In Response to Why the discrimination against short stacks? : Well firstly, I believe that the main goal for TK and the other people on the channel is to teach alot of complete novices how to grasp the basics of the game, like not limping pre, how you play draws, how you play when you hit strong, playing position. So in general I think alot of it is aimed to teach the basic fundamentals...short stacking not being one of them. To play short stacked cash, properly and profitably is a more advanced strategy and doesn't appeal to 90% of people. As TK always says, you can never please everyone, but you can please the vast majority. On the Redmond Lee front, his stack is only as big as he's got it up to himself, everyone has the same opportunity to start with the same amount of chips. As you said in your bit about short stacking, how you remove implied odds from your opponents, likewise, it doesnt matter if Redmond has 1000 big blinds on the table, what matters is the effective stack (what Redmond's opponent has) and to be honest, anyone playing at that high a level will know Redmond and won't be whining because he's 'bullying' them. Posted by Lambert180
Hi Lambert, Thanks for responding. I think you misunderstood my "whine." I am very happy that anyone should build up a bankroll of any size. I admire both Redmond's play and analysis enormously. I am not "whining" about anyone using their stacks to bully at the table - surely that is an essential part of poker! No - what I am "whining" about is the opinion increasingly expressed that it is abusive to sit short stacked and that Sky should act to stop people doing this by increasing the minimum number of blinds to buy in. I am very happy that there should be no serious analysis of the dynamics of short stacked play. I just don't want the oprobium of those who would rather face only large stacks.
In Response to Re: Why the discrimination against short stacks? : Hi Lambert, Thanks for responding. I think you misunderstood my "whine." I am very happy that anyone should build up a bankroll of any size. I admire both Redmond's play and analysis enormously. I am not "whining" about anyone using their stacks to bully at the table - surely that is an essential part of poker! No - what I am "whining" about is the opinion increasingly expressed that it is abusive to sit short stacked and that Sky should act to stop people doing this by increasing the minimum number of blinds to buy in. I am very happy that there should be no serious analysis of the dynamics of short stacked play. I just don't want the oprobium of those who would rather face only large stacks. Posted by metaraptor
In Response to Re: Why the discrimination against short stacks? : Hi Lambert, Thanks for responding. I think you misunderstood my "whine." I am very happy that anyone should build up a bankroll of any size. I admire both Redmond's play and analysis enormously. I am not "whining" about anyone using their stacks to bully at the table - surely that is an essential part of poker! No - what I am "whining" about is the opinion increasingly expressed that it is abusive to sit short stacked and that Sky should act to stop people doing this by increasing the minimum number of blinds to buy in. I am very happy that there should be no serious analysis of the dynamics of short stacked play. I just don't want the oprobium of those who would rather face only large stacks. Posted by metaraptor
Mr Raptor (= Bird of Prey).
Excuse the fact I never replied yesterday - you were "next on the list", but I got sidetracked, & today was mant to be my day offline (I take one day Offline every week to keep a sense of life balance), which got sadly waylaid by some nonsense.
I'll reply properly to you tomorrow (oops, later today).
For now, I'd just say that you have completely misunderstood - inadvertently I assume - my comments & views as to "shorting".
I'll explain properly later, & I think you'll then say, "ahh, NOW I get it".
noticed you playing with an ipad the other day, hope it's not the one that i won in the santa' grotto freeroll at xmas!! Has not arrived yet and seems a bit of a coincidence, hope it's not gonna be full of pics of steam trains!!!
In Response to Re: Ask Tikay? : Hi Paul. Can you remind me who the runner-up was, please? I'll sort a little something out for both 1st & 2nd. Not much, but you know what Tesco say..... Posted by Tikay10
It was me Tikay, (I appreciate that you'll need Lambert to confirm though)
hi tikay my name is big fez from tranent aka BOOM 0! Id like to ask what yout hink about standard on sky poker now compared to a few years back i was on a cash table today and basically tebled up against players such as launder and lolraise(supposed better players) i found them both pretty average and extremely easy to read so ask lolraise or any other skypoker player to play me heads up any table..........
In Response to Re: Ask Tikay? : Hi Valley. Have you tried using "Mini-View"? If not, give that a try, it really helps, & you can easily fit 4 Tables within the screen of your monitor. To enable it, open the Table as usual, then go to the top right hand side of the Table, & you'll see a little icon which says "Mini-View", just click it, & hey presto, job done. To revert to "normal view", just click it again, & it reverts to a normal size Table. Give that a spin, & let me know how you get on, please. Posted by Tikay10
Hi Tikay, thanks for the tip, ive had a play and managed 2 suss it out. Will see how i go on with 4 tables for a while. Thanks again!
hello Tikay, do you agree with the free entry to the £1000 gtd tournament being taken away from anyone who earns 250-500 pts per month ? in my eyes this is a pretty sad thing to do as it now seems sky are just rewarding the big spenders. To earn 250-500 points a month still requires in a fair amount of money to be spent and now to not even get a 1.10 token reward is a disgrace and just shows sky is only interested in the high rollers and not interested in the recreational player. i used to generally earn 250-500 points and was happy to get that little something back in return was nice although not much it was something. Now this has been taken away my aim is to earn no points out of prinipal as it seems my few hundred pound i spend a month as a recreational player is not good enough for sky. i would like to hear your un-blinkered opinion on this please Tikay
In Response to Re: Ask Tikay? : Hi Paul. Can you remind me who the runner-up was, please? I'll sort a little something out for both 1st & 2nd. Not much, but you know what Tesco say..... Posted by Tikay10
Hi Tikay,
Thanks for getting back to me about this. 1st prize was Salad24 and the runner up was Splashies.
There's been loads of interest in this and lots of people asking me if I'm gonna get another one set-up soon. So I think I may be arranging another one of these sometime soon.
Hi Tikay, I'v only recently started playing poker for cash online for a short while and i don't put alot in normally £5 a time as i don't want to lose a great deal but im finding playing low stakes it's nearly impossible to put most of a pot for a few pound, do you think higher stakes should be better ? id say im a ok player i almost always play a relatively strong hands.... Another thing was that i seem to always get drawn on, for example i flop A-5 straight so i decided to bet 2x the big blind, i get raised about 3x my bet so i push all in and get called, he has aces and board runs 5 5 giving him a full house.... this happens an awful lot and there just doesnt seem i can do anything right, i know you will get drawn out on, but it seems i do all the time, im winner on the flop and even the tunr but i get river'd all the time... any tips ? plus how would you say live compares to online ? thanks Posted by EasyHoney
Lots of questions for Tikay there. But I am intrigued so I will try to answer a few.
First as someone new to the game its great that you are asking anyway.
No, high stakes will not be "better" ! Naturally when you are playing the lower levels you are facing some beginners and they do tend to make unconventional plays.
The hand you detail puzzles me. The preflop play must have been a bit strange for you to even see a flop against AA. Your hand cannot have been very strong if you flopped A2345. They call that hand The Wheel btw (never found out why)
But never mind that ! You did everything right, great hand and all your chips in the middle. You are going to win 90% of the time. The fact that this was the 1 time in 10 that you did not is unlucky. But trust me long term you will win 90% of the time. Thats poker, it would be a boring game if the best hand on the flop always won.
So keep playing your good hands strongly and it will pay off.
As for live v online... its the same game with the same element of chance, and you will be facing good players and not so good players. But it is much slower, more time to think and also to watch what other players are doing.
On the question of whether it is easier to play against better players, I would have to say no. However I would not be that comfortable if I was to join a table of beginners. They are unpredictable and dont always make logical decisions.
But good players are good because they have ironed out the leaks and weaknesses from their game. And one of the skills they have learned is picking up weaknesses in others. So a new player sitting in on a table of higher level players may win a few hands, but they will all work out which bits of his game they can exploit and invariably win.
As for putting people on hands, more usually it is a case of putting them on a range of hands, and knowledge of your opponents game is often the key.
So stick to playing what you can comfortably afford, enjoy the game and keep learning.
Hi Tikay would just like to first of all thank you for your always kind words!! Secondly i have been really pushing on my tournament play, a new years resolution you could say. I personally think i have massively improved in the last few months and seem to find myself regularly in the final 10% of MTT's so i am happy but still looking to improve further. I have recently added a few things to my tournament play squeezing being the main part as it proves to be hugely beneficial and to also start picking players to play other than just the two cards I have in front of me. I find I cash very often in big tournaments wether it be min or final table but i just cant seem to do it at the lower levels or on ten handed tournaments. So i have 2 questions to sum up!!!
1) Do i c-bet an attempted squeeze play gone wrong as if i'm holding the aces or just give up what could be crucial big blinds??
2) Should i ever be avoiding players in pots as i dont want them having posistion on me?
In Response to Why the discrimination against short stacks?: [QUOTE]Although this is my site of choice, I had to move away because I had continual problems with the old browser version. Now that you have a good app, my New Year Resolution was to move back. I was dismayed when the first programme I watched had you and Redmond Lee disparaging players who sit down short stacked at cash tables. The consensus seemed to be that action should be taken to increase min stacks because they "change the dynamic of the game." Of course it changes the dynamic - so what? Being more or less aggressive, tighter or looser than the other players change the dynamics at the table. This is the essence of poker. I like to sit with only 20 or so Bigs because I find that many players do not understand HOW this changes the dynamics and this is profitable. I have often heard you state that people are entitled to play their chips any way they choose. Why don't you defend their right to bring as few as they wish to the game with as much vigour? The most important differences when you sit short stacked is that you are denying yourself fold equity and future implied odds. Many people (e.g. Trevor Harris ;-) would not wish to make these sacrifices and advise against it. Fair enough. The compensaton is that you also deny fold equity and future implied odds to your opponents. The majority of opponents at modest stake tables do not understand this aspect and will regularly offer favourable odds without realising this. I started sitting short to improve my tournament play. At the early levels, tournament dynamics are very like deep cash games and it is easy to practice this. The dynamics of heads up are different but most of us seldom reach that point of a tournament - and it can be practiced in heads up cash games. The part of tournament play where practice really pays off is when you get near to or into the cash but find yourself with a below average stack of 15 to 30 blinds. (Below this, decisions are "easy.") The best way to practice this is to sit short stacked at a cash table and close your mind to rebuys. Redmond changes the dynamics at the table when he uses a large stack (often several hundred bigs) to put pressure on an opponent. No-one would suggest that this is wrong or that excess chips over a particular limit should have to be removed from the table. Why therefore is it frowned upon to be short so that the big stacks cannot pressure you? To me this is just bullying by the habitual big-stackers and I am a bit disgusted. Please respond. I would really like to know why we "shorties" are looked on as second class citizens! Posted by metaraptor
Morning Mr Raptor.
I think Penguin gave a pretty good answer to this, in fact, but I must reply further, as you have made a few incorrect assumptions.
The bulk of my comments & analysis are directed at the bulk of the viewing audience, & as a demograph, recreational or inexperienced players who play poker at the lower end of the cost range. You suggest, (by explaining it), that I do not understand "shorting", but that would be incorrect.
Many of these guys know nothing of "shorting", which IS a skill, & a perfectly acceptable one, & I don't believe I have ever said "shorting" is a bad thing - IF you do it for the right reasons, & know what you are doing.
However.....
In my experience, the vast majority of "shorters" on Sky Poker are not shorting as a skill, or by choice - they are simply sitting at a Table with their entire bankroll, hoping to spin it up, & are clearly playing "above" their level. We know this, because they sit at, say, a 50p - £1 Table with £28, lose the lot, then promptly disappear. In addition, they do not display the skills needed to successfully "short". It is THESE guys I am directing my message at, because they may as well set fire to their money, & I don't believe Sky Poker should encourage that.
So no, I do NOT view "shorters" as second-class citizens, & nor do I see any reason for you to be "disgusted". In truth, very little in poker should "disgust us", it's a word best left for genuine, real-life (i.e., non-poker) situations. But I DO try to dissuade inexperienced, or cash-struck players for attemptimg to short for the wrong reason.
It's a very peculiar world I live in, where people deliberately, it seems to me, try to pick holes in everything "the bloke on the telly" says, without thinking through what the intended meaning may be, but I guess it goes with the territory.
As to Redmond's comments, he'll have to answer that, really, as I can't speak for his views. He'll be on 865 this coming Saturday, I believe.
Well done on your success at shorting, & long may it last. YBA.
In Response to Re: Ask Tikay? : Well, I think more people have an Iphone or an Android than those having Ipads.Why exclude the masses then? Just include everyone. Posted by GreekWay
I never excluded anyone, I simply made the uttely logical point that if you want to play poker "mobile", then an I-pad is MUCH the more practical means of doing it. Playing poker on a regular smartphone may well be do-able, but it's not exactly "comfortable", given the screen & button size. The App will be primarily aimed at "tablet" users, I would assume.
Tikay is there a reason for very poor reception on the double your money tables compared to all other tables, as when i play cash or tournanents there is no problem but on (dym) tables it is chronically slow, its very embarresing holding up other players and missing out on good hands because the screen freezes. Look forward to your response, incidentally I am connected to Talk Talk. Thedoctor9 (George) Posted by Thedoctor9
Morning George.
I cannot imagine any reason why the performance would be slow & laggy on DYM's, & OK on non DYM's. From a software or PC perspective, it's just not possible, really.
Hi Tikay, I'v only recently started playing poker for cash online for a short while and i don't put alot in normally £5 a time as i don't want to lose a great deal but im finding playing low stakes it's nearly impossible to put most of a pot for a few pound, do you think higher stakes should be better ? id say im a ok player i almost always play a relatively strong hands.... Another thing was that i seem to always get drawn on, for example i flop A-5 straight so i decided to bet 2x the big blind, i get raised about 3x my bet so i push all in and get called, he has aces and board runs 5 5 giving him a full house.... this happens an awful lot and there just doesnt seem i can do anything right, i know you will get drawn out on, but it seems i do all the time, im winner on the flop and even the tunr but i get river'd all the time... any tips ? plus how would you say live compares to online ? thanks Posted by EasyHoney
Morning Honey.
I can't improve much, if at all, on the reply kindly given by Penguin7, really.
What I think you need to do sometimes is look at things differently.
You were a bit miffed that you flopped the A-5 straight & lost, but you must, I assume, have been absolutely miles behind pre-flop. What did you have, 4-5, or something? If so, HE flopped a set of Aces, so he was miles ahead pre-flop!
Now try turning that on it's head, imagine it was YOU with the A-A pre, & a flopped set of Aces. Would you be unhappy if you lost in that spot? Of course you would!
We need, in poker, to put ourselves in the other guys mind sometimes, & not just see the downside. There is as much upside as downside - there has to be, by definition - & I think youir enjoyment would be much enhanced if you looked more at the positives.
Difference between Live Poker, & Online Poker? Massive! They play very different, & ARE very different animals.
Hang in there man, improve your game, forget abouit "bad luck" (it's an essential part of poker), & you'll soon be crushing. IF you get your head in the right place.
Another thing, do you think a better player plays better against good players than poor one's, e.g say thew vs a new poker player, ivey vs amatuer, etc. i ask because they don't know whats good to fold and whats not too so bluffing drops plus they bet nearly everything so how do you put them on a hand ? Posted by EasyHoney
They are not "more difficult" to play against, they are "different", they are awkward shaped boxes, & you just have to adjust accordingly.
In Response to Re: Why the discrimination against short stacks? : Hi Lambert, Thanks for responding. I think you misunderstood my "whine." I am very happy that anyone should build up a bankroll of any size. I admire both Redmond's play and analysis enormously. I am not "whining" about anyone using their stacks to bully at the table - surely that is an essential part of poker! No - what I am "whining" about is the opinion increasingly expressed that it is abusive to sit short stacked and that Sky should act to stop people doing this by increasing the minimum number of blinds to buy in. I am very happy that there should be no serious analysis of the dynamics of short stacked play. I just don't want the oprobium of those who would rather face only large stacks. Posted by metaraptor
I am only replying to this because you used one of my favourite words - "oprobium".
I will forgive almost anyone, almost anything, if they use such excellent words. Post away Sir, just make sure you include a bit more of that sort of language.
Comments
Thanks for responding. I think you misunderstood my "whine." I am very happy that anyone should build up a bankroll of any size. I admire both Redmond's play and analysis enormously. I am not "whining" about anyone using their stacks to bully at the table - surely that is an essential part of poker!
No - what I am "whining" about is the opinion increasingly expressed that it is abusive to sit short stacked and that Sky should act to stop people doing this by increasing the minimum number of blinds to buy in.
I am very happy that there should be no serious analysis of the dynamics of short stacked play. I just don't want the oprobium of those who would rather face only large stacks.
I think it shows Tikays views and also that many players are openminded on the subject.
Excuse the fact I never replied yesterday - you were "next on the list", but I got sidetracked, & today was mant to be my day offline (I take one day Offline every week to keep a sense of life balance), which got sadly waylaid by some nonsense.
I'll reply properly to you tomorrow (oops, later today).
For now, I'd just say that you have completely misunderstood - inadvertently I assume - my comments & views as to "shorting".
I'll explain properly later, & I think you'll then say, "ahh, NOW I get it".
Sleep tight.
Thanks for getting back to me about this. 1st prize was Salad24 and the runner up was Splashies.
There's been loads of interest in this and lots of people asking me if I'm gonna get another one set-up soon. So I think I may be arranging another one of these sometime soon.
First as someone new to the game its great that you are asking anyway.
No, high stakes will not be "better" ! Naturally when you are playing the lower levels you are facing some beginners and they do tend to make unconventional plays.
The hand you detail puzzles me. The preflop play must have been a bit strange for you to even see a flop against AA. Your hand cannot have been very strong if you flopped A2345. They call that hand The Wheel btw (never found out why)
But never mind that ! You did everything right, great hand and all your chips in the middle. You are going to win 90% of the time. The fact that this was the 1 time in 10 that you did not is unlucky. But trust me long term you will win 90% of the time. Thats poker, it would be a boring game if the best hand on the flop always won.
So keep playing your good hands strongly and it will pay off.
As for live v online... its the same game with the same element of chance, and you will be facing good players and not so good players. But it is much slower, more time to think and also to watch what other players are doing.
On the question of whether it is easier to play against better players, I would have to say no. However I would not be that comfortable if I was to join a table of beginners. They are unpredictable and dont always make logical decisions.
But good players are good because they have ironed out the leaks and weaknesses from their game. And one of the skills they have learned is picking up weaknesses in others. So a new player sitting in on a table of higher level players may win a few hands, but they will all work out which bits of his game they can exploit and invariably win.
As for putting people on hands, more usually it is a case of putting them on a range of hands, and knowledge of your opponents game is often the key.
So stick to playing what you can comfortably afford, enjoy the game and keep learning.
So i have 2 questions to sum up!!!
1) Do i c-bet an attempted squeeze play gone wrong as if i'm holding the aces or just give up what could be crucial big blinds??
2) Should i ever be avoiding players in pots as i dont want them having posistion on me?
[QUOTE]Although this is my site of choice, I had to move away because I had continual problems with the old browser version. Now that you have a good app, my New Year Resolution was to move back. I was dismayed when the first programme I watched had you and Redmond Lee disparaging players who sit down short stacked at cash tables. The consensus seemed to be that action should be taken to increase min stacks because they "change the dynamic of the game." Of course it changes the dynamic - so what? Being more or less aggressive, tighter or looser than the other players change the dynamics at the table. This is the essence of poker. I like to sit with only 20 or so Bigs because I find that many players do not understand HOW this changes the dynamics and this is profitable. I have often heard you state that people are entitled to play their chips any way they choose. Why don't you defend their right to bring as few as they wish to the game with as much vigour? The most important differences when you sit short stacked is that you are denying yourself fold equity and future implied odds. Many people (e.g. Trevor Harris ;-) would not wish to make these sacrifices and advise against it. Fair enough. The compensaton is that you also deny fold equity and future implied odds to your opponents. The majority of opponents at modest stake tables do not understand this aspect and will regularly offer favourable odds without realising this. I started sitting short to improve my tournament play. At the early levels, tournament dynamics are very like deep cash games and it is easy to practice this. The dynamics of heads up are different but most of us seldom reach that point of a tournament - and it can be practiced in heads up cash games. The part of tournament play where practice really pays off is when you get near to or into the cash but find yourself with a below average stack of 15 to 30 blinds. (Below this, decisions are "easy.") The best way to practice this is to sit short stacked at a cash table and close your mind to rebuys. Redmond changes the dynamics at the table when he uses a large stack (often several hundred bigs) to put pressure on an opponent. No-one would suggest that this is wrong or that excess chips over a particular limit should have to be removed from the table. Why therefore is it frowned upon to be short so that the big stacks cannot pressure you? To me this is just bullying by the habitual big-stackers and I am a bit disgusted. Please respond. I would really like to know why we "shorties" are looked on as second class citizens!
Posted by metaraptor
Morning Mr Raptor.
I think Penguin gave a pretty good answer to this, in fact, but I must reply further, as you have made a few incorrect assumptions.
The bulk of my comments & analysis are directed at the bulk of the viewing audience, & as a demograph, recreational or inexperienced players who play poker at the lower end of the cost range. You suggest, (by explaining it), that I do not understand "shorting", but that would be incorrect.
Many of these guys know nothing of "shorting", which IS a skill, & a perfectly acceptable one, & I don't believe I have ever said "shorting" is a bad thing - IF you do it for the right reasons, & know what you are doing.
However.....
In my experience, the vast majority of "shorters" on Sky Poker are not shorting as a skill, or by choice - they are simply sitting at a Table with their entire bankroll, hoping to spin it up, & are clearly playing "above" their level. We know this, because they sit at, say, a 50p - £1 Table with £28, lose the lot, then promptly disappear. In addition, they do not display the skills needed to successfully "short". It is THESE guys I am directing my message at, because they may as well set fire to their money, & I don't believe Sky Poker should encourage that.
So no, I do NOT view "shorters" as second-class citizens, & nor do I see any reason for you to be "disgusted". In truth, very little in poker should "disgust us", it's a word best left for genuine, real-life (i.e., non-poker) situations. But I DO try to dissuade inexperienced, or cash-struck players for attemptimg to short for the wrong reason.
It's a very peculiar world I live in, where people deliberately, it seems to me, try to pick holes in everything "the bloke on the telly" says, without thinking through what the intended meaning may be, but I guess it goes with the territory.
As to Redmond's comments, he'll have to answer that, really, as I can't speak for his views. He'll be on 865 this coming Saturday, I believe.
Well done on your success at shorting, & long may it last. YBA.
And there we see Forums at their best & worst. One guy says we are being elitist & excluding peeps, another says it's not exactly practical.....
I cannot imagine any reason why the performance would be slow & laggy on DYM's, & OK on non DYM's. From a software or PC perspective, it's just not possible, really.
Sorry I cannot be more helpful!
I can't improve much, if at all, on the reply kindly given by Penguin7, really.
What I think you need to do sometimes is look at things differently.
You were a bit miffed that you flopped the A-5 straight & lost, but you must, I assume, have been absolutely miles behind pre-flop. What did you have, 4-5, or something? If so, HE flopped a set of Aces, so he was miles ahead pre-flop!
Now try turning that on it's head, imagine it was YOU with the A-A pre, & a flopped set of Aces. Would you be unhappy if you lost in that spot? Of course you would!
We need, in poker, to put ourselves in the other guys mind sometimes, & not just see the downside. There is as much upside as downside - there has to be, by definition - & I think youir enjoyment would be much enhanced if you looked more at the positives.
Difference between Live Poker, & Online Poker? Massive! They play very different, & ARE very different animals.
Hang in there man, improve your game, forget abouit "bad luck" (it's an essential part of poker), & you'll soon be crushing. IF you get your head in the right place.
I will forgive almost anyone, almost anything, if they use such excellent words. Post away Sir, just make sure you include a bit more of that sort of language.