09-05-2001, 08:59 PM
Let me first make it clear that I am NOT claiming to be any kind of an expert on stack sizes. These are just some of my thoughts about the subject. This post will hopefully spur some responses from people who know a lot about it. In other words, maybe Ray Zee will contribute more than one uncapitalized, unpunctuated, single-sentence comment about fishing in Montana!
I believe the most important factors for success at no limit hold'em are reading players, changing gears, playing stacks, and playing position. I've come to believe that the relative stack size is more important than position. Both skills are vitally important to winning, but I think playing position only OK is less detrimental than playing stacks only OK. Playing no limit without having a good grasp of stack sizes is like playing limit hold'em without understanding pot odds.
Any number of situations can swing between a call, raise or fold depending on the stack sizes, even if every other factor is the same.
THE HUGE STACK
One thing I've learned about stack sizes is that there are two ways to measure the stack size. There is the relation between your stack and another's stack, and the current pot. This relationship is usually what determines pot-stuck thresholds. There is also the relation of your stack size to the game as a whole! This is very important and I've only just realized the importance. When your stack is huge compared to the game, you have to play very conservative poker.
The psychology behind stack sizes dictates that you have to play very conservatively with a monster stack, EVEN when facing average stacks. This is because when you push them around, it looks so much like you're trying to push them around that you are more likely to get called. And if they move in on you, they are so likely to be hoping for a double up from a loose big-stack that you have to be conservative about calling. Basically, having a gigantic stack is probably bad for your game. Having a big stack or the biggest stack is ok, if it's not too far outside the normal stack ranges at the table. But when it's far and away beyond the stakes you can expect to see in front of people, you must be so conservative it's almost not worth it. I'm talking about like when the game normally runs with $1000 stacks and you have $12000 in front of you.
This fact is demonstrated by a common practice in the no limit game at Lucky Chances. Many of the most successful regulars will get up and leave the game and put their name back on the list to cycle through the must move game whenever their stack gets to be really big. You can't play that aggressively and push people out with all-in moves when your stack is so huge, so they pull all the money off the table and bide their time to cycle through the wait list again and sit down with $4k, when they had $20k before.
Another big problem with this situation is that if you lose your stack somehow, it's almost impossible to get that money back out of the game.
The only time it's really ok is if there is another huge stack in the game controlled by a very weak player who isn't protecting his stack. Then you want to cover him for sure because he's so likely to make a mistake.
The relationship of the game size will often make the pot size irrelevant. Suppose everyone has $2k in front of them and there's a $50 pot on the river between you and one other player who bets $50 into you. You will call very liberally in this situation even though it's a POT SIZE BET! If the pot were $500, that's a whole different situation. So the relationship of your stack to the game is just as important as the relationship of your stack to the pot/opponent.
THE SHORT STACK
When short stacked, you are basically playing an all-in game. You're going to find a hand and go with it either preflop or on the flop. Four limpers and you're in the big blind with 99? All-in. Two limpers and you're on the button with AJ? All-in. You take a flop in late position with 77 and it comes 469. All check to you? All-in. You find AA in mid position? Limp, and all-in on the flop.
What is the pattern here?
The goal of the small stack is to double up. You don't even care a whole lot if you get your money in while you're behind, because the chips aren't worth much anyway. You want to double it up and you'll even take the worst of it to get there. The reason is because in order to really win big in the game, you MUST get more chips. Your small stack is practically worthless. Therefore, it's worth it to risk the chips more often in the effort to double up.
Of course, if you can help it you should not play with a small stack. Buy some chips and get in there. You simply can't win a big pot with a small stack. And the goal is to win a big pot. Your win rate will drop considerably if you're always playing a small stack.
THE GOLDILOCKS STACK
Many beginning players will make over-aggressive moves with the wrong size stack. You just can't move all-in on a stone cold bluff with a monster stack. You need an AVERAGE stack for these moves to work. Again, the pros at Lucky Chances take steps to make sure they have an average stack. Not too big, not too small, but just right. The Goldilocks stack.
This is pretty much the only time you can make an all-in bluff against what you think is a real hand. Your stack has to be a threat but can't be so big that if you get called and lose you will have a hard time recovering those chips from the game.
There are two kinds of bluffs: the kind where you bluff big on the flop with a big draw and the kind where you want take it down with nothing because you think nobody has anything.
The quintessential no limit bluff is to move all-in on the flop with a nut flush draw. I think this move is so obvious that I rarely do it. But you have to keep your opponents on their toes so I'll do it every ten years or so. You don't need to do it much because everyone else does. So when you move in on a two-tone flop, your opponent will remember all the OTHER players who bluffed in that situation and be more likely to call. However, against experts who will track each opponent's betting habits, you can't count on this.
You can only make this move with an average or large stack, but not with a monster stack against another monster stack. I would even refrain from doing it against an average stack when you have a gigantic stack because of the psychology I mentioned earlier. They'll assume you're trying to push them around.
An example would be a game full of $1k stacks but you and one other player have $10k. If you move all-in for a $200 pot against the $10k stack, that is suicide. That should be fairly obvious. You just don't want to get that much of your money into the pot as a dog for such a small reward when you are in a game where it's hard to recover those chips.
Conversely, you can't make naked bluffs into decent-sized pots with a short stack against a monster stack. It's too likely he'll call you down loosely because even the best players have a hard time holding on to those few loose chips rolling around at the top of a towering stack.
The other kind of bluff is the pure, balls-out, naked no limit bluff like in the movies. This is another situation that calls for an average or below-average stack. With a monster stack, there's just too much exposure. With a baby stack, you will get called with just about anything. That's why you move in so easily with a baby stack. You can get bottom pair to call you down on the flop or a weak ace to call you preflop.
The all-in coup (by that I mean a bluff with nothing) is a tough situation to play out. Everything has to be right especially the stack sizes. A common situation would be when you have a stack of $350 or so, there's $50 in the pot, all check a ragged flop to the button who bets $50, all fold to you. Now you can go all-in naked much of the time and take it down. He's probably got nothing. But this situation is also highly dependent upon the number one most important no limit skill: knowing your players. Also, don't do it if $350 is the largest stack at the table (highly unlikely). It only works if you can easily buy in for another $700 and be covered by several players.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble so much. I really want to get some responses from the experienced no limit players and see what their take is. Some of this stuff is really obvious and some of it isn't. Many beginning players fail to take stack size into account entirely and they don't last long (speaking from experience). One last thing, I want to thank Tommy Angelo for pounding it into my head and initiating my stack size epiphany.
All of the things I've mentioned pertain to LIVE no limit games, against decent or good players. Tourneys and clueless opponents will require a different approach.
natedogg
I believe the most important factors for success at no limit hold'em are reading players, changing gears, playing stacks, and playing position. I've come to believe that the relative stack size is more important than position. Both skills are vitally important to winning, but I think playing position only OK is less detrimental than playing stacks only OK. Playing no limit without having a good grasp of stack sizes is like playing limit hold'em without understanding pot odds.
Any number of situations can swing between a call, raise or fold depending on the stack sizes, even if every other factor is the same.
THE HUGE STACK
One thing I've learned about stack sizes is that there are two ways to measure the stack size. There is the relation between your stack and another's stack, and the current pot. This relationship is usually what determines pot-stuck thresholds. There is also the relation of your stack size to the game as a whole! This is very important and I've only just realized the importance. When your stack is huge compared to the game, you have to play very conservative poker.
The psychology behind stack sizes dictates that you have to play very conservatively with a monster stack, EVEN when facing average stacks. This is because when you push them around, it looks so much like you're trying to push them around that you are more likely to get called. And if they move in on you, they are so likely to be hoping for a double up from a loose big-stack that you have to be conservative about calling. Basically, having a gigantic stack is probably bad for your game. Having a big stack or the biggest stack is ok, if it's not too far outside the normal stack ranges at the table. But when it's far and away beyond the stakes you can expect to see in front of people, you must be so conservative it's almost not worth it. I'm talking about like when the game normally runs with $1000 stacks and you have $12000 in front of you.
This fact is demonstrated by a common practice in the no limit game at Lucky Chances. Many of the most successful regulars will get up and leave the game and put their name back on the list to cycle through the must move game whenever their stack gets to be really big. You can't play that aggressively and push people out with all-in moves when your stack is so huge, so they pull all the money off the table and bide their time to cycle through the wait list again and sit down with $4k, when they had $20k before.
Another big problem with this situation is that if you lose your stack somehow, it's almost impossible to get that money back out of the game.
The only time it's really ok is if there is another huge stack in the game controlled by a very weak player who isn't protecting his stack. Then you want to cover him for sure because he's so likely to make a mistake.
The relationship of the game size will often make the pot size irrelevant. Suppose everyone has $2k in front of them and there's a $50 pot on the river between you and one other player who bets $50 into you. You will call very liberally in this situation even though it's a POT SIZE BET! If the pot were $500, that's a whole different situation. So the relationship of your stack to the game is just as important as the relationship of your stack to the pot/opponent.
THE SHORT STACK
When short stacked, you are basically playing an all-in game. You're going to find a hand and go with it either preflop or on the flop. Four limpers and you're in the big blind with 99? All-in. Two limpers and you're on the button with AJ? All-in. You take a flop in late position with 77 and it comes 469. All check to you? All-in. You find AA in mid position? Limp, and all-in on the flop.
What is the pattern here?
The goal of the small stack is to double up. You don't even care a whole lot if you get your money in while you're behind, because the chips aren't worth much anyway. You want to double it up and you'll even take the worst of it to get there. The reason is because in order to really win big in the game, you MUST get more chips. Your small stack is practically worthless. Therefore, it's worth it to risk the chips more often in the effort to double up.
Of course, if you can help it you should not play with a small stack. Buy some chips and get in there. You simply can't win a big pot with a small stack. And the goal is to win a big pot. Your win rate will drop considerably if you're always playing a small stack.
THE GOLDILOCKS STACK
Many beginning players will make over-aggressive moves with the wrong size stack. You just can't move all-in on a stone cold bluff with a monster stack. You need an AVERAGE stack for these moves to work. Again, the pros at Lucky Chances take steps to make sure they have an average stack. Not too big, not too small, but just right. The Goldilocks stack.
This is pretty much the only time you can make an all-in bluff against what you think is a real hand. Your stack has to be a threat but can't be so big that if you get called and lose you will have a hard time recovering those chips from the game.
There are two kinds of bluffs: the kind where you bluff big on the flop with a big draw and the kind where you want take it down with nothing because you think nobody has anything.
The quintessential no limit bluff is to move all-in on the flop with a nut flush draw. I think this move is so obvious that I rarely do it. But you have to keep your opponents on their toes so I'll do it every ten years or so. You don't need to do it much because everyone else does. So when you move in on a two-tone flop, your opponent will remember all the OTHER players who bluffed in that situation and be more likely to call. However, against experts who will track each opponent's betting habits, you can't count on this.
You can only make this move with an average or large stack, but not with a monster stack against another monster stack. I would even refrain from doing it against an average stack when you have a gigantic stack because of the psychology I mentioned earlier. They'll assume you're trying to push them around.
An example would be a game full of $1k stacks but you and one other player have $10k. If you move all-in for a $200 pot against the $10k stack, that is suicide. That should be fairly obvious. You just don't want to get that much of your money into the pot as a dog for such a small reward when you are in a game where it's hard to recover those chips.
Conversely, you can't make naked bluffs into decent-sized pots with a short stack against a monster stack. It's too likely he'll call you down loosely because even the best players have a hard time holding on to those few loose chips rolling around at the top of a towering stack.
The other kind of bluff is the pure, balls-out, naked no limit bluff like in the movies. This is another situation that calls for an average or below-average stack. With a monster stack, there's just too much exposure. With a baby stack, you will get called with just about anything. That's why you move in so easily with a baby stack. You can get bottom pair to call you down on the flop or a weak ace to call you preflop.
The all-in coup (by that I mean a bluff with nothing) is a tough situation to play out. Everything has to be right especially the stack sizes. A common situation would be when you have a stack of $350 or so, there's $50 in the pot, all check a ragged flop to the button who bets $50, all fold to you. Now you can go all-in naked much of the time and take it down. He's probably got nothing. But this situation is also highly dependent upon the number one most important no limit skill: knowing your players. Also, don't do it if $350 is the largest stack at the table (highly unlikely). It only works if you can easily buy in for another $700 and be covered by several players.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble so much. I really want to get some responses from the experienced no limit players and see what their take is. Some of this stuff is really obvious and some of it isn't. Many beginning players fail to take stack size into account entirely and they don't last long (speaking from experience). One last thing, I want to thank Tommy Angelo for pounding it into my head and initiating my stack size epiphany.
All of the things I've mentioned pertain to LIVE no limit games, against decent or good players. Tourneys and clueless opponents will require a different approach.
natedogg