Can someone explain why I can't play SSS with a 35 BB buy-in?

  • 7 replies
    • DecMate
      DecMate
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.01.2009 Posts: 939
      Because you're strategy highly depends on stack sizes, so since you have 35BB, you can't just shove in situations like you could with a 20BB stack.
      There's more room for real play.
      ~Hope it helps
    • pzhon
      pzhon
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,151
      There are times that you risk your stack, or risk getting your stack in with 25% equity, in order to attack the pot. A greater stack depth changes the risk:reward ratio, which changes which plays are profitable.

      There is nothing intrinsically wrong with buying in for 35 bb, but you have to play differently from the way you play with a 20 bb or 100 bb stack. It is less comfortable to resteal all-in, but you will have more folding equity on 4-bets and squeezes. You will have more decisions postflop.
    • golgo14
      golgo14
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.10.2010 Posts: 6
      Actually, you can play a short stack strategy quite successfully even as a "mid stack" approach.

      I play live, and the minimum buy in is 50 BB. So ... I simply doubled all the preflop raises, so that on the flop my SPR (Stack-to-Pot ratio) remained the same.

      It has worked very well. I like to think I'm playing a 20 BB game at twice the stakes I actually am. Now, I do not know if this would work as well online given how nitty the environment is .. but at my crazy 1/2 games where the average preflop raise is around $20, it works quite well.

      Actually, the inspiration for this was this article:

      http://www.cardplayer.com/cardplayer-magazines/65688-dan-harrington-20-24/articles/17168-a-foolproof-strategy-for-wild-games

      I simply adopted the basic SS as a template. The strategies are virtually identical.

      Best,
      G14
    • pzhon
      pzhon
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,151
      That may work well in live games. People don't go to a live poker game to fold. They are willing to pay a lot to see if they hit a miracle flop like the ones they see on TV, and you can make your open-raises 10 bb and still get multiple callers, even though you obviously are not offering enough implied odds. You don't get many hands per hour, and the rake is usually very high, but the lowest stakes NL games available are still usually quite profitable.

      In softer microstakes games, you might be able to get away with the same thing, but in nittier games many more players will just get out of the way when a tight player raises to 8 bb. So, you will not get back the blinds you pay.
    • golgo14
      golgo14
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.10.2010 Posts: 6
      This is quite true. The online games are ridiculously tight. I forgot how much of a nitfest they are. Live, I can count the number of times the blinds have been chopped on one hand over the last 500 hours, lol. Online, the game seems to be a battle for the blinds!

      Anyway, the rake is a concern live. It's 5%, maxed at $5. Buying in for $100, I'm generally paying the maximum rake for mid-pots. This does weigh on me, and even though I have a healthy win rate ($25/hr), I'm wondering if I should look at deep stack play, simply from the rake perspective:

      $500 pot with a $5 rake is a 1% tax.
      $100 pot with a $5 rake is a 5% tax.

      That's a huge difference, and even with the intrinsic advantages of a shortstack at these tables, you are squarely in the $100-$200 "max-tax" pots.

      Best,
      G14
    • andreibalint
      andreibalint
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.04.2009 Posts: 872
      Very nice idea to play double SSS! ty
    • golgo14
      golgo14
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.10.2010 Posts: 6
      It's actually rather amusing live. The question is always asked:

      "So ... what do you do when you double up?"

      Simple.

      I move to the next poker room. I have about three on rotation. By the time I get back to the first, anywhere from 2-4 hours has passed so I can buy in for the minimum again.

      Most of the regulars hate what I'm doing, but at the 1/2 level, I rarely hear of anyone making more than $25/hr long term. And I suspect it might even work better in more aggressive 2/5 games. Sadly, there are few of those where I live.

      Guess I'll have to move, lol.

      Best,
      G14