Protecting your bankroll with short buyins
Some writers, Ed Milller in particular, advocates buying in short as a way to protect your bankroll. It's complete nonsense.
It might work to protect your bankroll if you're a losing player.
--- I have an errand to run. I'll have to finish this post later. Go ahead and share your thoughts on the subject while I'm gone.
UPDATE:
A commenter took issue with my suggestion that short buyins might help protect your bankroll if you're a losing player. He said, "most deep stacks don't know how to play against an aggressive SS".
Okay, that might be true, but that doesn't mean that you can protect your bankroll by using short buys even if you're a winning player otherwise. It's possible that a loser with deep stacks can convert himself into a winner by playing short stacks if he has opponents who don't know how to play against a short stack.
So even if playing a short stack might improve your lot, that doesn't mean you won't improve even more by just learning to play better and keeping a big stack.
If you're a winning player with a big stack then you'll give up a huge edge by reducing your stack size. Reducing your stack size is reducing the size of the game (for you). In no limit games your win is usually going to be expressable as a percentage of your stack size. If you cut your stack size by 90% your hurting your win in a big way even if cutting your stack will double your percentage win.
A $100 stack with a growth expectation of 20% is more profitable than a $20 stack with a growth expectation of 150%
----- I'm being called for supper, I"ll have to finish this later.
It might work to protect your bankroll if you're a losing player.
--- I have an errand to run. I'll have to finish this post later. Go ahead and share your thoughts on the subject while I'm gone.
UPDATE:
A commenter took issue with my suggestion that short buyins might help protect your bankroll if you're a losing player. He said, "most deep stacks don't know how to play against an aggressive SS".
Okay, that might be true, but that doesn't mean that you can protect your bankroll by using short buys even if you're a winning player otherwise. It's possible that a loser with deep stacks can convert himself into a winner by playing short stacks if he has opponents who don't know how to play against a short stack.
So even if playing a short stack might improve your lot, that doesn't mean you won't improve even more by just learning to play better and keeping a big stack.
If you're a winning player with a big stack then you'll give up a huge edge by reducing your stack size. Reducing your stack size is reducing the size of the game (for you). In no limit games your win is usually going to be expressable as a percentage of your stack size. If you cut your stack size by 90% your hurting your win in a big way even if cutting your stack will double your percentage win.
A $100 stack with a growth expectation of 20% is more profitable than a $20 stack with a growth expectation of 150%
----- I'm being called for supper, I"ll have to finish this later.
Labels: ed miller, stack size
posted by Gary Carson at 3:44 PM
2 Comments:
A losing player? Not sure if I agree with you there..most deep stacks don't know how to play against an aggressive SS.
Gary - you're a retard.
Post a Comment
<< Home