minimum stack size

[muck_nutz]

As I watched a player lose a hand, become short stack, and then ante off almost to the felt I started to wonder what the minimum playable stack size was. Can you play less then a blind profitable (ignore that some houses won't let you take a blind unless you have at least some nominal amount)? Can you play a stack which is only a pot-raise-open profitable? How do the other stack sizes and aggresiveness of the game effect that number? I'm sure answers to this question have some use in tournament play. But I imagine they also have use in determineing what a viable short stack is in live or online games. The game I was playing in was NLHE but its also interesting to figure out how this changes in PLH or PLO.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In ring games online, I am constantly adding on to my stack to keep it very close to the max. Short stacks just can't play as effectively, especially as the pot size goes up. I'll never be very worried about the minimum playable stack in a ring game. People who like to keep small stacks tho are generally weak, so I might put a bit more pressure on them at times.

al

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
People who like to keep small stacks tho are generally weak, so I might put a bit more pressure on them at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

great point. even though i can usually only identify one other good player in my PLO games, the ones who buy in for less than the full amount are always the weakest. i wish they made the minimum buy-in something reasonable like $10 at a $25 table so the idiots couldn't get away so cheap.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I too am quite irritated that some sites allow such tiny buy-ins. The people who buy in for $5 at a $50 table (or something similar) are ALWAYS morons (you can quote me on that), and it SUCKS when you can't make them pay, then you have to wait for them to rebuy every other hand. I think a $50 max should have a $10 min buy-in, etc on all limits.

One thing I LOVE to do tho is to always bet exactly the size of their stack into them, especially if they win a pot or two. Against other, more normal players, I wouldn't do this, but against the small-stack-chicken/morons, I'll purpose type in the exact amount of their stack EVERY time.

al

[muck_nutz]

Knowing several _very good_ players who play short stack (B&M) NLHE regularly (several of them for several decades for their livelihood in live games) I have to disagree that short stack equals bad. I know at least one 2+2er who has played short stack online successfully so I don't think good short stack players are only in the B&M games. Having said that, I havn't seen a lot of good short stack play online.

"i wish they made the minimum buy-in something reasonable like $10 at a $25 table so the idiots couldn't get away so cheap."

By making this statement you seem to be claiming a small stack is profitable.

[crockpot]

no, what i meant is that a bad player will lose his money more slowly when he is only buying in for $5 instead of $10. i certainly believe that if you are a long term loser in the game you are better off playing on short money.

i'm also not damning short stacks entirely, but i believe that someone who plays well on every street in a big-bet hold 'em or omaha game will naturally benefit from having more money in front of them. it's entirely possible that these people had trouble, for example, playing the turn in PLO. and i have not met any winning players that buy in for $5. the only people i know that do this are ones who love to go all in on mediocre hands and play the lottery with them.

in brief, a short stack in a ring game is sort of like a tournament: each additional chip is worth less. i don't believe you will make five times as much with $25 in front of you as with $5, but i do believe you will win more overall with $25 than with $5.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

"...you seem to be claiming a small stack is profitable..."

Sure, if you don't mind drawing at insufficient implied odds, with the worst of it, using "I'm all-in, so I can't be charged any more to draw at my longshot" as an excuse.

I have never EVER seen or even heard of a good player who consistently plays with a small stack. How could they get paid off with their good hands, or take proper advantage of implied odds? THEY CAN'T. Anyone willing to give up these things is NOT, REPEAT NOT a good player, no matter what some B&M guy may have done in the past. If he is really that good, how much MORE did he give up by playing so short? Please do quote me on this because we can argue all day long and you will NEVER EVER convince me otherwise, and I sincerely doubt you will ever receive much support from the forum on this either.

al