You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Short stack nearly always looses

edited March 2014 in Poker Chat
  I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand.

comments?

Comments

  • edited March 2014
    I have noticed lots of people post completely spurious things on the forum with literally no evidence.
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    wise up
  • edited March 2014

    Not the case, but feel free to keep on thinking it.

  • edited March 2014


    People nearly always use the phrase "9 times out of 10" in these kinds of posts!

  • edited March 2014
    You shouldn't have said anything. They're going to swap it round, now.

    They'll probably flick your DOOM switch, too.
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    bulid up a really big stack then and just keep shoving into short stacks with any 2.... easy game :-)
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    This just shows you have no idea of how poker works.

    However, if you think you have an edge - use it to your advantage! Whenever you're in the pot with a smaller stick, just go all-in. According to your logic your opposition "will nearly always lose" :-)
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    You got a few comments, job done:)


  • edited March 2014
    I think its a shame someone posts on the forum being genuine and gets slated by most of the forum regs,  it may be a rookie mistake to beleive this but constuctive advice wouldnt go a miss surely?
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    I think its a shame someone posts on the forum being genuine and gets slated by most of the forum regs,  it may be a rookie mistake to beleive this but constuctive advice wouldnt go a miss surely?
    Posted by K8LOU
    Actually you're right, however it is difficult to respond positively to such a nonsensical question. 
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    I think its a shame someone posts on the forum being genuine and gets slated by most of the forum regs,  it may be a rookie mistake to beleive this but constuctive advice wouldnt go a miss surely?
    Posted by K8LOU
    You've made a fair point mate.  I've been playing live lately and the amount of times I've heard people there saying how online poker is rigged is unreal.  Thing is, they actually believe it.
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    Morning Jon,

    I'm genuinely sorry you've been bashed up a bit on this thread, but you used the phrase "here on Sky", suggesting something improper. Those who responded see so many threads like this, so, to a degree, it's easy to understand their cynicism, & why they are so dismissive.

    The truth is, you are probably right, that the short stack loses more than we might otherwise suppose. But it's not just "here on Sky", it's everywhere, both Online, & Live. And there is good logic to the theory, too.
     
    By definition, short stacks have to shove, or call, with a FAR wider (worse) range of hands than would normally be the case if we were motoring along with an average stack. And the big stacks not only know this, but they have the luxury of taking on the short stack without endangering their Tourney life. 

    With a big stack, we'd be daft to get the lot in against another big stack if we have, say, A-3, or 2-2. If we have a micro-stack, we look at A-3 & 2-2 & it looks HUGE.
     
    Shorties give big stacks odds to call, too. If we shove our 3 Bigs in all-in with 2-2, as we must & should, we are going to get multi-callers, as they all know our range is mega-wide.
     
    It's simple logic, & nothing to do with Sky, which you imply.

    When things are not going well, it's so easy, & it seems to be the modern thing, to point fingers at others, or external factors. Fact is, we need to look at ourselves. The problem arises BECAUSE we have a short stack, so the logical answer it to try & motor along with a larger stack. Then, if course, YOU can call the Shorties, & YOU can bust THEM.

    I suspect you had a bad day yesterday, as I believe you've played thousands of games here on Sky Poker, so you know everything is tickity-boo or you would have skidaddled long ago.

    Hope your luck soon changes.    


     
     
  • edited March 2014
    and there is a pyschological angle as well.
    as by definition you get knocked out of a tournament when losing as a small stack, which makes it more memorable, and painful, than when doubling up to stay in.

    my exit from the roller last night AK<AQ (K on flop, runner runner QQ) will stay in my memory a lot longer than the earlier double up (AQ>QQ A on the flop)
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    People nearly always use the phrase "9 times out of 10" in these kinds of posts!
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH

    and "nearly always"



     
  • edited March 2014
    I wish this was true!!
    last 3 exits on sat night
    kk, aa v shorties who alais had jj river j, 88 flop 998 meh
    then when short
    aqvkj kj flop 

    luckily the the site crashed before I could be handed another bad beat  ;')
    runbetter
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    I think its a shame someone posts on the forum being genuine and gets slated by most of the forum regs,  it may be a rookie mistake to beleive this but constuctive advice wouldnt go a miss surely?
    Posted by K8LOU

    hi k8, jononzie has been posting and playing here regularly for 5 years.  he will already have constructive advice in mind, surely.



  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    I think its a shame someone posts on the forum being genuine and gets slated by most of the forum regs,  it may be a rookie mistake to beleive this but constuctive advice wouldnt go a miss surely?
    Posted by K8LOU
    My advice was fairly constructive - I'm advising him to exploit flaws in the system rather than complain about it in order to give him some more value, albeit in a slightly assertive way. However, JONONZIE has 342 posts and has been a member for a number of years, he is not a rookie.

    Of course if a true rookie came on here and said a similar thing, yes, attitudes towards them should be different :-)
  • edited March 2014
    Second time inside one week, lost with AA vs AQo.  All in pre and in the 2nd hand all in on flop JT2r.  Live poker is rigged!  That was my reply to them yesterday.
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses : My advice was fairly constructive - I'm advising him to exploit flaws in the system rather than complain about it in order to give him some more value, albeit in a slightly assertive way. However, JONONZIE has 342 posts and has been a member for a number of years, he is not a rookie. Of course if a true rookie came on here and said a similar thing, yes, attitudes towards them should be different :-)
    Posted by peter27
    Yeh fair enough I get that but my point was not directed just towards you, the thing is as doubleaaa stated above is that people actually believe this to be true, I was never saying he is new to the forum I was saying that it's a rookie mistake in believing this to be true but does that deserve a slating ? the forum is here to help people, I don't think it makes a difference if you are new to the forum or your a forum reg, ppl should still be treated with a little courtesy and respect.
  • edited March 2014


    i reckon jononzie was being funny. 



     
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    i reckon jononzie was being funny.   
    Posted by aussie09
    I SERIOUSLY 2ND THIS ....COME ON ITS A PRETTY RIDICOLOUS POST REALLY
  • edited March 2014
    More likely he was fishing for trolls
    and caught some
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses : Yeh fair enough I get that but my point was not directed just towards you, the thing is as doubleaaa stated above is that people actually believe this to be true, I was never saying he is new to the forum I was saying that it's a rookie mistake in believing this to be true but does that deserve a slating ? the forum is here to help people, I don't think it makes a difference if you are new to the forum or your a forum reg, ppl should still be treated with a little courtesy and respect.
    Posted by K8LOU
    Can't really argue against that, very fair point.
  • edited March 2014

    Right.

    The thread title has been bugging me since it went up.

    The word you are looking for is 'loses', not 'looses'. Otherwise it's an incomplete sentence without any context whatsoever.

    Short stack nearly always loses. There's your thread title.

    There. I feel better now.

    But you're wrong: it doesn't.

  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Short stack nearly always looses:
      I have noticed that the short stacks "all in" here on sky will nearly always lose to the bigger stacks call regardles of the big stacks hand. comments?
    Posted by JONONZIE
    Hi m8 just to say sometimes it feels like that, because its the hand u remember the most the hand you get knocked out with to obviously a bigger stack never the suckout a few hands b4. I will also add i love taking on a short stack because it feels like the bigger stack mostly wins esp in a BH i call 2 or 3 short stack when i have large stack win, But i have also called 1 too many short stacks and by the time i know it im OUT, make urself a chart write it down everytime there is a all in BS v SS i dont know you might prove us wrong, good luck pal 
  • edited March 2014
    In Response to Re: Short stack nearly always looses:
    Right. The thread title has been bugging me since it went up. The word you are looking for is ' loses ', not ' looses '. Otherwise it's an incomplete sentence without any context whatsoever. Short stack nearly always loses. There's your thread title. There. I feel better now. But you're wrong: it doesn't.
    Posted by Slipwater
    where is the like button?
  • edited March 2014
    Ok I shall attempt to explain. If you do not win the tournament then your short stack will lose to a big stack. This is certain because to be knocked out you must lose the hand and have less chips. It is always easier to remember the last hand you played than one you played 2 hours ago, and as you have been knocked out this is the last hand. Also when you are desperate and go all in and have the worst hand and lose you tend to shrug your shoulders and say " well I had to give it a go" which is of course correct, but when your AK suited loses to 9-7 off, or your AA loses to 8-7 suited you are disgusted at your bad luck. Also as you have a short stack the opponents are correct to call with poorer hands than they might, which increases the chance that a poorer hand will beat you.
    All this makes it seem like the poorer hand nearly always wins against the shorstack. In reality if your hand has a 60% chance over your opponents hand then over time your hand will win 60% of the time.
    To give you something to think about, say you were seriously short stacked and had to double up twice to get back in it, and you had the two scenarios I quoted above, (Lets face it you could not hope for better than AKs followed by AA) just how certain is it you will win them both?
  • edited March 2014

     Wow, I did not think it would cause all this fuss,(also not a comlaint just MY observation) TK I only  said "here on sky" as this is mostly the only poker site I play now simply because it is the best with the best members,  (mostly)I'm sure other site's short stack shove will be the same ,  also I mostly play BH,s so obviously any big stack will call the small stack's all in just for the head, I understand the odds will allways be close (at least 3/1) when heads up, its just my personal observation that the short stack will wait for  half a hand and quite often  be in front but get outdrawn luckily not my experience  (to much), I also will never be surprised what the cards will lay down, which is one reason I play as Im not the best player in the world and need the luck that hold'em throws up.  but I thank all who posted and wish them luck when short stacked (oh and I apologise for the illiteracy content of my post for all you budding Shakespear.s ) lol
Sign In or Register to comment.