Basic NL vs. Limit question

I'm a novice limit player, but there's a small no limit game on my campus that I'd like to work my way into.. probably after getting ahold of Super/System and blinding away for a night or two to get a feel for the table.


There's one curiosity I've been wondering about...


I hear talk about the size of one's stack being very important. Is it important only in the sense that you must vary your play according to the stacks at the the table? Or is a large stack a fundamental advantage to coming out ahead?


That is, if two people play heads up, one with twice the stack of the other, and if they are of identical skill, does the larger stack have a better chance at winning the small stack than the small stack has at winning half of the large?


Thanks for reading...


2ndGoat

The main advantage of the big stack is you can bust any player with one hand. When the big stack raises, smaller stacks need to be more careful since they know they are at risk. Of course how the big stack plays is critical. If the big stack is an aggressive player then they will put constant pressure on the smaller stacks. Big stacks tend to be more on the offensive then the small stacks.


Ken Poklitar

I tend to downplay the fact that you can lose your whole stack if you are covered in a cash game. This is very important in a tournament (no re-buy) but less so in cash game because you do not die. Stack size does however greatly influence your play. Especially in your decision to call vs. fold. In a big bet game pot odds very seldom justify a call. However, due to the size of future bets to the current pot size the implied odd can be huge. Example time.


NLHE. Heads up on the turn. You have a four-flush and a stack of $1k. You know your opponent has a pair of A’s. Pot=$10. You also know that your opponent never will release his pair of A’s. He bets $10 into you.


Q1) He has a stack of $10 remaining.


A1) You should fold.


Q2) He has a stack of $100 remaining.


A2) You should call.*


As you can see the only thing that has changed is his stack size but your action has changed.


*An important part of this is the assumption that your opponent will not release his hand if the 3rd flush card comes on the board.

As Eeyore states, you need to know the stack sizes to calculate your implied odds.


Before reading Super System, read Ciaffone's book. Read the whole thing, not just the sections on the games you intend to play. After being a winning player for a couple of years, read Super System. Reading it before that time will get you broke.

It sounds like you're talking about tournament play. In a live game, I believe it's the opposite.


It's the short stack who can bully the big stack. This is because the short stack has so many opportunities to deny the big stack any implied odds for it's money.


Also, big stacks generally DON'T tend to be more on the offensive. The bigger the stack, the more conservative the play, as long as there's another good-sized stack at the table.


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

Yeah I must have had my NL tourney hat on when I responded to this one:)


The Doyle Brunson method of NL is attack attack attack. He likes big stacks and is always on the offensive. Now if I only had the guts to play like he does.


Ken Poklitar

ohKanada@hotmail.com

The Doyle Brunson method of NL is attack attack attack. He likes big stacks and is always on the offensive. Now if I only had the guts to play like he does.


And the bankroll. I'm firmly convinced this is not the way to play. You will lose untold amounts of money if you play Super/System style in today's no limit games. Even on UB, populated by suckers, you will get destroyed.


natedogg