Is a good, solid short stacked stratagy profitable?

[jimmer]

This follows on from something that was said in a post on this forum a while ago.

I have always taken the maximum amount of chips to the table. Indeed I kind of viewed players who join a table with the minimum as slightly weaker players who are probably out out of their depth, or at the very least, not 100% comfortable at the table limits.

However I have just spent the last hour watching a $3/$6 and $5/$10 (both 9 seaters) and see quite a few players who join with either the min stack or close to the min stack.

In a post on this forum a while ago, someone was complaining about short-stackers. Another member basically said "Get use to it, as some players have a very solid short-stacked stratagy that works for them"

So, my question is; In the long term, is it possible to profit from a short-stacked stratagy?

[MrDarling]

Yes, it is.

Though not nearly as profitable if you know what you are doing with a full stack.

[miaowmiaowchowface]

Yes, it is.

Though not nearly as profitable if you know what you are doing with a full stack.

hopefully its getting phased out tho, it looks like the day is coming

[MrDarling]

I doubt it very much.

Sure the big sites are creating some tables with a bigger min buyin. However they will never totally eliminate it, there are a lot of pro SS and their style of game does bring a lot of rake to the sites. Especially in the higher limits.

I have to say though, there are very few good SS below $200NL...

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

Yes, it is.

Though not nearly as profitable if you know what you are doing with a full stack.

Yeah, it's also incredibly boring to play.

[kingetje]

of course you can play profitably this way. but like darling said, playing fullstacked can earn you much much more

[miaowmiaowchowface]

I doubt it very much.

Sure the big sites are creating some tables with a bigger min buyin. However they will never totally eliminate it, there are a lot of pro SS and their style of game does bring a lot of rake to the sites. Especially in the higher limits.

I have to say though, there are very few good SS below $200NL...

=[ i try to stay optimistic!

[crack]

Shortstacking can be incredibly profitable with the right strategy because generally bigger stacked players do not know the best way to play against the SS and generally gamble when they perhaps shouldn't.

It shouldn't be phased out on any site. Yeah it can be annoying when someone sits down, doubles up and quits, but it gives weaker players a chance to sit down and take a shot who may not be eager to do this for a full stack. So it kind of can bring some weaker players into a game.

[MrDarling]

Shortstacking can be incredibly profitable with the right strategy because generally bigger stacked players do not know the best way to play against the SS and generally gamble when they perhaps shouldn't.

I don't think it can get incredibly profitable.
I think the best one are nearing 2bb/100 at best.

It shouldn't be phased out on any site. Yeah it can be annoying when someone sits down, doubles up and quits, but it gives weaker players a chance to sit down and take a shot who may not be eager to do this for a full stack. So it kind of can bring some weaker players into a game.

well weaker players can always buy for half stack or even 40BB. Though I love to see weak players at my table, if they sit with 20BB I don't really get excited about it.

[jimmer]

Ok, so looking at a specific example. Assuming I am a very competent player who can play a good stratagy at both; am I best taking $100 to a $0.50-$1 NLHE table (effectively buying in for the max) or $100 to a $2-$4?(Effectively buying in for the minimum?)

[miaowmiaowchowface]

Ok, so looking at a specific example. Assuming I am a very competent player who can play a good stratagy at both; am I best taking $100 to a $0.50-$1 NLHE table (effectively buying in for the max) or $100 to a $2-$4?(Effectively buying in for the minimum?)

pretty sure that isn't the minimum, and just fullstack plz

[jimmer]

pretty sure that isn't the minimum,

No, the minimum was $80 on the table I was looking at, but I felt it's close enough for my example.