Beginner's series: Playing the big stack effectively

[vulturesrow]

Hey all,

Since I view this forum as more of the beginner forum, I thought Id post some discussion type questions vice specific hands since we get a lot of those. So here is my first one. Note I am posting them as a person who genuinely still absorbing NL and not making any claim to expert play. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So my first question tonight how should you change up your game when you are the big stack at the table. I know the theory pretty well in a tournament. I think that obviously this is not going to be the same for a ring game. My initial thoughts are that hands like TPTK can be played a bit more strongly. This is about as far as I have gotten heh.

I believe this is a very important topic to consider for those of us who play the small blind / limited buyin tables. Through semi-intelligent play we oftern find ourselves sitting with the big stack. I just feel that I am not maximizing the edge that having the big stack should provide.

Chris

[umdpoker]

good question. i hate playing big stacks right now whenever another big stack is at table. bump.

[turnipmonster]

the first thing to lose from tournament theory is the idea that a big stack can somehow bully a small stack in a cash game. in a cash game, "bullying" a small stack is referred to as "giving them your chips" or "doubling them up". in some parts of missisippi it is also known as "pissing away money".

big stack play really gets interesting when you are playing other big stacks. playing small stacks with a big stack is not so interesting, because it's the same as playing a stack of equal size, right?

--turnipmonster

[ML4L]

Hey vultures,

It's all about implied odds. If there is another fairly deep stack at the table, he is getting the odds to play speculative hands against you, and you are getting odds to play speculative hands against him. So, keep that in mind and try to avoid situations where you end up having to back an OK hand out of position with your stack. An overpair, for example, especially if your opponent knows that's what you have. At the same time, deep money will afford you the opportunity to play small pairs, etc., because the implied odds will be there.

So, if anything, I would play a hand like TPTK less strongly. With short stacks, that's usually enough to get my money in. With a deeper stack, you have to make sure that you don't get trapped, while still maximizing your profit. Not easy... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

ML4L

[JrJordan]

Great idea vulture, I'd love to contribute my two cents.

Regarding a big stack, there is certainly a much larger advantage in tournament play than in a ring game. The opponenet always has the option to rebuy, so intimidation is a lot harder to come by. When playing the big stack against the avg size (50 BB for Party), I keep my play relatively the same. I may be a bit more aggressive, hoping I have a table image as a good player because of my stack, but not much different than this. The big stack becomes much more important, however, when playing against another deep stack. Small pocket pairs can be played for a bigger raise due to increased implied odds. Same goes for a posssible draw on the turn or river. Deeper stacks give much greater flexibility in your actions.

[JrJordan]

Good comment about TPTK. It sucks to back your stack with a mediocre holding on the 50 BB Party tables. With deeper stacks, it seems much easier to get away from. TPTK is rarely a winner when the opponenet calls a 150 BB all in bet, rather than a 50.

[SlyAK]

[ QUOTE ]
TPTK is rarely a winner when the opponenet calls a 150 BB all in bet, rather than a 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.... I play prima where there are 100 BB stacks, and if I get it all in w/ TPTK against a reasonable player it is a loser 90% of the time. However, at 50 BB's or less I would be glad to get the money in with TPTK. I do this against shorter stacks at prima all the time and usually my hand is good.

Sly

[SkippingGoat]

By the same token small pocket pairs (66-22) become dangerous to play, especially in early position, against a big stack because losing set over set can be so devastating. Because of this Reuben and Ciaffone adsvise mucking small pp's in EP.

[SpiderMnkE]

What if you just limp and bail if a big stack gets deeply involved. You can still take out some smaller stacks with a small set right? And how many big stacks are there usually. I think at this limit it is typically me, one other deep stack.. and a bunch of small stacks that keep rebuying after committing their chips with TPNK.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
I just feel that I am not maximizing the edge that having the big stack should provide.


[/ QUOTE ]

if there is an edge, it is a psychological one. i personally would love to play in my normal party 50 BB game where everyone else had been forced to buy-in with 500 BB. they would be valuing hands like Axs, which would be good strategy against each other, but would be bad strategy against me.

i started a thread called something like "small stack = advantage?" a few months ago that generated some interesting discussion. most posters disagreed that it was an advantage but some of the more respected posters said that it was. i'd link to it, but i don't know how /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[turnipmonster]

this is precisely why you can make a lot of money playing a short stack in a deep stack game. you will often win the main pot with a made hand while the side pot is contested by a bunch of draws. you will also get like 4 to 1 on your money. once I saw KK win the main pot of about 1k and an Ace high win the 4k+ side pot (both hand flush draws, the lower one was open ended straight as well).

the thing about a short stack that most people aren't psychologically ready for is you will go bust a lot. when one of those draws makes it, or you run into a set you are just going to have to lose your chips, since you can't really make big laydowns.

--turnipmonster

[brewmeister6]

I am not that great of a ring player, but here is my thought... When I have the big stack, I am the bad guy, right... That means that when people have a very strong hands on the flop, they are going to play tricky by playing traps and maybe slow playing a bigger hands like two pair, and overpair, or trips... This is why I like to play good drawing hands like open ended straight draws and I'm willing to pay bets that are around 5 times the blinds to see if I make theu draw especially when there are a few people in their with me(with no flush draws on the flop)... If I hit it, they're going to feel like I'm being a bully him when I raise his 5 bb bet to a 20 bb bet...

Guys, I am beggining too, but tell me if this is a bad idea in the long run..

[JrJordan]

Great thread so far. I'm glad to see the small NL isn't turning into a beginner's bad beat forum for $25 NL. Let's keep it this way with discussions like this.

I don't necessarily agree with Reuben and Ciaffone's approach for small pocket pairs. I feel, especially at the shallow Party tables, that drawing for the set can be profitable from any position. Sure it sucks when set over set happens. We've all been there. With shallow stacks though, losing the stack is not nearly as bad. Likewise, a PF raiser is more likely to use his whole stack on an overpair like AA or KK vs. your set when playing with shallow stacks. By the time he realizes you have a monster, he is already pot committed. In a 200 BB game, these overpairs can usually get away without losing their stack. However, you'd be hard pressed to fold your lower set in the same deep stack situation.

All in all, I think the shallow stacks made small pocket pairs go up in value, and basically playable in any position as long as you follow the 5-10 rule that Reuben and Ciaffone mention. Comments?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree with Reuben and Ciaffone's approach for small pocket pairs

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
as long as you follow the 5-10 rule that Reuben and Ciaffone mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jr,

Can you explain these, as I dont own the book though I am going to order it soon.

Chris

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
If I hit it, they're going to feel like I'm being a bully him when I raise his 5 bb bet to a 20 bb bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

no one is going to think you are trying to bully them unless they just have no understanding of NL cash games (so maybe at the PP 25 tables /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). the concept of someone "being a bully" does not exist in a cash game.

drawing hands are really all about implied odds you are getting from your opponent's stack. if your opponents have 25xBB, then calling a raise with suited connectors isn't profitable because the most you can make is 5x, and you will not hit your hand enough to make that a profitable call. so when you or your opponents have shallow stacks, avoid playing suited connectors for a raise.

--turnipmonster

[JrJordan]

Not a problem. Reuben and Ciaffone make the suggestion to not play small pocket pairs 22-66 in the early positions. The reaoning is that in an aggressive game you will most likely face a reraise, limiting your implied odds. When you call this PF raise, with deep stacks there are only a few things that can happen, none of them particularly good for you: Villain has AK/AQ and misses the flop so you will win a small pot. Villain has TPTK or an overpair with AA/KK, makes a signficant bet, but slows down when you show strength and the likely set. You get paid off some, but rarely get the whole stack because it is so deep. Lastly, your opponent flops a set with a higher pocket pair. Most likely here, you lose your entire stack.

My argument was that this situation does not necessarily apply to the 50BB and maybe the 100BB stacks we play online. At the 50BB, opponenets would be hard pressed to fold their overpair to your set, because they are most likely pot committed before they know the monster you have. This counters the possibility that you will lose to a higher set. Thus, small pocket pairs go up in value IMO as long as you have proper implied odds.

Reuben and Ciffaone's book mentions the 5-10 rule. This is a basic concept that helps you determine whether to call a PF raise or not with your pocket pair, based on implied odds. If the PF raise you face is less than 5% of both your stack and the preflop raisers stack, then it is an easy call. If it is greater than 10% of the smaller of your two stacks, you must fold. Anywhere in between is a judgement call. This will depend on your position relative to the raise, as well as any other people that have entered the pot to give you better impled odds. The reasoning behind this is that you will only flop a set 1 in 8.5 tries. Some of these times you will lose to a better hand such as a set, or some sort of draw. At pot odds of 10:1, it becomes barely justifiable to play this hand because of the risk of losing, as well as the possibility of the PF raiser not paying you off. Hence, fold at 10% or greater. 20:1 gives you a much greater chance to make the set profitbale because of the deeper stacks, hence play %5 or less. Just an easy way to apply impled odds to pocker pairs drawing for a set.

[daryn]

turnip,

i tried to make your exact argument in the IRC chat the other day, but i was shouted down and told that the big stack has a huge advantage in cash games.

i'm still on the fence /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[turnipmonster]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BIG STACK BULLYING ANYONE IN A CASH GAME WHERE YOU CAN REBUY EVER.

there. I said it, and now I feel better. I love to debate this because I am right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif. the only big stack argument I have ever heard that made an ounce of sense was a case prevaricator came up with where you had everyone outchipped by a ton (like 20x more than the small stack), and that was for a heads up situation.

--turnipmonster

[Leo Bello]

Advantage over fish/begginers. there is indeed. They tend to think the big stack is a great player, and tend to fold to any steal try.
It does bring you the problem of people slowplaying against you. But hey, that can happen with virtually any stack.
And I personally think it is an disadvantage playing short-stacked in relation to the big stack in the game. when you hit your hands, it will not double you up.
Into becoming softer because you are the bigger stack, I wouldn´t vow for it.

[Wayfare]

The set comments from Jordan are very true in my experience. I believe my sets vs. top pair of a fish are my greatest moneymaker, almost always resulting in a double through. Fish just can't get away from TPTK, and the short stacks make it even harder.

The flipside to this is you need to remember that the short stack makes you more vulnerable to someone else having a set as well. If you got a cold caller with a 6x BB raise preflop (lets say you have AK), you might want to play it differently with position. If you get check raised on the flop, you are against a set a lot of the time. I usually won't call a large checkraise on the flop (unless its a maniac) with only TPTK, I don't think the increased variance is worth the tiny EV it may (or may not) gain you. It's much much more profitable to wait for a set or two pair (from the blinds) and just go to town with it. You will almost never put your stack in jeopardy, and the first time you double up, you can start playing "for real" (with 100x+ stacks).

Indeed, much of my win rate comes from staying at tables for the long haul after I have doubled up. Many players at party will get lucky and double through their $25/$50 and have no idea how to play that deep. If you get even stacks with them, your overwhelming objective is to get into a position you double through them. Although it might take a bit longer, its twice as profitable as doubling through someone with original stack sizes. This could mean anything from calling more raises from the other big stack with a pocket pair to just calling instead of reraising with a made hand to "keep the other guy (big stack)" in. Only do the latter if you are confident enough in your turn and river play to be able to get away if you are beat.

[daryn]

calling out el diablo!! turnip agrees with me! what say you??

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BIG STACK BULLYING ANYONE IN A CASH GAME WHERE YOU CAN REBUY EVER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there is.

Short stacks can't play a lot of hands when there are big stacks at the table, 'cause big stacks can make it too expensive to play and their own stack size kills their implied odds.

Also, short stacks face a big psychological challenge from big stacks who are willing to gamble w/ perceived small edges - they will often put a small stack to tough decisions in what are likely to be coin-flippy situations for the small stack.

In general, short stacks have to wait for premium hands or draws to get their money in if they're going to win.

[Rah]

The normal stacks have the same implied odds as when playing against a normal buyin. A larger stack doesnt effect the implied odds, they stay the same! A bully who tries to make it expensive to play is killing his stack. Maybe this may work against players not daring to push good hands, but it sure isn't a good strategy as soon as the players start to catch on to what you're doing.

Neither is it an advantage to push "small edges" when having a big stack. It's just a matter of time until a short stack picks up a monster and crushes the small edges.

The only advantage of having the large stack is the psychological advantage.

[Kaz The Original]

Small Stacks can't draw as well while playing bigger stacks because they cannot take advantage of implied odds. Also they cannot be drawn against as effectively.

[Rah]

You are actually saying that a stack has larger implied odds against a stack with the same size, compared to a larger stack?

[vulturesrow]

You cannot win all of the big stack's chip. Therefore your implied odds are smaller since you can only pick up as much as is in your stack. I think that is the point being made here.

[Rah]

No, the implied odds are exactly the same, since you can't win more than what's in your stack. Am I misunderstanding something??

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the implied odds are exactly the same, since you can't win more than what's in your stack. Am I misunderstanding something??

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple example:

If you have a bigger stack than your opponent your implied odds are cut down because your draws won't get paid off.

For example, suppose you have a flush draw against a short stack that moves all in for a price you, a bigger stack, can afford, though the call would be marginally thin. However, you know you're not going to get any more money out of him even if you do hit your flush because he's already all in. Hence, you have no implied odds in this situation.

[Rah]

I assume the scenario we're discussing is for example NL with 25$ buyin, where a player has tripled his stack while the others are still at 25$. The implied odds do not change at all here. You can still draw the same amount of chips from a player with 25$, and he can still draw 25$ from you.
The implied odds doesn't change for either person.

Of course the implied odds change if one guy loses 15$, but from what I understand, this is not the situation discussed.

[Leo Bello]

The main point about a short stack is, everyone says that in Poker you have to maximize your win moments and minimize your losses. If you are short-stacked in relation to the table, you are giving up that much money in a double-up situation. We know that unfortunately these situations don´t happen all the time, and being short-stacked when you are about to double-up is not a good feeling.
Anyway, I just think that saying that playing a short-stack is better like I read here in Turnipmonster´s post, is just like saying he will have a longer road to get there. Considering he is a winning player, and someone who play with the full-buy-in and also a winning, and that they get even chances to double-up, the full buy-in will have his bankroll built up way faster.

[Ulysses]

10-20 blinds. I have $10000 in BB. Short stack has $1000. Third guy has $10000 on Button.

Short stack opens for $60 UTG w/ 99. Guy on Button makes it $300 to go w/ AK. I call in BB w/ 22.

Situations like this come up all the time in live NL games all the time.

[Rah]

The question isn't how a short stack affects the play, the question is whether it's easier playing with a stack larger than buyin (and other stacks at the table) or not.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd link to it, but i don't know how /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone should know how to link to other threads because this is how the hive mind grows.

Search for the thread you want.

When you find it, don't click on the link. Instead, right click on the link and in the menu that pops up select "properties".

When the properties window appears look for the "Address:" information.

Left click and drag down to select the entire address.

Type ctrl-C to copy.

While composing your post click on the "URL" link below the text window.

Type ctrl-V to paste.

Call it something.

Tada! You made a synaptic connection and we all get smarter!

small stack = advantage? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=plnlpoker&Number=631229&Fo rum=All_Forums&Words=small%20stack&Searchpage=0&Li mit=25&Main=631229&Search=true&where=sub&Name=2552 &daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post631229)

/mc

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The question isn't how a short stack affects the play, the question is whether it's easier playing with a stack larger than buyin (and other stacks at the table) or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The question I am addressing is whether or not big stacks can bully small stacks. They can.

[Rah]

Would you please explain how bullying would work outside of tournaments?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you please explain how bullying would work outside of tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please re-read my previous msg.

[chiachu]

Hi everyone. Ive been lurking these forums for a while, but this is my first post /images/graemlins/crazy.gif . In any case, im not sure if i understand diablo's example (sorry im a noob /images/graemlins/frown.gif ).

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack opens for $60 UTG w/ 99. Guy on Button makes it $300 to go w/ AK. I call in BB w/ 22.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the way im reading this... the guy on the button raises to 300 since he has AK with position on the short stack, trying to isolate probably? BB can call this bet because of the implied odds due to the deep stack of the button (and himself). But now, UTG has to fold since he has a short stack and would have to put in about 1/3rd of his stack. He lacks the implied odds to draw for a set and cant think his 9's are good?

How wrong am i? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[warlockjd]

Right on target. No getting P4WN3D here N00B.

[Rah]

I have read it, but I still don't understand how you're bullying strategy works in a game with one large stack and the rest at buyin-stacks.

[warlockjd]

I think El Olesses is saying that, for instance, the big stack can give the smaller stacks incorrect implied odds to flop a set. If the big stack does this, then the small stacks have to start mucking small prs, or risk -EV if they play them.

[Rah]

You don't need a big stack to do this.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

No, the point is with my flush draw example is sometimes it may be correct to peel off a card because you expect to get paid off on the river, but against a shorter stack this can't happen because he has no more money left to pay you, hence you have no implied odds in this situation.

another example:

case 1: you and your opponent both have $100 stacks. You have 55 and he raises 5 bucks. It'd be correct to call even if you knew he had a higher pocket pair than you because you can take a bunch of money from him if you hit.

case 2: you have a $25 dollar stack. He has $100. He bets $5. This time it will NOT be correct to call if you knew he had a higher pocket pair because you would thus be getting an incorrect price.

[Rah]

Yes, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. But I cannot understand how this gives the larger stack any advantage, which Diablo is stating.

[vulturesrow]

*bump*

One of my threads from when we first started Small Stakes NL. Anyone interested in reviving the "Beginner's Series"?

Chris