in poker based on my strengths.
Advantages of Full Stack Poker
It seems if I’m going to cut back to ground zero with 1-4 tables until I figure out a style that is acceptable, full stack poker would be the logical choice for me. I think I should go with full-stack as soon as possible for numerous reasons:
1) Table Selection/Idiot-Jacking
This is really my bread and butter strength I think. I’m awesome at table selecting and going after weak players. And yes I’m coining the term “Idiot-Jacking”; I like it more than bum-hunting. I haven’t heard anyone else use this term so I’ll just grab it right here. The problem is that whenever I idiot-jack I usually have a short-stack and don’t win much. It is my natural tendency to stay on a profitable table with weak players, that’s why I kept up with this hybrid short-stack BS even know NO ONE ELSE is doing it. I’m sick of bailing on awesome tables because I have a short-stack.
2) Mastery of One Format.
I wouldn’t be mixing short-stacking with a full-buy in strategy. I should be sticking to one strategy until I get really good at it. Even now I can’t fully analyze my stats because of the mix strategy. I really have no one to compare my stats to because no one is playing a hybrid strategy. It’s just not logical. CHOOSE ARMY OF CLONES OR FULL STACK, NOW!
3) I no longer have a 3-bet Leak
POOF just like that my 3-bet leak is gone. No longer do I have to force myself to jam A7s in a marginal situation because it’s what the army of clones would do (ok fine because it’s a slightly EV play). My current 3-bet of 4% is actually much better than the majority of full buy in players. Forcing myself to 3-bet 5.7% (which I haven’t been able to do) is one of the things I despise when it comes to short-stacking.
4) I know how to exploit short-stack players at the 20-50 BB tables.
I would stick to 20-50 BB tables at 100NL at first. I’m getting an increased rake-back and the action is great on these tables. Not only can I hunt the fish, but I know how to exploit the short-stacking clones that I once considered joining. I know the optimal push ranges based on the math. I know when to re-steal them and make their lives miserable. I’m already liking the sound of this. Also I have reduced competition when I do run into super-fish. It’s going to be me, one other full buy in regular, a few other fish, and short-stackers. I’m liking my odds in this shit-show jungle.
5) Less of a learning curve.
My stats at this moment are comparable to a nitty full stack strategy. I think it makes sense improve my game a little with the reduced tables and work towards a higher potential win-rate. One of the best full-ringers at my stakes has lifetime stats of 11.3/8.8/2.8 with an over 2BB/100 win-rate which is massive. Currently I’m around 9.7/8/4 comfortably. This really isn’t much of a difference. My VPIP would naturally go up a percentage point as I gained more opportunities to stack people based on odds with low-pockets and such. I’m not saying I’m better than the regular I’m comparing to, not even close. The point is that an acceptable win-rate with my current stats is feasible playing full buy in, even with minor adjustments. In contrast, an acceptable win-rate with my current stats is not feasible playing a short-stack based on the evidence I've gathered.
6) I will be a stronger live player.
Yes I’m moving around Atlantic City to play poker for a living. I don’t think I’m going to enter a game at the Borgata with a short-stack. This is a problem I did not consider. It would seem illogical to be grinding online with a short-stack, but then chasing live games with a full one. Fix the problem and choose the full buy in strategy.
Some full ringer styles on my stakes:
Regular 1) 3 million hands. 11.3/8.8/2.8 (2.5 BB/100)
Regular 2) 1 million hands. 10/8/3 (0.63 BB/100)
Regular 3) (8k hands mined at your tables). 9.3/7/3.3 (1.87 BB/100)
ME) 9.7/8/4 (Right now with no adjustments)
Conclusion: Full Stack
Why train myself to join the army of clones for a potential 0.30 BB/100 win-rate (if I MASTER the format)? I could be a non-elite full buy in poker player and still have a rate of 0.50 BB/100. Even right now, with my stats I could still have a win-rate of 0.50 BB/100. Besides, will short-stacking even be around next year? Therefore, I think it’s necessary that I begin working towards a full buy in strategy immediately. I’ve learned a ton short-stacking and don’t feel like I’ve wasted time. I don’t mind using the short-stack to play 16 tables at once to clear bonuses, but not for a full-time career. It's going to take some time dropping back to 4 tables are regrouping, but this is a good time to do it. My summer is already over, I'm not at a level where I can short-stack and make more than my day job, so I'm stuck in corporate another month at least. Also my course is set to move to AC area by October, so I'm not pressured to make online self-sustaining in a week or two. This is a good time to make the change.
I leave you with some key characters to help bring this post to life:
Baglife:
The Red Flag:
The Army of Short-Stack Clones:
-lol bag
Reader Comments (9)
I have to cast my vote for full stack. Never in my life have I preferred to be short stack as opposed to the latter. I don't get why someone would want to bring a half loaded gun to a gunfight. But on the other hand, I'm also not knowledgeable in any short stack strategies.
The stats on those regs is really depressing/sobering. Play like a robot and make .7 bb/100! No thanks.
And of course the guy with the highest winrate has the lowest hands played lol...
FK,
Yeah .25 BB/100 is actually very good. But consider these guys are playing 24 tables and making the bulk of their income on the bonuses and rewards. The guy that had the highest win-rate also plays mostly 200NL+, so probably not a completely fair comparison. I'm pretty sure he plays less tables at once and actually puts in an effort to table select in a big way, even if his style is robotic by comparison.
Do you realize that full stack poker has little to do with preflop stats? Someone can be massively profitable playing 20/10/2, while another player can be a massive loser playing the identical 20/10/2.
You seem to be way too concerned with mimicking preflop stats, rather than thinking about why, or why not to have those type frequencies.
Devin,
“Do you realize” = I’m going to start off by talking down to you.
Anyways, I agree players can have drastically different results playing the same pre-flop stats. However, I think a huge variation from a generally acceptable norm can be a warning sign that you’re playing sub optimally (especially with short-stack like I mentioned above).
The main point of looking at full-stack regulars pre-flop stats above was not to suggest that you should blindly “copy” a style. It was to show that different winning regulars have drastically different pre-flop stats and this is completely ok. You can see it’s not a prerequisite for success, you can have “unusual” stats that play to your strengths and be very profitable. As opposed to full ring short-stack poker where you seem at a disadvantage if you aren’t playing around a 11/10.8/5.7 (at least on the stakes I looked at above). If you can give some analysis or evidence to disprove please do share.
No... "do you realized..." was a way of legitimately asking a question about something you seemed to have completely ignored.
You talk about how full buy-in fits your style, and then illustrate this by talking about preflop stats. I could see this if you were a 30/20 and needed a deep stack to make the loose play profitable.
However, you make no mention of hand reading, utilizing ur tight image to run triple barrel bluffs, stack management, etc. Ie, all the skills that would make full stacking fit your skill set. (again, preflop is largely irrelevant, yet is the basis of your argument.)
The fact you don't like to 3bet light, and play super tight would seem to make the full stack actually less advantageous unless you are good at making big folds, and getting big folds.
The “obvious knowledge” that your first sentence implies is anywhere from debatable to wrong. Really your pre-flop game has nothing to do with full stack poker? You can play full-stack poker without a pre-flop strategy? Well that’s interesting to say the least.
And what have I completely ignored again? Looking at the post above I mentioned 6 advantages that playing with full stack could yield. Only two mention pre-flop “stats” so that wasn’t the complete basis of any argument. That being said I didn’t bring up the importance of every skill. The skills you mention are utilized and needed, yes I agree (with the exception of triple barrel bluffs). The post above more talked about a few points I didn’t fully consider before.
As for my 3-betting, I 3-bet more than most winning full stack regulars. However, I 3-bet less than elite short-stack regulars. I wouldn’t say that’s light. If you want to call my overall style super-tight I mean that’s fine, I’ll term it tighter than optimal. Even though I can put in a few hours and completely play a different style so that doesn’t concern me so much.
I said preflop was largely irrelevant. This is coming from the assumption that you are not a complete drooler playing 40/5 or 60/40 or something like that. Whether you are 9/8, 11/9, or 20/17 isn't going to determine if you are a winning player or not. It's the flop/turn/river play that will determine that.
I also focused on your preflop comments, because it's the only specific aspect you discussed.
Your 6 points:
1) not full stack specific. Table selecting is important for any strategy.
2) not full stack specific.
3) ok. 4% seems pretty low, but I don't play full ring.
4) not full stack specific.
5) flat out wrong. The learning curve for short stacking (preflop game) is much much much shorter than learning how to play 3 street poker.
6) true.
I understand what you’re saying, but I still think preflop is very relevant. If you mean “pre-flop opening ranges are largely irrelevant” I can see your argument, but even the open ranges are somewhat important. And you say you don’t play full ring, if anything these ranges are more important for full ring because you can’t play too loose. But you take a concept as simple as bet-sizing pre-flop and if you screw it up it may not matter how perfect you are on the flop/turn/river. For example, say you don’t size your 3-bet correctly and give your opponent corrects odds to call and stack you.
I appreciate your comments and I’m going to respond to the 6 point interpretation:
1) “not full stack specific. Table selecting is important for any strategy.”
I know this is the biggest advantage to me immediately moving to a full stack. It is important for any strategy, but with a full-stack it’s everything. If you dig deep into short-stacking strategy you will be shocked at how 18-24 tabling regulars are basically ignoring the table selection. They have proven they don’t need table selection; they make money on the rake. 24 tabling can trump table selecting. With 24 tables you’re wasting your time at some point. With a full-stack I know I can table select with a high degree and earn a great profit from just this (with a short-stack you have to question if you’re wasting your time). Also when I was table selecting with a short-stack I would normally just get one double up in when I found a very bad opponent. Now I plan to stack him 80% of the time with a full stack, as opposed to doubling up a small stack on him 80% of the time. This is an advantage for me switching to full stack.
2) “not full stack specific.”
For me personally it is another advantage switching to full stack. With a short-stack I was using a hybrid strategy, so I was basically playing two strategies. Now it would be all full stack. To be fair sure I could say: “if I just stuck to short stacking I would be mastering that one format”, but it is my nature to get as much money on the table as possible to go after weak players. I absolutely HATE doing otherwise.
3) “ok. 4% seems pretty low, but I don't play full ring.”
It’s legit for full ring at my stakes. There is always room for improvement, but many big winners get by with worse.
4) “not full stack specific.”
Normally a full buy in player would prefer a 40-100BB table with no short-stackers. I would prefer 20-50 because I know I can exploit the regular short-stackers while smashing the fish. As opposed to smashing the fish and just barely beating the other regulars. I think right now I can exploit the short-stack regulars more than the full stack regulars. I’m also getting improved rake-back with less of a buy in. I see this as an advantage to staying in my current environment, only with a full-stack.
5) “flat out wrong. The learning curve for short stacking (preflop game) is much much much shorter than learning how to play 3 street poker.”
I’m referring to a preflop stat adjustment learning curve, not an overall learning curve. I do not think it would be easier to master 3 street poker. Basically with a full-stack pre stats do not matter so much like you said earlier (even know I think they matter more). But with a short-stack I feel I would have to re-build my pre-flop open ranges based on where I am and what I’ve observed. This is an advantage to me because I don’t want to force myself to rebuild and play with a short-stack open and 3-bet range that I don’t enjoy. If I have to make a few tweaks with my open range pre with a full-stack that’s fine. But with a full stack I can actually build an open range around what is acceptable based on my environment. But I feel my options are very restricted if I stay short, it’s either brainlessly jam the +EV situation or die.
6) “true.”
Agree A+!
I obviously don't have a day job here.....