Big Stack or Small Stack?

[joedot]

Conventional wisdom says you should have the biggest stack allowed if you are a good player. I have to say though, I have done minimum buy-ins and done great. It is amazing the crap people will call you with just because you have a short stack. Most of the time I get it in as a short stack I am at least a 3:2 favorite, and when they get lucky on me, it isn't a big deal. Anyone else agree/disagree?

[joedot]

I should clarify, that this is in NL holdem. For some reason, I prefer the max buy-in allowed in pot limit Omaha.

[Ulysses]

I agree that a good player w/ a small stack can very easily make money (in fact, Mason outlined a good strategy for this in one of his posts about how easy NL is). However, a good player w/ a big stack can make more.

[joedot]

Thanks for the comment. I missed the Malmuth post on this, but it is good to know that a well-respected poker author agrees with this, at least in part. Another advantage to playing a small stack is that you can draw at flushes, and straights, etc, and be getting the proper odds quite often in nl.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

I think the philosophy is that if you're the best player on the table, its important that you have a bigger stack so you can maximize your winnings. I see a lot of players reloading to the max buyin after losing just a small portion of their stack the previous hand, just to have a maximum stack.
I think buying in for a smaller amount is beneficial too because of psychological factors, like not feeling so terrible after getting bad beat on, or feeling more confident about putting your chips (correctly) on the line with your good draws and such. Though this is probably a sign that I'm playing too high stakes, I tend to buy in for a little less than the max buy in in the bigger games, but feel comfortable with the max buy in in the lesser games.