You are talking only about decreasing variance, not making more money.
The only point in your comment here that makes that much sense is about
the variance being much higher when you play with everyone covered. As I
said, if you are inadequately bankrolled and you don't like variance,
playing short stacked in a bigger game might be better than playing having
everyone covered in the smaller game.
OTOH, there is a serious difference in skill level between the $1/$2
games and the $2/$5 games both in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, in my
experience. As a strong low-limit player, you are almost always a
favorite against all $1/$2 players in these places. $2/$5 probably has
some folks better than you. Your short stack will help mitigate your
losses, but you are still taking the worst of it when you have players
against you who are better poker players.
Finally, I don't believe in the least about the idea of “maximizing your
losses”. That's another way of saying “maximizing
variance”, but the former way of saying it makes it seem like
there is some other idea at work other than variance.
No matter what, having people covered, when you are the better player
in all ways, always gives you better EV than playing a short stack. This
is particularly true in low-limit casino games where people can (and often
do)get up and leave with a lot of money at any moment. You need to
maximize your possibility of getting their whole stack in the short time
they are there.
The only reasons playing a short stack in a cash game is an advantage are:
If you are much more skilled at short stack play than big stack
play.
If your bankroll is too small for the game you are playing (i.e.,
you're taking a shot).
If session variance is a serious problem for you (related somewhat to
the above).
Many of the players at the table are better players than you, but some
aren't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-06 16:11 (UTC)You are talking only about decreasing variance, not making more money. The only point in your comment here that makes that much sense is about the variance being much higher when you play with everyone covered. As I said, if you are inadequately bankrolled and you don't like variance, playing short stacked in a bigger game might be better than playing having everyone covered in the smaller game.
OTOH, there is a serious difference in skill level between the $1/$2 games and the $2/$5 games both in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, in my experience. As a strong low-limit player, you are almost always a favorite against all $1/$2 players in these places. $2/$5 probably has some folks better than you. Your short stack will help mitigate your losses, but you are still taking the worst of it when you have players against you who are better poker players.
Finally, I don't believe in the least about the idea of “maximizing your losses”. That's another way of saying “maximizing variance”, but the former way of saying it makes it seem like there is some other idea at work other than variance.
No matter what, having people covered, when you are the better player in all ways, always gives you better EV than playing a short stack. This is particularly true in low-limit casino games where people can (and often do)get up and leave with a lot of money at any moment. You need to maximize your possibility of getting their whole stack in the short time they are there.
The only reasons playing a short stack in a cash game is an advantage are: