when a shortstack becomes a disadvantage in limit

[TStoneMBD]

in limit cash games, it would appear that having a shortstack would become an advantage as you can alter your style by capitalizing on preflop equity and ignoring implied and reverse implied odds.

assume that your BB is coming up to you and that you are a dead average player.

assuming you will play the entire next orbit or until you run out of chips, how short does your stack need to become in order for it to be -ev to post your blind? (to clarify any confusion, if you have 1000BBs in front of you, posting is +0EV. but, if you have 1BB in front of you, posting is clearly -EV.)

how short does your stack need to be in order for it to be -ev to post if you are a 1BB/hr player?

what if you are a 2BB/hr player?

[Toonces]

What make you think that having a short stack would be +EV at any point? I agree that in certain scenarios and with certain hands, having a short stack is plus EV. But since most of the money you make in poker is when you get dealt a monster hand, having a short stack reduces your profit on your most profitable hands. Also, you lose the ability to call on implied odds.

Personally, I always buy in when I am ever at risk of being short-stacked, and unless I am unaware of studies of EV in small stack situations, I would have thought that this was the best thing to do.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
in limit cash games, it would appear that having a shortstack would become an advantage as you can alter your style by capitalizing on preflop equity and ignoring implied and reverse implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how being the shortstack is an advantage at all in limit. While you may still be able to turn a profit while only playing a shortstack, surely a good player is giving up a tremendous amount by not being able to exploit +EV situations on the later (and more expensive) betting rounds.

I also don't see giving up the benefits of implied odds in order to avoid the consequences of reverse implied odds as being a very good tradeoff.

[Victor]

you should always have enough cash in front of you to cap every street. especially in the loose middle limit games nowadays.

[TStoneMBD]

these are terrible replies. you could argue that an experienced player would have a better BB/100 with a large stack in comparison to a shortstack simply because of his skills, but a player with average skills will have an advantage in comparison to the other players at the table if he buys in for a short stack. this is why casinos have minimum buyins set.

[Victor]

you do realize how much profit you are losing when you cant put enough bets in with a monster hand.

you do realize how much profit you lose when you hit a draw but cant put in extra bets.

basically what you are saying is that having a short stack can be an advantage because hands with poor implied odds such as top pair do are more profitable because you dont have to pay off opponents when they hit.

what you fail to realize is that that is only part of the overall profit as a limit holdem player.

[Paul2432]

I don't know the solution to the original post, but playing a short stack can offer a huge advantage. I believe player who was allowed to play a stack = 1 big blind, taking off winnings, and rebuying 1 big blind when he lost would destroy a table of world champions.

This concept is crystal clear in 7-card stud when a player can play a stack equal to the ante. In an 8-player game, the player is getting 7-1 on a random hand, but will win more than 1/8th of the hands due to other players folding.

In hold'em, its more complicated, but I think the same principle applies with proper hand selection outside the blinds.

Paul

[Little Fishy]

Casinos have minnimum buyins so that everyone has enough $$ in front of them to ensure action to ensure that they can take their full rake. the casino doesn't care who wins as long as they get their rake. and saying that they have a minnimum buyin to prevent a small minority of players from getting a tiny edvantage is just silly.

-little fish

[TStoneMBD]

the reason why i posted this question isnt for just some game theory debate that has no meaningful purpose in the game. what i am trying to determine is if it is worth it for me to not rebuy when on a losing session, because a shortstack should increase my BB/100 as i have a large advantage. lately that is what i have been doing. however, i wanted to find out at what point does my advantage become a disadvantage when the BB is approaching me, that way i can rebuy to a large stack.

since it isnt apparent to the majority of posters in this thread that a shorstack is an advantage, maybe i should have created a thread debating that fact first, before going into a more complicated discussion such as this one.

[ChipsAhoya]

Paul, I don't think that the stack=1 BB thing applies to Hold 'Em. In stud, it's the ante that the stack is equal to, not the bring-in, because calling the ante is forced, but the bring in is not. Becasue *everyone* has to call the ante, you are getting 7-1 on it. and you have 7-1 odds to win since receiving cards is all random for everyone.

But you aren't getting 9-1 on your BB post in Hold 'em, because some people will fold w/out putting money into the pot. Assuming everyone fold the worst hands, if, say, 3 other people come in, you will be getting 3-1, but you should, on average, have a pot equity of less than 25% because they're playing better hands than your random one.

-ChipsAhoya

[BarronVangorToth]

While I always make sure even during those unfortunate times when I go through my buy-in to make sure I can cap it on every street, I DO think TurningStone is correct that you could think of many situations where having a short-stack would be optimal.

No, it's not a strategy I would employ. Nor others. But you can think of when it would be proper in some situations for some people.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
the reason why i posted this question isnt for just some game theory debate that has no meaningful purpose in the game. what i am trying to determine is if it is worth it for me to not rebuy when on a losing session, because a shortstack should increase my BB/100 as i have a large advantage. lately that is what i have been doing. however, i wanted to find out at what point does my advantage become a disadvantage when the BB is approaching me, that way i can rebuy to a large stack.

since it isnt apparent to the majority of posters in this thread that a shorstack is an advantage, maybe i should have created a thread debating that fact first, before going into a more complicated discussion such as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seems you are getting frustrated because people are not understanding your question. As another posted noted, there are probably isolated situations when it could be +EV.

But even conceding that, the downside of being shortstacked far outweighs any rare and isolated upside (if there is any).

at a 10/20 table the other day a guy hit AA but only had $27 in front of him. Another player had QQ. Just think of the BB that the guy with AA lost. He waits all day for a monster and shortchanges himself.

The only way being short-stacked would help a player is if he was an etremely poor player. A losing player would have less chance to put more money into losing pots. So, he would lose less BB. So, one could argue that really bad players should (if they can't quit) short-stack themselves.
Now even really bad players catch monster hands, so someone would need to devise a formula for "how bad" a player would need to be before short-stacking himself would help.

Anyway, this is getting goofy.

Ps. By the way, how can a shortstack increase your BB/100 and give you a large advantage (you are referring to Big Bets I hope)???

[emonrad87]

Barron, I just looked at your site, and noticed that my avatar was honored with #2 in your avatar awards!!! That's tight!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif