Skip to forum
Notifications
Clear all

Beat by higher flush

13 Posts
5 Users
1 Reactions
648 Views
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

$0.01/$0.02 No Limit Holdem
PokerStars
8 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by WeakTight Poker Hand History Converter

Stacks:
UTG ($2.09) 105bb
UTG+1 ($1.69) 85bb
MP1 ($1.48) 74bb
MP2 ($2.60) 130bb
CO Hero ($0.29) 15bb
BTN ($1.77) 89bb
SB ($2) 100bb
BB ($3.38) 169bb

Pre-Flop: (0.03, 8 players) Hero is CO 5♥: 6♥:
3 folds, MP2 calls $0.02, Hero raises to $0.08, 2 folds, BB calls $0.06, MP2 calls $0.06
Flop: A♥: J♥: 8♠: ($0.25, 3 players)

BB checks, MP2 checks, Hero bets $0.16, BB goes all-in $3.30, MP2 folds, Hero goes all-in $0.05

Turn: T♦: ($3.76, 2), 2 all-in
River: 7♥: ($3.76, 2), 2 all-in

Final Pot: $3.76
Hero shows a flush, Ace high - lower cards
5♥: 6♥:
BB shows a flush, Ace high
K♥: Q♥:


Reply
Quote
12 replies
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

I was pretty small stacked I thought I could isolate the limper and shove with some kind of draws or pairs. the flop came both checked to me so i went all in , was this a bad move?


Reply
Quote
TurokRider
Joined: 21.10.2011

Never ever sit at a cashtable with just 15bb. Refill up to 100bb or leave. Period.

Nothing sane to say about the hand because of this


Reply
Quote
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

Is this like a well known rule your talking about? I’ve never heard of this I thought you were supposed to play Short Stack Strategy when you get low ? Should I be re-filling at what point like 50bb, and just keep track of losses in notes ?


Reply
Quote
TurokRider
Joined: 21.10.2011

Originally posted by killacasey
Is this like a well known rule your talking about? I’ve never heard of this I thought you were supposed to play Short Stack Strategy when you get low ? Should I be re-filling at what point like 50bb, and just keep track of losses in notes ?

Yeah, it is. Always auto-rebuy to 100BB so you can win the max if you get it in good.

You don't keep track of the losses in a session, that's bad for your mental state .
Afterwards, you could check what happened to your bankrole if you like... or not. I check my losses/winning maybe once a month or so


Reply
Quote
Moderator
SDK1987
Joined: 12.11.2008

Is a well known rule and the SSS is old school and not possible anymore on PokerStars, because than you should start with 20bb on a full ring table. Now is the Big Stack Strategy (BSS) the most commen strategy. A Strategy that could still work for you is the Mid Stack Strategy (MSS). I think it's smart to read our MSS and BSS articles to learn more about it.

Cheers,
SDK1987


Reply
Quote
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

Originally posted by SDK1987
Is a well known rule and the SSS is old school and not possible anymore on PokerStars, because than you should start with 20bb on a full ring table. Now is the Big Stack Strategy (BSS) the most commen strategy. A Strategy that could still work for you is the Mid Stack Strategy (MSS). I think it's smart to read our MSS and BSS articles to learn more about it.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Nobody plays the SSS anymore? I read articles about it on the site sometime ago and also seen an interview with Phil helmuth talking about how to play it. Has theory evolved since then and came to the conclusion it’s not viable , is that what you mean?

And don’t we still have to play SSS once in a while when short stacked in tourneys or whatever. It seems like a decent strategy because you can force big stacks out of a hand when their scared of your all ins ? I don’t know just asking questions to learn


Reply
Quote
sashkoo4413
Joined: 13.01.2020

:f_biggrin:


Reply
Quote

short stack and big stack strategy applies more to tournaments i would think and doesn't really apply to cash games.It's advisable to have auto top up to 100bb for cash games.


Reply
Quote
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

When I say SSS I was referring to 40bb, isn’t the term “small stack” subjective to who you ask some might give different answers? Forgive me for not knowing, I just started playing poker and studying again but the last time I was doing so SSS had an article on this website which I studied and had no reason to believe it wasn’t still viable. From info I’ve gathered from other sources I am confused because some say it is personal preference because with more money at the table it is fact that you can win more but on the other side of the coin with less money at the table you can lose less, and with a large amount of losing players at the micro stakes this doesn’t seem like the worst idea, maybe even protecting bankroll in a way? Bad players could stack off over and over with worse hands no?


Reply
Quote
TurokRider
Joined: 21.10.2011

I do think it's a personal preference to play short stack like 40-50BB (and not 15BB like in this hand).

Some problems I could think of when playing a small stack:
Sometimes, You can't bet enough to deny people the potodds they need to call.
Sometimes, people can't call you because they can't win enough from, mostly with setmining and drawing.
You can't really bluff. On the micro's people will call anything vs a small stack. Bluffing is a bad idea on the micro's anyway, but vs a small stack you have even less chance of succes.

On the other hand, you will get less respect on tables bc of your short stack, this might be a good thing e.g. people might call your valuebet all-ins looser because they are cheaper or they look at you as being a fish.

Still, playing as low as 15BB is a bad idea.


Reply
Quote
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

Hey man great answer thank you


Reply
Quote
Casey55
Joined: 19.07.2010

I figured playing with 14bb wasn’t ideal but I only uploaded the minimum and didn’t really have the money to keep topping up while im learning, so if I lose my stack I back out and come back when I feel fresh again, With 10$ I didn’t have money to keep using auto top up. I find it easier to keep track of my loses and not lose too much at one time by individual buy ins when I’m so low. I know with 10$ I probrably shouldn’t be at micros at all but I’m learning and getting better as long as I don’t lose everything I can keep playing and learning


Reply
Quote