Short stacks
Apr. 12th, 2007 05:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAN interesting debate at the moment on 2+2 about petitioning Stars to raise the default buy-in and to raise the minimum buy-in for No Limit games.
To save you the strain of ploughing through the acres of unnecessary verbiage, one poster wants to petition Stars because, he claims, the short-stackers are ruining the game. (The reasons for this are somewhat tedious to elaborate, but the basic principle is that they force the game to tighten up and reduce the emphasis on post-flop play)
The defence of the short-stackers is that the "deep-stackers" are only moaning because they cannot adapt. In fact, this is just about the only defence they put forward.
However, the deep stackers have put forward a number of other "metagame" points, and to these points, reply is there none.
1) Short-stacking will serve to destroy the game, because it becomes an unpleasant aesthetic experience. As one deep-stacker put it, "Poker is meant to be fun. The short-stack strategy stops it being fun".
Since the short-stackers are mainly concerned with profit rather than fun, this argument is meaningless to them. "Enjoyment? The enjoyment is what you do with your won money."
2) Short-stacking strategy cannot be used in a live game.
Here the old "it's not like live poker" argument rears its head -- one with which I don't have a lot of sympathy. The Youngster has observed this phenomenon in PLO, where short-stackers sit down, double up, and then sit down at another table with a short stack. You can't do this in casinos, but you can do it online. However, here the short-stackers do have a kind of defence. They can simply say that "online is a different game. Live with it". The days of online trying to "replicate" the live casino experience are surely long past.
3) Short-stacking strategy makes the game less skilful.
Well, Felicia Lee once produced the refutation to this, relating to live deep-stack tournaments. The line was, if you are going to put in a raise pre-flop against players who you know are better than you, then make it a big one to reduce their implied odds after the flop. If they still want to play you with those reduced implied odds then, well, you are probably in there with the best of it. If they don't, then that's their tough shit. They will probably moan about the size of the raise, saying "damned internet players", but the fact is, if in poker you make a legal play that your opponent doesn't like, the chances are that it is better for you than it is for your opponent.
This whole debate reminds me of something David Spanier wrote over a decade ago when comparing casino games and home games, and I think that the online/B&M dichotomy can be compared with that.
Spanier noted that his style of play was such that he was no longer welcomed at some home games. He took it "too seriously"; he was "too tight". Spanier actually noted (the second time that this happened) that it was an unfair accusation. But, unfortunately, image is more important than reality.
So, Spanier went over almost solely to casino play. Even though the games were tougher, he found them more to his liking. Unlike many poker professionals, who play in casinos but spend most of their time hunting the "judges" type games from Rounders, Spanier preferred an atmosphere where he did not have to pretend to be a social player while stripping his opponents of their chips, even if this reduced his overall earn rate. He preferred a game where the social niceties were not so necessary, and he preferred a game where he could leave when he was up, without social condemnation.
Now, time-shift forward to today, and you can see that many of the online players are adopting policies that would be frowned upon in casinos or which would be physically impossible (doubling up then shifting to another table with a minimum buy-in; playing several tables very tightly; doing 10-hand hit'n'runs). For "live" players such as the Youngster, who still, subconsciously, feel that the online game should try to replicate the casino game, this is anathema. But to object to this is like objecting to the social norms in a casino game being different from those in a home game.
Some of the deep-stack players say "bring 'em on" to the short-stackers, solely on the grounds that there are a great deal more poor short-stack players than there are good ones, and that these short-stackers lose their minimum buy-ins often enough to out number the profits made by the "double up and leave" players.
Others suggest the introduction of "deep stack" games, with much higher minimum buy-ins. It would be interesting to see how this worked. I think that a number of the current deep-stackers would realize that the short-stackers cost them less than they think, if, in deed, they cost the deep-stackers anything at all.
A second suggestion (following the "online should try to replicate live" theory) is that if you leave one table with a stack of a certain size, you would be forced to keep that stack if you sat down at another table within a certain time limit.
It's always fascinated me how the default buy-in affects games. Even in limit, where one would think that it wouldn't matter a toss, there is something rather more satisfying about sitting at a UB game (default, 50 x Big Blind) than at a Stars game (default, something very low, 10 x Big Blind?). You just get the feeling that you aren't sitting down with a bunch of penurious 18-year olds looking to win enough to pay for the evening's drinking. After all, even at a $2-$4 game, if you move from $200 to $240, subconsciously this does not seem as significant as moving from $40 to $80.
And just look at the average stacks in the $2-$4 limit games on Stars. Whenever I do, I just say to myself "hell, there's fuck-all there to win".
++++++
I see Kurt Vonnegut has died. Perhaps he was an adolescent boy's auther -- I certainly enjoyed his stuff more when I was young than I did when I tried to reread them in my 40s. However, that doesn't detract from the strength of some of his works. God Bless You Mr Rosewater and Slaughterhouse Five were important in bringing SF "into the mainstream", and I think that KV can rightly be regarded as one of the more important American writers of the 20th century.
To save you the strain of ploughing through the acres of unnecessary verbiage, one poster wants to petition Stars because, he claims, the short-stackers are ruining the game. (The reasons for this are somewhat tedious to elaborate, but the basic principle is that they force the game to tighten up and reduce the emphasis on post-flop play)
The defence of the short-stackers is that the "deep-stackers" are only moaning because they cannot adapt. In fact, this is just about the only defence they put forward.
However, the deep stackers have put forward a number of other "metagame" points, and to these points, reply is there none.
1) Short-stacking will serve to destroy the game, because it becomes an unpleasant aesthetic experience. As one deep-stacker put it, "Poker is meant to be fun. The short-stack strategy stops it being fun".
Since the short-stackers are mainly concerned with profit rather than fun, this argument is meaningless to them. "Enjoyment? The enjoyment is what you do with your won money."
2) Short-stacking strategy cannot be used in a live game.
Here the old "it's not like live poker" argument rears its head -- one with which I don't have a lot of sympathy. The Youngster has observed this phenomenon in PLO, where short-stackers sit down, double up, and then sit down at another table with a short stack. You can't do this in casinos, but you can do it online. However, here the short-stackers do have a kind of defence. They can simply say that "online is a different game. Live with it". The days of online trying to "replicate" the live casino experience are surely long past.
3) Short-stacking strategy makes the game less skilful.
Well, Felicia Lee once produced the refutation to this, relating to live deep-stack tournaments. The line was, if you are going to put in a raise pre-flop against players who you know are better than you, then make it a big one to reduce their implied odds after the flop. If they still want to play you with those reduced implied odds then, well, you are probably in there with the best of it. If they don't, then that's their tough shit. They will probably moan about the size of the raise, saying "damned internet players", but the fact is, if in poker you make a legal play that your opponent doesn't like, the chances are that it is better for you than it is for your opponent.
This whole debate reminds me of something David Spanier wrote over a decade ago when comparing casino games and home games, and I think that the online/B&M dichotomy can be compared with that.
Spanier noted that his style of play was such that he was no longer welcomed at some home games. He took it "too seriously"; he was "too tight". Spanier actually noted (the second time that this happened) that it was an unfair accusation. But, unfortunately, image is more important than reality.
So, Spanier went over almost solely to casino play. Even though the games were tougher, he found them more to his liking. Unlike many poker professionals, who play in casinos but spend most of their time hunting the "judges" type games from Rounders, Spanier preferred an atmosphere where he did not have to pretend to be a social player while stripping his opponents of their chips, even if this reduced his overall earn rate. He preferred a game where the social niceties were not so necessary, and he preferred a game where he could leave when he was up, without social condemnation.
Now, time-shift forward to today, and you can see that many of the online players are adopting policies that would be frowned upon in casinos or which would be physically impossible (doubling up then shifting to another table with a minimum buy-in; playing several tables very tightly; doing 10-hand hit'n'runs). For "live" players such as the Youngster, who still, subconsciously, feel that the online game should try to replicate the casino game, this is anathema. But to object to this is like objecting to the social norms in a casino game being different from those in a home game.
Some of the deep-stack players say "bring 'em on" to the short-stackers, solely on the grounds that there are a great deal more poor short-stack players than there are good ones, and that these short-stackers lose their minimum buy-ins often enough to out number the profits made by the "double up and leave" players.
Others suggest the introduction of "deep stack" games, with much higher minimum buy-ins. It would be interesting to see how this worked. I think that a number of the current deep-stackers would realize that the short-stackers cost them less than they think, if, in deed, they cost the deep-stackers anything at all.
A second suggestion (following the "online should try to replicate live" theory) is that if you leave one table with a stack of a certain size, you would be forced to keep that stack if you sat down at another table within a certain time limit.
It's always fascinated me how the default buy-in affects games. Even in limit, where one would think that it wouldn't matter a toss, there is something rather more satisfying about sitting at a UB game (default, 50 x Big Blind) than at a Stars game (default, something very low, 10 x Big Blind?). You just get the feeling that you aren't sitting down with a bunch of penurious 18-year olds looking to win enough to pay for the evening's drinking. After all, even at a $2-$4 game, if you move from $200 to $240, subconsciously this does not seem as significant as moving from $40 to $80.
And just look at the average stacks in the $2-$4 limit games on Stars. Whenever I do, I just say to myself "hell, there's fuck-all there to win".
++++++
I see Kurt Vonnegut has died. Perhaps he was an adolescent boy's auther -- I certainly enjoyed his stuff more when I was young than I did when I tried to reread them in my 40s. However, that doesn't detract from the strength of some of his works. God Bless You Mr Rosewater and Slaughterhouse Five were important in bringing SF "into the mainstream", and I think that KV can rightly be regarded as one of the more important American writers of the 20th century.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 08:35 am (UTC)I like the "poker is supposed to be fun" concept - this should be emblazoned across large, frequently-seen things until everyone has absorbed it and no-one worries about the money any more, just having "fun". Everyone except us, that is; I'll find another way to have fun.
I must get Slaughterhouse Five out of whatever box it's currently consigned to - it's been a long time. So it goes.
Get rid of those super short stack queers!
Date: 2007-04-12 03:12 pm (UTC)Although I haven't posted in the current debate thread you mention, I have posted on 2+2 a lot about this and am in the deep stack camp. However I think an important distinction needs to be made here, which is one between super shortstacking (defined as 10-20bb), and semi-short or middling buyins. Myself and others prefer to play with full buyins, as in 100+bb. But what I have advocated isn't making everyone buyin for 100bb, but rather be required to buyin for at least 40bb, instead of 10-20bb. I think that is a very reasonable compromise, and one that STILL caters to the short stackers, but just not as much as formerly.
Game structure issues are very important to the overall poker economy, both online and live. And they aren't even particularly well understood by the largest online sites or biggest B&M pokerrooms. Mason Malmuth has written extensively about structure issues in his series of Poker Essays books, which I am sure you have read.
There are two general types of structures that are bad for the games, as in bad for either longevity or making players willing to play. And those are TOO TIGHT or TOO MUCH ACTION. Allowing super shortstacking (10-20bb) tightens up the games and allows a very tight strategy to succeed too easily. And in games with structures that encourage too much gambling, the live ones are eaten up too fast. There has to be a proper balance between skill and chance to keep the losers alive as long as possible thus making it more easy to replace them without breaking the games, and also where the chance element allows them to win just often enough to keep coming back, while at the same time having an enjoyable playing experience either way.
The two things that the online sites are doing which are very shortsighted and favor the quarterly bottom line over the long term bottom line, are allowing hyper multi-tabling along with software aids (HUDs), and allowing bad structures like super short stacking.
So again, for myself, I am only proposing the buyin be raised to like 40bb. That is as reasonable as it gets, and also eliminates the structural flaw that allows a too tight strategy to have an easy win (and any structure that allows too tight to win too easily is bad for game longevity as the fish can't win often enough and are decimated too quickly). Along with that, the sites could also offer 20bb min/max rathole tables where you are always either topped up or taken down to 20bb before the start of every hand. Let those queers play with 9 other like-minded players if they want and leave the rest of us to play proper poker.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Get rid of those super short stack queers!
Date: 2007-04-12 03:29 pm (UTC)I think I might actually pay just to watch these games. Bring it on!
Re: Get rid of those super short stack queers!
Date: 2007-04-12 04:55 pm (UTC)I could not agree with this more.
If the number of max tables was reduced to 4 or so, I really think that you would see a marked difference in the quality of the limit games. Even though I use HUDs, I wouldn't mind seeing them go away.
It's important to do what is best for the poker economy, but the sites don't see it that way...
Michael
Re: Get rid of those super short stack queers!
Date: 2007-04-12 11:13 pm (UTC)But experience has proved me wrong. If there are live players, they will be stripped of their money by someone and will, eventually, quit. It's no use trying to take their money at a sustainable rate, because someone else will take it at an unsustainable rate.
The same is true for "live" (too much action) games. Any game played for money that has too little variance will, eventually, die, because the poorer players will never have a winning night.
Now, for the poker sites, there's a kind of prisoner's dilemma in place here. If they take the "long view", they can be fairly sure that there will be another site that takes the "short view" and reaps the advantage. Therefore all the poker sites have to take the short view and everyone (in poker site terms) is collectively worse off in the long term.
Since that is the uncomfortable reality of the situation, I suspect you would have more luck campaigning for special "deep stack" 100bb games than you would in making the minmimum buy-in 40bb for all NL games.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-04-12 08:34 pm (UTC)*Points at icon*
Another one
Date: 2007-04-12 10:13 pm (UTC)Re: Another one
Date: 2007-04-12 10:33 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: Another one
Date: 2007-04-13 12:24 am (UTC)Note that at the time I was also playing online with blinds off the button and liking it better.
DY
Re: Another one
Date: 2007-04-13 09:27 am (UTC)Christ, I'd forgotten the days of Dealer's Choice and posting from the button, and your highly esteemable campaign against such idiocies. The Hold'em tradition, I think, developed from the Dealer's Choice "Button Posts".
This only goes to show how little most cardroom managers in the UK understood and understand poker. The theory, of course, was that "he who chooses the game, pays the blind", but any half-arsed analysis of this would have shown it to be nonsense, as games such as PLO with just the dealer posting were insane (imagine someone coming into the game, posting on the button, with no blinds. Now, imagine that, every hand.).
So, eventually some cardroom manager went on holiday to Vegas and discovered that there wre now two blinds, so he introduced one blind in the SB and one blind on the button. Marvellous.
Then again, I guess cardroom managers know how conservative most MOG poker players are, and any change as radical as introducing proper blinds could have caused a revolution.
PJ