[Closed] Question for the Pros

don't understand what you are talking about

LOL @ Pbaby....

I didn't think I was making much sense.... but maybe you just haven't read the articles yet, so....

BSS = Big Stack Strategy, where you buy into a ring game with 100 Big Blinds, so in the case of NL .05/.10, you sit at the table with $10.

SSS = Short Stack Strategy, which is the basis for PokerStrategy. Buy in with 20 BB's and only play your premium hands, and play those hands very aggressively.

So I'm wondering what is the better play for the long term. Playing short-stacked at a higher limit or playing Big Stacked at a lower one. Catch my drift?

put it all on 36.

LOL...I know what SSS is and waht BSS is, no need to explain.

I dont understand your problem. What is exactly your concern? You're saying nonsense

Originally posted by swissmoumout
put it all on 36.

Red or Black?

hmmm

red!

I think it depends on what you want to do and what style of game you want to concentrate on:

For me playing SSS is best if it is multitabled as in atleast 6+ but preferably even more tables. Its a good tool for increasing the bankroll, and if you play enough tables - and play it well enough can be quite profitable. So if you are looking at being mainly a profit-> many table player-> SSS is an option.

If you are more interested in perfecting your game, and understanding of it. Like reading your opponents, and are not necessarily a big fan of multitableing I would stick to the BSS. Playing BSS at lower limits, posting hands, and perfecting your poker skills is definitely +EV not only from the money but also experience perspective.

So essentially: Unless you move and do way more than 2 tables SSS -> go for BSS

Best regards,
SoyCD

I'll focus on choosing between BSS and SSS.

The bigger the stack is, the more you can lose with one hand. The bigger the stack is, the more you can win with one hand. So with BSS, your good skills can pay off much, and your mistake is also much more expensive. With the short stack strategy, you can win always small amounts regardless how strong your hand is.

From the above concept, we can draw a conclusion that: a good BS will earn more than a good SS. Therefore, which type to play depends on your skills. If you're new to poker, and have small bankroll, stay with BSS until you have a proper bankroll (at least 20 stacks) as well as have mastered all aspects of the game.

Now regarding your specfic query: I would say: NL SH if you've prepared all for that.

Good luck!
thunderbird56

Thank you Soy and Thunderbird!

I'm glad somebody understood that post

I think I'll be trying BSS @ NL10 6-max. More fish ;). ~$200 BR is enough, no?

Thanks for the advice and I'll keep you posted.

♦

it absolutely doesn't make any sense to play 2 tables SSS. The fastest way to grind is to play 10-12 tables SSS. Otherwise, play with a big stack.

Originally posted by theloniousbones
The essence of this is that I'm wondering what works best moving forward. I realize I'm still susceptable to variance, so I'm debating what is the better course of action, either playing SSS @ NL25, where I've had some success, averaging around $3-$5 profit per session playing 2 tables. Slow but steady.

When you're not susceptable to it anymore, will you teach me ?

Originally posted by SonicXT

Originally posted by theloniousbones
The essence of this is that I'm wondering what works best moving forward. I realize I'm still susceptable to variance, so I'm debating what is the better course of action, either playing SSS @ NL25, where I've had some success, averaging around $3-$5 profit per session playing 2 tables. Slow but steady.

When you're not susceptable to it anymore, will you teach me ?

How to be successful in poker: Part 1

If I was in your position at FTP with $200 I'd play some SSS at NL25 AND some BSS at NL25?!. To be specific, I'd impose an initial rule upon myself of only playing SSS if I had less than 45BI's (900BB's) otherwise I'd consider buying-in fullstacked especially if a certain table seemed a bit fishy. The experience gained playing SSS will also be of obvious direct benefit to your BSS in this case.
If you are able to build and maintain a stack in this manner then you will be able to take shots at just about any game you want to. Your risk of ruin (ROR) will be relatively small.

If you play directly NL10SH then you have a much bigger risk of going broke since not only is there typically higher variance playing BSS but also 10% rake at FTP on these games. You will need a very large edge over your opponents to make up for this and if you are a beginning player this is very unlikely. If you don't mind re-depositing then ROR considertions become less important.

Remember that playing well on two tables is often better than playing poorly on six. Good luck.

Originally posted by xylere
it absolutely doesn't make any sense to play 2 tables SSS. The fastest way to grind is to play 10-12 tables SSS. Otherwise, play with a big stack.

Out of topic:
Is sth. wrong with me since i play 10-12 tables BSS?

Originally posted by slikec

Originally posted by xylere
it absolutely doesn't make any sense to play 2 tables SSS. The fastest way to grind is to play 10-12 tables SSS. Otherwise, play with a big stack.

Out of topic:
Is sth. wrong with me since i play 10-12 tables BSS?

Nope If you have the experience and talent for it there is nothing wrong with increasing the table numbers, if it has a positive effect on your overall winnings.

Especially for FR BSS I think a lot of people play 12+ tables once they have reached a certain level of experience.

I don't know about FR, but I play 2-3 tables SH and I am not going to add any more. I would better play 2 tables on NL 400, then 8 tables on NL 50.

np with playing 12 tables. What is a problem however, is playing too many tables, but you have to determine yourself how many is too many...