How often should you be getting destacked?

[Warpe]

Ski instructors say that if you aren't falling down, you aren't trying hard enough.

Poker instructors say...

Discuss.

[Lukie]

that i get stacked more often then I should be

[Lukie]

This question is a very hard one to answer, just because different games play so differently that they are hard to compare. For example, if you are playing in a game with a bunch of rocks, it should take an extreme case of being cold-decked to lose a stack, whereas in a very agressive, shorthanded game, you are just going to have to move the slider all the way to the right with far more marginal hands then in the above case.

[Miffed22001]

ive lost 2 stacks on ap in 2k hands on a bonus chase at 25 and 50nl bcoz 100nl and 200nl suck dick.

Thats actually a lot for me. One i could have folded, related to lukie's post on gut feelings (AA vs QQ on Qxx) other one was a no fold boat vs quads.
In a 40k sample ive been stacked by a full stack only 4 times and only once did the money go in with me behind. In all other cases ive lost upto 50bbs when ive been playing with short stacks and have improved to an unfoldable 2nd bess hand.
Maybe i dont get stacked enough?

[Warpe]

Okay, just using today as an example, I've played ~400 hands and have stacked people four times and been stacked once. Now if, let's say, every hand had been AA, that would be about optimal, would it not? 1 in 5?

[mcatdog]

I can't even imagine only getting stacked once every 10K hands. It's just a matter of style I guess. I play a very high-variance style of poker, making lots of thin value bets and big calls, and I'm not afraid to put my whole stack on the line no matter how small I think my edge is. Obviously this results in me getting stacked a lot, but I probably also stack people a lot more often than some of you guys.

There's more than one style that a winning player can have, obviously, but I would think that if you almost never get stacked, then you need to look a little harder and take advantage of good spots to gamb00l vs. donkeys.

[Turska]

I ve been stacked 4 times last week. 3 times situations were
when I had AA or KK preflop. Once I had set and lost to
a str8 draw. I play about 3 hours a day.

[Renton]

I play at party poker during peak hours, so I get stacked a lot. I also stack a lot more.

For example, in my last 8k hands, I got stacked around 14 times. However, i stacked around 36 people also in that time (5 days).

[Miffed22001]

ugh
last month
33k hands
stacked 18 times total, only once where the money went in i was mathematicaly behind.
Stacked like 50 full stacked people, no idea on shorties or how many imes ive doubled up a shorty.
I tend to get stacked more when i run bad and lose a lot of 30%ers etc

[givememyleg]

i try to get stacked once every 500 hands, more if possible

[SonOfAkira]

I was stacked 6 times in 10 minutes one time.
Winner!
Is this a contest?

Oh yeah, what mcatdog and renton said.

[Ravageur]

I play the 200-400 games at PArty and Full Tilt. I get stacked once every 350 hands or so I'd say. Usually this is because I sometimes push with draws and/or me making a genius or stupid call when i think someone's on a FD.

I'm also on a ridiculous dowswing, so maybe I'm getting stacked more often than I should. (right now getting 3 outered feels good).

[Staresy]

I have just switched to Ring from SnGs for this month to give it a serious and prolonged run, so I was quite interested in reading this. Maybe, Warpe, your question should read ...

How often are you getting destacked when it really could be avoided?

[Off5th]

I play at party poker during peak hours, so I get stacked a lot. I also stack a lot more.

For example, in my last 8k hands, I got stacked around 14 times. However, i stacked around 36 people also in that time (5 days).

Of those 36 you stacked, were all of them effective stacks??

[djzcko]

15k hands of $50nl I've been stacked (80% or more of my stack) 8 times, 3 of which I was ahead when all the $ went into the pot. Of the 5 where I lost my stack while behind:

- Two times I've run into flush over flush (both flopped)
- Twice set over top 2 pr on flop
- Once hit by runner runner flush over my flopped set while calling LAGGY's big bets to the river (most of the $ went in on the river so I was not ahead when most of the $ went into the pot).

I have stacked villain 22 times in that same time period.

[Rondavu]

I seldom get stacked, and I'm pretty damn loose.

[biondino]

I'm being dumb but I can't immediately think of a way to find this stat on PT - is there something obvious or are you just looking for hands on which you've won/lost a lot? Does it count as a stacking if you have a 2 buyin stack and lose one of them?

[Warpe]

i try to get stacked once every 500 hands, more if possible

You're not supposed to try to get stacked.

[cardsman1992]

off topic...

destacking occurs MUCH LESS after marriage....

[Renton]

I play at party poker during peak hours, so I get stacked a lot. I also stack a lot more.

For example, in my last 8k hands, I got stacked around 14 times. However, i stacked around 36 people also in that time (5 days).

Of those 36 you stacked, were all of them effective stacks??

yes, they were all at least 75bb. i run good lately

[Warpe]

For example, in my last 8k hands, I got stacked around 14 times. However, i stacked around 36 people also in that time (5 days).

once every 570 hands
stackings/destackings: 2.57/1

ugh
33k hands
stacked 18 times total, only once where the money went in i was mathematicaly behind.
Stacked like 50 full stacked people, no idea on shorties or how many imes ive doubled up a shorty.

once every 1833 hands
stackings/destackings: 2.78+/1

15k hands of $50nl I've been stacked (80% or more of my stack) 8 times, 3 of which I was ahead when all the $ went into the pot.

I have stacked villain 22 times in that same time period.

once every 1875 hands
stackings/destackings: 2.75/1


Hmmm...the stackings/destackings ratio seems roughly consistent, but Renton's hand number is ~1/3 of the others.

Who comes out ahead in the long run? Theoretically, Renton gets stacked 3 times as often but dishes them out 3 times as much. Using the 2.75/1 stackings/destackings ratio, Renton loses 300BB as compared to 100BB for the others, but also wins 825BB as compared to 275BB, giving him a net BB won of 525BB vs 175BB. So, cash in hand wise, Renton wins hands down.

Good argument for loosening up one's play, is it not?

[Rockymv]

I have just switched to Ring from SnGs for this month to give it a serious and prolonged run, so I was quite interested in reading this. Maybe, Warpe, your question should read ...

How often are you getting destacked when it really could be avoided?

I think most players that make this transition get stacked way too often when they're first starting out. I did anyway.

[Renton]

Who comes out ahead in the long run? Theoretically, Renton gets stacked 3 times as often but dishes them out 3 times as much. Using the 2.75/1 stackings/destackings ratio, Renton loses 300BB as compared to 100BB for the others, but also wins 825BB as compared to 275BB, giving him a net BB won of 525BB vs 175BB. So, cash in hand wise, Renton wins hands down.

Good argument for loosening up one's play, is it not?

Theoretically that makes some sense. However, I have caught probably more than my fair share or cards and action lately, had a lot of AA v. KK's and KK v. AA's, had a lot of set v. sets on both sides of the coin, had a TON of set v. str8's where I was on both sides at times.

That being said, I do think I look for more opportunities to stack people with AA/KK/AK than most taggs at full ring do, and as a result I am wrong some of the time. I also play my draws very aggressively.

[Warpe]

Even if you're on the positive side of variance now though, Renton, I think we can argue that there's an optimal level. If you're not getting destacked often enough, you're not stacking people often enough either, simply because you're not getting all your chips in the middle often enough. In the end, that has to be reflected in one's ultimate winrate, no?

[Halv]

Even if you're on the positive side of variance now though, Renton, I think we can argue that there's an optimal level. If you're not getting destacked often enough, you're not stacking people often enough either, simply because you're not getting all your chips in the middle often enough. In the end, that has to be reflected in one's ultimate winrate, no?

I agree. Without checking numbers, I'm fairly certain that I neither stack people or get destacked myself often enough.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's simple.

Poker is about the process not the result.

It doesnt matter how many times you're getting destacked, but how you're getting destacked.

[Warpe]

It's simple.

Poker is about the process not the result.

It doesnt matter how many times you're getting destacked, but how you're getting destacked.

The process is my point. If your process is optimal, over a very large sample statistically there should be zone where all your chips are in the middle x number of times for every y number of hands. Too few, or too many, and you're probably not playing optimally.

There should also be an optimal ratio of wins vs losses.

[Lukie]

It's simple.

Poker is about the process not the result.

It doesnt matter how many times you're getting destacked, but how you're getting destacked.

The process is my point. If your process is optimal, over a very large sample statistically there should be zone where all your chips are in the middle x number of times for every y number of hands. Too few, or too many, and you're probably not playing optimally.

There should also be an optimal ratio of wins vs losses.

this just isn't true, because it is so highly dependant on how OTHER people are playing, or how your games are playing in general.

[Lukie]

To put it in perspective, try to draw a comparison between the super wild NL25 full ring game on party to the nitty-ass NL400 full ring game on stars.

In one game, an entire stack going in the middle means very little, whereas in the other mean it means a whole lot (like gtf out of the hand, now).

[Warpe]

It's simple.

Poker is about the process not the result.

It doesnt matter how many times you're getting destacked, but how you're getting destacked.

The process is my point. If your process is optimal, over a very large sample statistically there should be zone where all your chips are in the middle x number of times for every y number of hands. Too few, or too many, and you're probably not playing optimally.

There should also be an optimal ratio of wins vs losses.

this just isn't true, because it is so highly dependant on how OTHER people are playing, or how your games are playing in general.

Variations in table conditions should level out with more hands played.

[EricE]

Variations in table conditions should level out with more hands played.

That’s so not true though.
Imagine a game where everyone who has a set tries to get all his money in every time.
Compare that to a game where only a FH gets felted and sets are bet correspondingly less.

Over a very very large sample size these two games will still look very different in how many times you were destacked and how many times you destacked someone.

[Warpe]

Variations in table conditions should level out with more hands played.

That’s so not true though.
Imagine a game where everyone who has a set tries to get all his money in every time.
Compare that to a game where only a FH gets felted and sets are bet correspondingly less.

Over a very very large sample size these two games will still look very different in how many times you were destacked and how many times you destacked someone.

Not to get lost in the theoretical ether but, yes, you're right, except these games don't exist apart from one another in the real world over the long term. There will be variations in play as you move stakes/sites etc., no doubt, but essentially we play in a real world situation where conditions vary from table to table and we move between them so, as the sample size increases, they become basically homogeneous statistically.

My main point: We all face the same statistical reality. Over the long haul, we will all get dealt AA the same percentage of the time. Where we will differ drastically is in those things that are under our individual control - our play - and how many of our chips go into the pot and how often. My hypothesis is simply that there is an optimal frequency for us to put them all in against the fixed statistical background.

[jackvance]

I pretty much agree with Warpe here. There is a theoretical "optimal" amount of times you get your stack in there.. too few and you're not getting paid enough, too many and you're probably giving your stack away too easily.

[Lukie]

It's simple.

Poker is about the process not the result.

It doesnt matter how many times you're getting destacked, but how you're getting destacked.

The process is my point. If your process is optimal, over a very large sample statistically there should be zone where all your chips are in the middle x number of times for every y number of hands. Too few, or too many, and you're probably not playing optimally.

There should also be an optimal ratio of wins vs losses.

this just isn't true, because it is so highly dependant on how OTHER people are playing, or how your games are playing in general.

Variations in table conditions should level out with more hands played.

Between bdawg and myself (we both play NL400 6-max on stars), I'd agree to an extent. But it still depends so much on how YOU are playing. IE compare a LAG vs a TAG who have a very similar winrate. One is playing a ton of hands and is frequently stacking people and getting stacked. He has lots of variance. The nit however........ you get the point.

Between 2 unknown players playing in games with different stakes, on different sites, perhaps with different numbers of players, with different game and seat selection skills, who play at different times, etc etc etc, I'd very strongly disagree.

[Chicago_Kid]

i try to get stacked once every 500 hands, more if possible

You're not supposed to try to get stacked.

[Chicago_Kid]

I'm being dumb but I can't immediately think of a way to find this stat on PT - is there something obvious or are you just looking for hands on which you've won/lost a lot? Does it count as a stacking if you have a 2 buyin stack and lose one of them?

Question asked again...are you all just manually counting these results?

[Renton]

yes approximating

[grnydrowave2]

If you have pokerpatterns, you can easily look at how often you are getting stacked vs. how often you are stacking people.



Under filters, set the graph to bar, the X-Axis to hand, and the Y-Axis to either big bet or total amount (in this example it is showing big bets). Each line represents an individual hand. The Y-Axis is showing PTbbs, so each line that approaches 50 is someone getting stacked.

[Miffed22001]

haha
i just tested this and mine show i got stacked for 100bbs only once in 40k hands.
W
T
F

However it shows i got stacked by ppl with like 75bbs or wateva. I double up a lot of medium stacks. Ill see if i can get it posted.

[grnydrowave2]

haha
i just tested this and mine show i got stacked for 100bbs only once in 40k hands.
W
T
F

However it shows i got stacked by ppl with like 75bbs or wateva. I double up a lot of medium stacks. Ill see if i can get it posted.

Please do. It would be interesting to see these charts for different styles of play, and conditions that create variance (such as 6-max).

[Miffed22001]

[Miffed22001]

I get stacked a lot, and stack teh fishies even more
Thats what the post dodnt say before!
I also swing like a bitch id imagine...

850bb upswing between 2-5k hands which swings back 600bbs by 10k hands (lol) then an 1100bbs upswing to 17k hands where i play break even untill 27k where i swing up another 600bbs and break even within 100bbs for the rest from 32k to 41k. weeeeeeeeee!

[grnydrowave2]

Correct me if I'm wrong Miffed, but a full buy-in is 50ptbbs. So you have in fact been stacked many times.

[Miffed22001]

Correct me if I'm wrong Miffed, but a full buy-in is 50ptbbs. So you have in fact been stacked many times.

lol

i just realised this.

I couldnt understand why i play a swingy game and yet my stats said i didnt.

taxi for me...

[Chicago_Kid]

Looking at my poker patterns over 45k hands, I've stacked 40 bb or more 57 times and been stacked 48 times. Not so hot I don't think...

[Miffed22001]

oh well i feel like a moan so ill do it here.
Various fr limits upto 200nl on paradise, 8k hands.
Ive been all in 60 times and of that total i have lost 40times.

I love runner runner variance. 5 of those times i was mathematically behind. I <3 life.