Big stack/short stack

While most people seem to buy into games for a fairly similiar amount. I sometimes see people sit down with a mountain of chips and (at the other extreme) sometimes see people sit down with the bare minimum, rebuying for the minimum again if they lose their original buy-in. What goes through these players' minds?


PS - this forum is great. By far the most interesting one on 2+2 (not that the others aren't great as well!)

Hi Jessica- The Big stackers obviously want to project a "strong" "winning" image at the table. Several of my pals buy in for 2 racks and then if they lose 1/2 a rack, they rebuy. This mountain of chips may not be their "actual" playing bankroll for the session, but they like lots of money in front of them at all times.


The Small stackers often think they are so good at the game that less than a rack is sufficient for them to win their "quota" for the day. Many of these guys don't rebuy if they lose -- they just go home. Also, some of the short stacks don't have a big bankroll, so their chips represent what they can "afford" to lose. Some players who lack "discipline" find that too many chips leads to too many bets -- they state that smaller stacks "keep them in line".


I think in this case, more is really more. The image of a player behind a small stack marks him as "loser" or "victim". The image of a player behind a large stack marks him as "winner" and isn't that what we all want? Remember Babe's motto: "Look Good, Play Good". Image is key..... /images/wink.gif

But, Babe, you look good with or without chips.


:-)


Al

"sometimes see people sit down with the bare minimum, rebuying for the minimum again if they lose their original buy-in. What goes through these players' minds? "


desperation. and shortterm results.


why would they buy in only to not have the maximum possible if they catch a hand?


here the maximum youll lose on a hand is 12 BB. yet i see guys buy in for 5. great...not much damage to be done then if he catches and others are in.


i like these guys. if you know how to work a sidepot with them in, and many neglect this, you can win without the allin hurting you much. hedging your bet.


in fact, i posted about a guy misplaying a side pot in small stakes. "how not to work a sidepot"


he may have made at least some chips back, but

instead got timid.


just some quick ideas...


b

I like to buy in short. 10-12 BB for any game that I play is my initial buy-in, and if I lose that, then I make a smaller 2nd buy in. I know it goes against everything we learn at 2+2, but when I am losing(and therefore, buying in), I play much poorly than when I am winning. I don't get hurt as much when I chase, but if I win a pot, then psychologically I will have enough to start playing well again. I know it's incorrect to play this way, but it has worked out pretty well for me so far. Flame away.


DN

if it works for you, ya cant really be flamed can ya?


id suggest taking a break, or lowering limits.


there's no reason to play if you know your going to play below an acceptable level. not necesarily optimum, but acceptable. optimum is what we strive for, and thats never 100% anyway.


one thing i do, is play tourneys thru the streaks, or even blow off some steam on play money tables at online sites. youd be suprised how much this may help. the tourneys just help get your mind working a little different, while not losing a session roll. some cheap ways to maybe respark the brain and alter your style til your back to normal...


cya


b

I don't see a disadvantage to small buy ins, especially if you are playing in loose passive games.


IMHO, in loose passive games there are many players whose biggest mistake is seeing the flop. Post flop, they are making less of a mistake, since the pot is so large. Also, you get a lot of player who say "Hell, I'll see the flop with 23s, since there are 5 others in with me!". I would love to raise these people and get all in. Although you wont win often, you will win more than your fair share.

You should buy in for an amount such that you do not expect to have to buy any more all that often.


Buying chips is a distraction.

Many of the people who buy in for a mountain of chips have the belief that this practice projects an image of being powerful, intimidating, and having a willingness to take risks. At the very least, it makes them feel like they are these things. And sometimes it may even work in convincing some of their opponents that they are so.


Another possible reason is that they are trying to appear to be winning even if they, in fact, are losing. This deters people from taking shots at them when they're losing.


As for the people who buy in shortstack, it may be because they have short bankrolls. Or they may be one of those people that believe in stop losses. When you're heads up in a pot with them, you can pretend you're in a tournament where you're the big stack and they're the little stack.

Well, having a short stack helps me psychologically, which is still my biggest problem in this game. When I have less chips, I play tighter and more aggressively. Or at least thats what my perception is. I try to always have 4-5 big bets in front of me, but when I am getting my butt whooped(like tonight), I just feel that the benefits of being able to win a couple pots(not like tonight) helps me psychologically, and outweighs the missed bets I could have collected. Of course, when I play badly and win, it just reinforces bad plays, but I can always come here and get flamed to set me straight.


I don't like having a lot of chips on the table. I feel I play my best when I am winning only a little bit. Which is why I usually limit my sessions to 5 hours and walk away when I am stuck 2 racks and the game is average or less(like tonight). So far, it's working out ok(knock on wood).


DN

There are 2 guys I always see with both extremes in 5-10 game at TAJ. The first one sits down, take a wad of bill, count it under the table and buys in for $60. His plays are very predictable with questionable pre-flop raising standards and would fold more than 60% of the time when bet into. I've seen him go all-in and then scratch his head when he flop the nuts. When he loses his first buy-in, he'll disappear for a half hour and buy again for another $60.


The second player who goes by the name "Action" sits down, takes a big wad of C-bills, buys in for $500 and stack them neatly in a triangle, takes down his note pad and scribble some notes. The first time I played him, I was somewhat intimidated and said to myself: "Now, this must be a real pro." Until I observed his game: Will not raise without AK, AQ, or high pocket pairs and will not call/raise unless he has the best hand. He takes frequent walks and would unnoticeably disappear after losing a stack.


Neither of the above is a winning player.


My conclusion: Stack size has nothing to do with a player's quality of play.

"My conclusion: Stack size has nothing to do with a player's quality of play"


sure can be. quality also involves maximizing opportunities. in limit, if your trying to make the max on a winning hand, what are you doing buying in short? you are minimizing your winnings while, with rebuys, slowly maximizing your losses. they can also become 'overtight' due to their stack size. thus missing opps that they would take with more chips. opps that they should be taking.


shortstacks also lessens the affect of tactical moves. since you may run out of chips.


1 instance...shortstacks have a hard time bumping players out maximizing their chances of winning. especially if its on the flop. theyre limiting their options.


id say its ok once in awhile, say your game is going south. as a change of pace, that is. but to make common practice? no way


and those that make it routine common practice, arent that great of quality of player. the game is about chip accumulation, not surviving and depthcharging for a lottery hand. your strangling your profits.


ever been in a game where the sidepot 2nd best hand was bigger than the main pot that the shortstack won? i have. and its kinda sad.


end of a session roll is one thing, buying in short is another.


b

An intelligent gambler(now a high limit hold-em pro) started out playing short stacked. You will need to make some strategy adjustments(I don't know what they are, you might). Try searching google in rec.gambling for some old, early 90's articles on short stack strategy/ideas for hold'em.