Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

In "Getting Started in Hold 'Em," Ed Miller writes (in a centered gray box for emphasis -- that is, this is a key point):

"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

Does this mean that if I buy into a game for $200 and everyone else has a million dollars, then I shouldn't care? When I think about this, it just seems like common sense that I shouldn't care. After all, they effectively only have $200 each, from my perspective. But this means that when cardrooms put a cap on the amount you can buy in for, they are not actually offering anybody any protection. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than perhaps psychological) for them to restrict the buy in.

Furthermore, I recall someone quoting Doyle Brunson as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "No limit games without a maximum buy in are the only true no limit games. Everything else is just spread limit." But in light of the previous considerations, this seems to be just nonsense.

Is my way of thinking about this correct, or am I overlooking something here?

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Cardrooms are protecting people from themselves. Yes if you buy in for $200 when everyone else has $1000+ they effectively have $200, but they are protecting the average losing gambler from buying in for $1000 when everyone else also has $1000, and losing it all alot faster.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

You are taking Miller too literally.

What people call "no-limit" today is what used to be called "table stakes." In the old-fashioned no-limit you had to meet any bet or fold. The usual rule was you had 24 hours to raise the money, with the cards sealed and held by a third party. In that game, having a short stack was a real disadvantage. But with table stakes, it doesn't put you at a huge disadvantage.

However, it does make a difference. Say you've got suited hole cards, and want to play for a flush. With $200 in a million dollar game, you can see all five community cards for $200. It might cost you $20,000 or more if you had a million dollar stack like everyone else. Of course you win a lot less when you win, but the point is you don't have to keep seeing bets after every round. That changes your calculations.

At the other extreme, suppose you're dealt Aces. The flop comes in A K K, giving you lots of opportunities for a monster pot. Unfortunately, you were all in before the flop.

So you play hands differently with a short stack versus a big one. It's not night and day, Aces are still better than 2's, but it matters. It's especially important in multi-way pots. You may have the obvious nuts, but it's worth it for two other players to pay you $200 each so they can bet it out with each other for $100,000. On the other hand, you may find that you don't get enough action on other hands, because no one wants to play against you because the upside is so limited for them.

Games work best with roughly equal-sized stacks. But I suspect the buy-in limits are designed to maximize rake, not protect players or improve the game. No casino wants money sitting around unbet because there's no one to call it. They'd rather the rich guy moves up to a bigger game.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

I think that the size of your stack is very important in terms of how well you can play. Think about if you sit down with 200 and everyone else has 20,000. They can raise 200 preflop as a normal raise and if they lose it would hurt them that much. However you have to risk all of your chips without even seeing a flop. They have a huge advantage. They can push you around extremely easily.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

it isn't about being pushed around. A small stack just decreases the size of the stakes in relation to the blinds. I guess if you have a stack which is limitless you can't lose because you could just go all in each hand until you win. But that simply isn't the case.

But that is not the situation at play. Here we are talking about a situation that does not give special advantage to deep stacks (i.e. they are not limitless). In the circumstances he is saying the advantage that a player with a small stack has is that they have to make fewer decisions! The deeper the stack, the more important your decisions are (with the caveat that your stack size is really only as large as taht of your opponent). The goal is not to 'hurt' your opponents... it is to win money (in a tournament stack size is much more important because teh blinds are constantly going up AND you can't rebuy after losing). And a small stack has NO INHERENT disadvantage for average to poor players. If you are good the disadvantages are that it limits your chance to maximize on small edges (edges bad players would not be able to take advantage of).

The whole point is actually that a small stack that waits for great starting hands is almost impossible to 'push' around because they have only easy decisions to make!

-K_squared

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Short stack will get less action on his decent hands as he's giving out very little in implied odds preflop. When people do see a flop against him they may very well have correct pot odds to call him on a draw even if he goes all in.

Another disadvantage is that by the time he gets a big hand half his' stack may well have been blinded away, resulting in only a very small win even if he gets any action.

Of course, this only applies to tight short stack play, a loose short stack will probably go bust very quickly.

I really think it would be better to buy in for max buy in at a smaller table than short at a higher one. This also has the added benefit that the standard of play is also generally lower, and thus should be easier to make money.

I can see how people who just like to gamble would enjoy playing at the highest stakes they can afford, but to play proper poker, I think it makes far more sense to work on your game at a lower level.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the size of your stack is very important in terms of how well you can play. Think about if you sit down with 200 and everyone else has 20,000. They can raise 200 preflop as a normal raise and if they lose it would hurt them that much. However you have to risk all of your chips without even seeing a flop. They have a huge advantage. They can push you around extremely easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to play against opponents who "push me around" by making it $200 to go as the standard preflop raise in a $5-$10 blind game.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack will get less action on his decent hands as he's giving out very little in implied odds preflop. When people do see a flop against him they may very well have correct pot odds to call him on a draw even if he goes all in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deep stacks don't want to offer those implied odds. Ideally, they are only getting more action because they are paying off even more to sets and straights.

That a deep stack may correctly call a short-stack's push with a draw is balanced by the fact that a short stack can correctly call all-in with a draw. This can't be a weakness of having a short stack because you can imagine no one has more chips than you.

Short stacks can play optimally to take the big stacks chips. They play for high pairs and don't mind getting everything in with a draw. Deep stacks can't play optimally to take the short stacks' chips, because if they do, they are vulnerable to the other deep stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
Another disadvantage is that by the time he gets a big hand half his' stack may well have been blinded away, resulting in only a very small win even if he gets any action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing stops you from buying more chips before you blind down, but you shouldn't be waiting for a big hand. A short stack allows you to value bet much more effectively with weaker hands.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it makes far more sense to work on your game at a lower level.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be good, but there is no inherent disadvantage to having a short stack. You are not harmed by the chips that can't be used against you. For beginners, it may be a good idea to simplify the game with a short stack. This also lets you see more showdowns, so if you are losing, you can figure out what your opponents are doing.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Offering implied odds and not paying off the implied odds when hit against is +EV. When you both hit, you're likely to take all their stack, which is highly +EV. Obviously, in an idea world you'd like to get all your chips in the middle and offer no implied odds when you have the best hand, but those opportunities don't come along very often.

As you note, short stacks play for high pairs. Therefore the cards that they play will dictate that they will be playing less drawing hands than the average deep stack. It won't balance out. It reduces your options, it takes away much of the ability to bluff. I guess you can argue that it takes away a lot of your opponents ability to bluff you too.

I concede that nothing stops a short stack from buying more chips before they blind out, but it begs the question, why not buy in for more in the first place? The only reason that I can see is that if you're a losing player, it will minimize your' losses.

I agree that a short stack can take advantage of people calling from early position only for them to get raised out of the hand by someone in late position. It also results in the short stack getting less action on his good hands when he raises from early position because good players won't want to get reraised from behind, and will lay down marginal hands like 88 etc.

Any successful short stack player won't have a short stack for long, what does he do then? Call it a day and take the profits? Find another table he can start with a short stack again? Or stay there and learn to play with a deep stack? Once he does, he won't be starting with a short stack for much longer.

As you suggest, for beginners it can simplify the game, but from what I see, it's generally someone playing beyond their bankroll or skill level.

It may be a useful strategy for someone with a low risk tolerance level, or maybe a limit player starting out in no limit.

The majority of short stacked players I see are just people gambling, most likely had a bit of luck on a lower table and move up to try and make some quick money, they generally lose. There are a few regular short stack players who I play with, they are all long term losing players.

At the end of the day, it minimizes both losses and winnings, so I guess it depends on how much you win or lose as to whether you wish to play short stacked or not.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Offering implied odds and not paying off the implied odds when hit against is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, just like hitting the flop is +EV. You can't be sure you'll do it.

[ QUOTE ]
When you both hit, you're likely to take all their stack, which is highly +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no special bonus for stacking someone rather than doubling up against an opponent who covers you, so this applies just as well to a short stack. If you are playing speculative hands to make monsters, and your opponent is playing to make high pairs, you will hit infrequently, and you will not get paid off enough when all of the chips go in. That's why it is bad to play speculative hands when you are short-stacked or when your opponent is short-stacked.

[ QUOTE ]
I concede that nothing stops a short stack from buying more chips before they blind out, but it begs the question, why not buy in for more in the first place? The only reason that I can see is that if you're a losing player, it will minimize your' losses.

[/ QUOTE ]
As has been pointed out many times, buying in for a short stack changes the game, and gives the short-stacked player an intrinsic advantage against players with the same skill level but larger stacks.

Many winning limit players who are trying out NL would be winners with short stacks, but losers with deep stacks. They can get used to choosing the bet sizes, and the different pot-odds found in NL while still winning.

[ QUOTE ]
It also results in the short stack getting less action on his good hands when he raises from early position because good players won't want to get reraised from behind, and will lay down marginal hands like 88 etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is an advantage not to "get action" from someone with a decent hand and position. This allows you to raise more hands profitably. However, in my experiements with playing short-stacked, I have found that I got plenty of horrible calls from people with weak hands. Presumably they were just curious, or wanted to knock me out. Sometimes I would push with something like AJ, someone would call, and then someone with AK or QQ would reraise, knocking the caller out. That put enough dead money into the pot that I wasn't very unhappy to be dominated, and the deep stack who called first had just wasted a lot of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few regular short stack players who I play with, they are all long term losing players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see quite a few players who play short stacks profitably. They are annoying to have at my tables (where I almost always have at least a full buy-in). They cut down on my options, and take money from the fish. There are also plenty of bad players with short stacks, but having a short stack does not force you to become bad. Despite the prejudices people have against short stacks, it is reasonable to buy in short.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

imo i like being short stack in a game. not only do you seem like less of a threat to big chips, but it also makes me play better cards. besides, like someone said above, if you lose it, no big loss, go at it again. [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof, and I would be grateful if Ed Miller would post proof of this statement, or state whether it is just a convenient axiom for the perspective of small stacks. As I have made clear before in another thread, I only think the value of playing a short stack is for beginners who don't know how to properly play a bigger one, and even if played in a winning manner, is nonetheless not the optimal way to provide the best earn in no-limit.

I believe that big stacks hold the following intrinsic advantages over extremely small stacks (which I define as only 20% of the max buyin in fixed buyin games or 20% or less of average stack sizes in no-cap games), and that such advantages cannot all be correspondingly negated by what advantages a short stack might have:

1) Big stacks can profitably play a wider variety of hands against other big stacks;

2) Big stacks can bluff/buy pots whereas a short stack always has to make the best hand to win (and there is way more money to be made this way than by having to make the best hand, and which is of more monetary value than the advantage of a small stack in not being able to be bullied);

3) Small stacks can never effectively protect a hand postflop, which overall in the course of many hands played negates it's immunity from being bullied;

4) The implied threat of a big stack versus other big stacks often results in being able to take free cards and see checked rivers with drawing and marginal hands which is always favorable;

5) Besides the ability of a big stacks to play more hands profitably than a small stack, the blinds are small in realtion to the big stack, whereas the blind pressure on a small stack is extreme. This is an important point because the cost of playing via the blinds forces small stacks to pay a high price for waiting for premium hands whereas well-played big stacks can often steal enough blinds to have a virtual freeroll.

Point #2 above is the most important in no-limit, because the accumulation of many small pots without showdowns when holding nothing or a marginal hand can allow big stacks to take slightly the worst of it in big pots by raising with draws that can often push better made hands out or still improve to win (the Doyle way).

Finally, pzhon's point about small stacks being able to call allin on draws on the flop without having to make any more decisions or be forced to pay more on the next round is illusory. Drawing hands in big bet poker gain precisely from the ability to bet on the end (implied odds again). If a small stack is just going to call allin on draws with no further ability to earn if it makes the hand, then it might as well just be playing limit.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof, and I would be grateful if Ed Miller would post proof of this statement, or state whether it is just a convenient axiom for the perspective of small stacks. As I have made clear before in another thread, I only think the value of playing a short stack is for beginners who don't know how to properly play a bigger one, and even if played in a winning manner, is nonetheless not the optimal way to provide the best earn in no-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm splitting my response into two posts (the second of which may come at a later time) so we don't lose the forest in the trees or some such.

My statement is an axiom. Perhaps I didn't articulate myself 100% clearly, but this is my point:

You are playing in a no limit game with a $300 stack. Daddy Warbucks sits in an empty chair and puts $1 million on the table. Assuming that Daddy Warbucks doesn't play any better than average, you are no worse off than you were before he sat down. That is, it is 100% irrelevant to you that he has $999,700 more than you... and from your perspective it's the same as if he put only $300 on the table and kept the rest in his pocket. (Yes, others might play differently against him for psychological reasons because ridiculously big bucks are on the table, but I'm not talking about that.)

While hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site, it's nowhere near obvious to your average NL player. NL literature is infested with people talking about how big stacks can "bully" small stacks, buying in small "puts you at an unneccessary disadvantage," or that simply buying in bigger than someone else will give you an advantage. I was trying to address those misconceptions.

GSIH, which is where this statement and the subsequent advice to play small stacks appears, is targetted for beginners. I don't claim that playing a small stack is optimal. I claim that it simplifies the game so that beginners will have a better chance to win right off the bat.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof,

[/ QUOTE ]
This has been proved numerous times including here: "You haven't come up with any theoretical advantage a big stack has over a short stack. You can't, because the short stacks are free to play as though no one has a larger stack."

In response to this proof, you repeatedly called me a donkey, on that thread and elsewhere. Are you going to keep posting this question until you get an answer you can twist into something you want?

Suppose you are convinced that what I say can't be trusted, and you are unwilling or unable to check the logic for yourself. Here are two threads on the advantages of playing short-stacked:

Tommy Angelo +
Tommy Angelo: "I bought in for the minimum $100 for the usual three reasons: ... 3) I don't need to compete guys. I'm just here for the money."
Ulysses/El Diablo: "FWIW, I do pretty much the same thing, and I learned it from Tommy. For example, when I play the Commerce 10-20 game, I usually buy in for $1000 or $1500 when I first sit down. Within an orbit or two I often have a reason to buy in for another few thousand. And in unfamiliar territory, it's always more comfortable to have a little bit of a feel for what's going on before playing deep stacks."

KaneKungFu +
KaneKungFu: "this game is particularly good for this type of strategy."
ZeeJustin: "FWIW, I do think that against this lineup, it is easiest to be a +ev player w/ a small stack."

I hope you don't start calling all of these people donkeys just because they don't share your illogical bias against short stacks.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

And you are ignoring Ed, the first person that I ever saw give full treatment of this strategy in writing, who just said that it is not a theory that has been proven, but an axiom. And as far as my comments about you being a donkey, your stubborn insistance that you have proved it while not fully addressing arguements to the contrary, plus your choice of 2 of the 3 persons whom you quote, clearly show that I can recognize a member of the species equus asinus when I see one.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
NL literature is infested with people talking about how big stacks can "bully" small stacks

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100% which is a big part of the reason this strategy can be profitable, even if not optimal, which is my main point regarding buyin size.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
And you are ignoring Ed, the first person that I ever saw give full treatment of this strategy in writing,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not ignoring Ed Miller. You want me to prove it? Ok, you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them, about which Ed Miller said, "hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site."

[ QUOTE ]
who just said that it is not a theory that has been proven, but an axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]
It appears he uses the term "axiom" differently from how I use it. It looked to me like he gave you the same proof that I did. (Technically, there is an additional assumption that short stacks are not harmed by a schooling effect.) This is the same as earlier arguments by others including Mike Caro and Ciaffone & Reuben.

[ QUOTE ]
And as far as my comments about you being a donkey, your stubborn insistance that you have proved it while not fully addressing arguements to the contrary,

[/ QUOTE ]
I refuted your naive objections before, as did others on that thread. You responded, "Who cares?" Would you like to make a wager on whether Ed Miller would say my arguments in that thread countered yours?

You ignored the symmetry of the situation. Every time you talked about a limitation of a short stack, the big stack would be just as limited against a short stack. The freedoms you mentioned for a big stack would not apply when facing a short stack.

"...hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site." -- Ed Miller

[ QUOTE ]
plus your choice of 2 of the 3 persons whom you quote,

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players.

[ QUOTE ]
clearly show that I can recognize a member of the species equus asinus when I see one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've merely shown that you can be nasty when thoroughly and obviously wrong. You can't defend your misconceptions, so you turn to insults.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

BluffThis' numerated post seemed to be the best constructed with most arguments inside so I will address it first. Also note that most of my arguments dont hold up against very weak players. The schooling would also harm short stack strategy, but short stack strategy holds up if most pots are heads up or 3 way usually.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Big stacks can profitably play a wider variety of hands against other big stacks;

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, how does it affect our short stacked play? Forgive me if I dont see it.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Big stacks can bluff/buy pots whereas a short stack always has to make the best hand to win (and there is way more money to be made this way than by having to make the best hand, and which is of more monetary value than the advantage of a small stack in not being able to be bullied);

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the whole point of a shortstack is to make your decisions easier and get your money in when youre ahead thus offering limited implied odds to anyone on a draw. As a shortstack you either want to get all in with a big hand preflop or all in on the flop once you hit. A big stack "bluffing/buying" pots doesn't faze a short stack who wants to be all in or fold on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Small stacks can never effectively protect a hand postflop, which overall in the course of many hands played negates it's immunity from being bullied;

[/ QUOTE ]

Ill neglect the fact that #2 was at least partially about how a big stack can bully a small one. With an extremely small stack being 20% of the max buyin the short stack can still easily protect his hand. A standard raise is 3-6x the BB and 20% is usually 20BB. So even in a raised pot the short stack can easily bet or overbet the pot. While there may be more money to be had with the ability to bluff on later streets, you can still get into the gray areas of decision making that short stack strategy is designed to avoid.
[ QUOTE ]
4) The implied threat of a big stack versus other big stacks often results in being able to take free cards and see checked rivers with drawing and marginal hands which is always favorable;

[/ QUOTE ]

Rarely are big stacks afraid to bet into eachother in a ring game. In tournaments yes you try to avoid getting into a battle with another large stack, but in a ring game you should be value betting and bluffing against other big stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Besides the ability of a big stacks to play more hands profitably than a small stack, the blinds are small in realtion to the big stack, whereas the blind pressure on a small stack is extreme. This is an important point because the cost of playing via the blinds forces small stacks to pay a high price for waiting for premium hands whereas well-played big stacks can often steal enough blinds to have a virtual freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stack doesnt mean short bankroll. If you really want to play a shortstack effectively you could buy back whatever you pay in blinds and preflop raises. You say that a big stack can play more hands profitably. This is true, but playing more hands means more gray area decisions. Again this is what the small stack is trying to avoid.

I actually feel that in a game where 2-4 people see the flop usually, preferably 2 or 3 players, the short stack can actually more effectively push small edges. I had some more thoughts of my own to add, but I have already forgotten though so Ill leave you all with this.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
You want me to prove it? Ok, you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears he uses the term "axiom" differently from how I use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you just need to review a mathematics textbook on the defintions of "axiom" and "theorem".


[ QUOTE ]
(Technically, there is an additional assumption that short stacks are not harmed by a schooling effect.) This is the same as earlier arguments by others including Mike Caro and Ciaffone & Reuben.

[/ QUOTE ]

The so-called "schooling effect" is a theory proposed by the late Andy Morton regading limit poker, not no-limit.

[ QUOTE ]
I refuted your naive objections before, as did others on that thread.

You ignored the symmetry of the situation. Every time you talked about a limitation of a short stack, the big stack would be just as limited against a short stack. The freedoms you mentioned for a big stack would not apply when facing a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, as stated above, you are talking at cross purposes to what I said, which has to do with the advantages big stacks have to win more money, not how they interact with short stacks. If you want to "refute" the points I made in my first post in this thread, then address them directly without viewing them through the prism of big-stack-versus-small-stack-in-a-particular-hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again regarding two of them and yourself, I am sure that members of the breed equus asinus think highly of one another.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Hi blackize,

Regarding some of your comments see my most recent post above in which I stress I am not talking about how big stacks interact with short stacks in a particular hand, and my point #2 was NOT about big stacks bullying short stacks, which I agree generally won't work, but how they can bully another big stack to win pots with marginal/bluffing hands. And regarding your comment about big stacks not being afraid of betting into other big stacks you are wrong, since playing many types of hands out of position with another big stack is always perilous when you don't already have the nuts. As to short stack not meaning short bankroll, I did not imply that, only that the blind pressure on extremely short stacks is severe, forcing them to play tighter and thus less optimally than a big stack could.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this shows that you're arguing something completely different than what people think you're arguing. Ed's statments (here and in GSIH) only said that 1) his short stack strategy is a winning strategy and that 2) big stacks don't have any inherent advantage over small stacks. You keep arguing that the small stack strategy is "not optimal" - but nobody ever said that it was! Geez. Why do you keep bringing this up? It's been said about four xillion times now.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Two nights ago in a home cash game I lost my entire buy in. Someone tossed me a couple of chips (charity) to keep playing. Short-handed, 5 players, and I came back to double up and a half.

Short stack is sweet.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The total advantage adds up to 0. The short stacks have no disadvantage, so the bigger stacks have no advantage.

Your intuition is wrong. This has been explained to you many times whether you understand the explanations or not. Every theorist (rather than casual poker hack) disagrees with you. Ed Miller says, "hopefully this should be obvious..." Many experienced winning players disagree with you. You should consider that you are wrong, and stop making a public fool of yourself.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

Again, you insist on looking at things through the perspective of how big and small stacks interact in a hand, not whether big stacks do or do not have an instrinsic advantage in the game as a whole. I have never disagreed with Ed's strategy being a winning one for inexperienced players who do not know how to properly handle a big stack, just that big stacks have more weapons in their arsenal which allow them to earn more in more situations, not just because they can in fact take more money off another big stack than a small one can.

If you want to continue responding pzhon, then go back to my first post in this thread and respond to my points from the persepective stated above, and not the big-vs-small in a hand perspective you insist on using. This is a clear case where you can't see the forest for the trees.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you insist on looking at things through the perspective of how big and small stacks interact in a hand, not whether big stacks do or do not have an instrinsic advantage in the game as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

A stack of any given size has no advantage over a stack that is smaller.

A stack of any given size has no advantage over a stack that is bigger.

In a heads-up cash game, the stack sizes are irrelevant. The stacks are effectively the same size (i.e. the size of the smaller stack). Neither player has an advantage.

Add a few more players into the mix. Assume most of these new players have stacks somewhere between the big and the small stack. Where is the "big" stack player gaining an edge? What, exactly, is that edge? You accuse others of offering no proof, but you haven't offered any to back up your theory that big stacks have an egde in "the game as a whole".

How, then, does a "big stack" have an intrinsic advantage in "the game as a whole"?

Followup Response
 

Ok, I promised a followup response. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time, so I'll be brief and hopefully that will be enough.

1. As I said before, large stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in the sense that when they play a hand together the fact that the large stack has excess money on the table is irrelevant. Hopefully that is obvious.

2. Playing a small stack versus a large stack simplifies the game. It tends to turn NL hold 'em into a two betting round game rather than a four round one. That vastly reduces the importance of hand reading (particularly intricate, multi-street reading).. an advanced topic.. and elevates the importance of starting hand selection... a relatively simple topic.

3. Simplifying the game necessarily lessens the edge a good player has over a bad one. A good player can be only so good when there is just enough money to play before the flop and on the flop. Likewise, a bad player can be only so bad... there's no situation where he can get in thousands of dollars drawing stone dead like he can with a deep stack.

4. This is the potentially controversial point (though it shouldn't be): Playing a large stack, in general, holds no intrinsic advantage over playing a small one. Take the AVERAGE (in every way) no limit player and give him a deep stack. Have him play many, many hours of NL. Then give him a short stack and have him do the same. His long-term results should be roughly the same, break-even (excluding the rake) for all stack sizes.

Stack sizes merely accentuate skill differences, they don't provide any intrinsic advantage or disadvantage. If our player is now below average, he should expect to do better with a short stack. He'll lose with both stack sizes, but he'll lose MORE with a large stack.

Likewise, if he's above average, he should expect to do better with a large stack. He'll win with both, but he'll win MORE with a large stack.

Hopefully that clarifies everything.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

pvn, see Ed's point #1 above regarding your comments.

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
4. This is the potentially controversial point (though it shouldn't be): Playing a large stack, in general, holds no intrinsic advantage over playing a small one. Take the AVERAGE (in every way) no limit player and give him a deep stack. Have him play many, many hours of NL. Then give him a short stack and have him do the same. His long-term results should be roughly the same, break-even (excluding the rake) for all stack sizes.

Stack sizes merely accentuate skill differences, they don't provide any intrinsic advantage or disadvantage. If our player is now below average, he should expect to do better with a short stack. He'll lose with both stack sizes, but he'll lose MORE with a large stack.

Likewise, if he's above average, he should expect to do better with a large stack. He'll win with both, but he'll win MORE with a large stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your response Ed. I agree with your statements insofar as the limiting condition you make, which is that an average player will do no worse and possibly even better with a small stack. Notice though that in my first post in this thread where I gave the reasons I believe playing a big stack versus other big stacks does have intrinsic advantages, is that it allows more optimal results in the game as a whole, which of course can only be achieved by better than average players when taking correspondingly greater risks. I think implicit in your assumptions regarding the results of short stack play is that they must "hit & run" after having doubled up or more and resume short stack play at another table or a later time.

Again to the other readers and posters in this thread, I have not said that I believe a short stack is at a disadvantage versus bigger stacks in a hand, just that bigger stacks played by better than average players allow more optimal play which allows for earning more money. The difference between these two things, short vs. big stack in a hand, and short vs. big stack in the game as a whole are clearly differentiated by Ed even though some you refuse to differentiate them, keeping in mind the important contraint Ed placed on his comments, that a merely average player is playing either stack size.

Re: Followup Response
 

Ed, I too disagree with your position on short stacks for the following reasons

"1. As I said before, large stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in the sense that when they play a hand together the fact that the large stack has excess money on the table is irrelevant. Hopefully that is obvious."

This isn't obvious simply because it isn't true. Although those chips cannot be bet against you (in this hand) they do give the big stack the ability to set you all-in for a broader range of reasons (for example, since your doubling through him will cause less damage to him than a bigger stack would, he may be much more willing to bluff at you) and with a broader range of hands, and this greatly complicates your reading of his hand.

"2. Playing a small stack versus a large stack simplifies the game. It tends to turn NL hold 'em into a two betting round game rather than a four round one."
This is limit thinking, because the single biggest difference between limit and no-limit is that in the latter you can be put to a decision for all your chips, AT ANY TIME. So the amount of rounds isn't relevant if the big stack pushes on the flop, you still have a very difficult choice to make, which may be much more difficult than making four $50 decisions.

" That vastly reduces the importance of hand reading (particularly intricate, multi-street reading).. an advanced topic.. and elevates the importance of starting hand selection... a relatively simple topic."

The above is nonsense since the most difficult decision one has to make is for one's whole stack, and hand reading will be crucial in that decision. Thus if having a short stack makes you a target, then hand reading becomes more not less important. And if one is willing to lay down a big pair in these situations then one is susceptible to being bullied, and if one is too willing to call, then one is susceptible to being easily stacked by two pair and sets.

Not to mention the fact that there is a huge difference between istiing short stacked with four more buy-ins behind you and sitting with only one more. The shorter your money is the easier it will be for you to be pushed around.

Re: Followup Response
 

joel,

Even though I have a different position seemingly, it has to do with the ability of big stacks played by better than average players to make more money. You probably should read, if you already have not done so, Ed's book Getting Started In Holdem, in which he explains this short stack strategy in detail. You will find that that it advocates playing extremely tightly and that they don't really mind getting set in with such good hands by a larger stack and isn't really that difficult of a decision to make for them if you reraise them preflop. This doesn't mean they aren't sometimes calling with hands like QQ when you have KK and might have gotten away from it having a large stack, which of course clearly narrows the range of hands a big stack should reraise such players with depending on the position in which they raised. You will also see from reading that book that they aren't always going to call if they haven't got a significant portion of their stack in and have a little larger stack, as guidelines are given for calling that depend on the stack size versus the amount already put in the pot.

Re: Small Stack vs. Big Stack
 

I didnt read any of the other posts except for yours. And I think you are absolutely correct. And I would have to assume that all the rooms that you have played are legal. In certain states that is not the case. Limits on buy ins become effectively insurance that you can only lose so much. If you were to factor the illeagal factor into your decision to sit down at table ie cops criminals, you would be grateful for a cap on buy ins. At a legitimate casino there is no excuse and i agree with you.

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
...bigger stacks played by better than average players allow more optimal play which allows for earning more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any question that the all-around best NL player at a table is usually best served by having everyone covered.

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ed, I too disagree with your position on short stacks for the following reasons...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to single you out, Joel, but your arguments are representative of the widespread ignorance and fuzzy thinking regarding NL cash games. I hope you take that in the best way possible.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't obvious simply because it isn't true. Although those chips cannot be bet against you (in this hand) they do give the big stack the ability to set you all-in for a broader range of reasons (for example, since your doubling through him will cause less damage to him than a bigger stack would, he may be much more willing to bluff at you) and with a broader range of hands, and this greatly complicates your reading of his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a $200 stack and double through someone, it does them $200 worth of damage no matter how big their stack is. It doesn't do a bigger stack "less" damage than a smaller one... it does everyone the same amount of damage... $200. If someone decides to play more wildly simply because he's got $10,000 on the table instead of $400, and he perceives that $200 is "less damage" to him than it would be to a poorer player, that means only that it will be easier to part Mr. $10,000 from his money.

[ QUOTE ]
The above is nonsense since the most difficult decision one has to make is for one's whole stack, and hand reading will be crucial in that decision. Thus if having a short stack makes you a target, then hand reading becomes more not less important. And if one is willing to lay down a big pair in these situations then one is susceptible to being bullied, and if one is too willing to call, then one is susceptible to being easily stacked by two pair and sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stacks simplify decisions. In a $2-$5 blind game, a decision for your $1,000 stack might well be a difficult one. A decision for a $50 stack usually won't be. That's really the whole point. No one is "pushing you around" when your whole strategy is essentially to wait for a big pair and stick your $50 in no matter what.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that there is a huge difference between istiing short stacked with four more buy-ins behind you and sitting with only one more. The shorter your money is the easier it will be for you to be pushed around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how it's relevant how much money you have in your pocket when you come to the table. Martha Stewart comes to the table with a lot more money in her pocket than I do. Does that make me "easier to push around"? Does the simple fact that Stewart can afford to burn through a lot of money before she "feels" it make her a tough NL opponent?

Success in NL hold 'em is derived from your skills and decision-making, just as it is in limit. You seem to think otherwise, and you are simply wrong.

Clarification
 

I just wanted to clarify my last post.

First, it's obviously important to be adequately bankrolled, no matter what game you play. If $5,000 is all the money I have in the world, it would be somewhat foolish to buy into a $100-$200 blind NL game with it. But if I were to do such a foolish thing, I could play a short stack strategy for a positive expectation. That fact that I am poorly bankrolled doesn't put me at a disadvantage in the game... it merely makes me a favorite to go broke.

So, in that sense, you are better off with four buy-ins in your pocket than only one. You are more likely to go home broke if you came with only one buy-in. But your expectation while you play is unchanged.

The reaosn I'm making such a big deal about this is because I hear total BS all the time about NL games. I'll relate two such experiences.

1. I'm sitting in a $30-$60 limit game. The guy next to me is clearly very interested in making sure everyone knows what an excellent and knowledgable poker player he is. He starts muttering about how he hates limit and he only likes to play no limit. Then he starts whining about how he really wants to play some $10-$20 blind NL game across the room, but he only brought $2,000 and that isn't enough to play (the min buy-in for the game is $600). So he calls up some other clearly knowlegable player on his cell phone.

"Hey, so I'm sitting in this horrible $30-$60 game, and I really want to play NL. But the only game that I want to play is a $10-$20 blind game and I only brought $2,000. That's not enough to compete, is it? I'll just get killed, right?"

Pause

"Ya, that's what I thought. Those guys each have like $10,000 on the table. I won't even have a shot with only $2,000. Thanks a lot for confirming my suspicions. Guess I'll just have to languish in this limit game."

2. A guy went to the local cardroom to play some $200 max buy-in NL game. He intended to play because he felt he would be a favorite in the game. But when he got to the cardroom, he saw that most of the players had well over $1,000 in front of them. Seeing that he was so outchipped, and that he'd be a tiny stack compared to everyone else, he elected not to play the game.

"I'm good in a normal game, but I just throwing my money away if I buy-in against all those big stacks, right? If I can't compete, I figure it's better just to pass altogether."

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any question that the all-around best NL player at a table is usually best served by having everyone covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where Bluffthis is getting confused. In this scenario this player's advantage comes from him being the best player, not from having the biggest stack. Having the biggest stack is just a "force multiplier" - it only magnifies the advantage, but it can't *add* to your advantage (i.e. it can't turn a disadvantage into a positive advantage). That's why there's no *intrinsic* advantage to stack size.

Small stack advantages?
 

.

Re: Followup Response
 

Bluff,
I did read ed's book (that's what i'm disagreeing with) and nothing he has said here has changed my mind, as he is only arguing by declaration and providing no reasoning for his arguments. I don't know how much NL Ed plays, but his arguments sound like theoretical limit arguments to me and don't reflect the reality of NL. Check out his response to my post where he says $200 is just $200, he must not play a lot of NL. If i'm at a 2/5 table with $2500, $200 does little to nothing to my stack (i still probably cover the table) whereas a $200 stack is playing for all his chips. Ed's comment about money in the pocket really makes no sense, since his book reasons that the short stacks do have a problem in tournaments because losing means getting knocked out, well if i'm a SS in a cash game and have no more money i'm in the same boat as a tourney player (and can be easily bullied), but if i have more buy-ins then being set-in isn't as much of a problem, since i'll just rebuy another SS. I grind 2/5 weekdays at the Borg in AC, and i know many players who if they get a big stack (more than 3x the max) will immediately start playing lots of hands and setting short stacks in with a wide range of hands like 67s or even Axs or Kxs, and they don't mind doubling you up once or twice because when they catch you, you get stacked. This is what i mean by "being hurt" It is almost impossible to read the BS hand in these cases and if you are forced to call then your 'stackability' goes way up. Not to mention that when they have a 'real' hand they really get paid. These players will often just run over the table, esp. if they win a few suckouts. Some of them will also increase whatever the 'standard' raise has been, say from $50 to $200 making it real tough for a SS to play any pairs under KK, since they are calling for all of their chips and have less of an idea where they are. This makes the whole 'tight with SS' strategy very difficult to play.

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
If i'm at a 2/5 table with $2500, $200 does little to nothing to my stack (i still probably cover the table) whereas a $200 stack is playing for all his chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

If two players of equal abilities are in the game, and one has $2500 on the table and zero in his wallet, and the other has $200 on the table, and $2300 in his wallet, who has the edge? Big stack, small stack or neither?

Re: Followup Response
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did read ed's book (that's what i'm disagreeing with) and nothing he has said here has changed my mind, as he is only arguing by declaration and providing no reasoning for his arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite know what "arguing by declaration" means, but what I'm saying is all just very basic math and logic. The fact is, there are logical fallacies all of your points where you disagree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how much NL Ed plays, but his arguments sound like theoretical limit arguments to me and don't reflect the reality of NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be quite honest, even if I'd never played NL before, I'd be 100% right on these issues. They are math and logic issues, not "reality of NL" issues (whatever those might be).

[ QUOTE ]
Check out his response to my post where he says $200 is just $200, he must not play a lot of NL. If i'm at a 2/5 table with $2500, $200 does little to nothing to my stack (i still probably cover the table) whereas a $200 stack is playing for all his chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a FALLACY. $200 might SEEM like less to you if you have $2,500 on the table, but $200 is always $200, no matter how many chips are on the table. If you lose $200, you've lost $200. It doesn't matter if it's your last $200, or if there's $20,000 more behind it. The result is exactly the same.

This is how tournaments differ from cash games (which you get wrong in the next paragraph). In a tournament, T200 isn't necessarily T200 because CHIPS CHANGE VALUE. The only value tournament chips have is as a tool to maneuver you into places in the prize structure. I think I explain this idea fairly clearly in GSIH.

[ QUOTE ]
Ed's comment about money in the pocket really makes no sense, since his book reasons that the short stacks do have a problem in tournaments because losing means getting knocked out, well if i'm a SS in a cash game and have no more money i'm in the same boat as a tourney player (and can be easily bullied), but if i have more buy-ins then being set-in isn't as much of a problem, since i'll just rebuy another SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the reason short stacks are at a disadvantage in a tournament isn't because losing all your chips means that you will have to go home. It's for these reasons:

1. Chips change value. Generally speaking, each chip added to a stack contributes less marginal value. So T200 off my T400 stack is actually WORTH MORE in a very real way than T200 off your T20,000 stack.

In a cash game, everyone's $200 is worth exactly the same... $200. Best Buy isn't going to give you an extra iPod for your $200 just because you won it from some sap with a short stack.

2. In a tournament, you are FORCED TO PLAY UNTIL YOU ARE BROKE. That means that if you get a VERY short stack (like 2 or 3 times the big blind) you must play it. A very short stack IS a disadvantage because you don't make enough on your good hands to overcome the blinds.

In a cash game, you never have that problem, because you can add to your stack or pick up and cash out whenever you want.

Now if being short-stacked and poorly bankrolled means that you will start playing weak-tight instead of properly (which is essentially what you are arguing), then of course it's a disadvantage. But as long as you play correctly, which is very easy to do (and outlined in GSIH), you're fine.

[ QUOTE ]
I grind 2/5 weekdays at the Borg in AC, and i know many players who if they get a big stack (more than 3x the max) will immediately start playing lots of hands and setting short stacks in with a wide range of hands like 67s or even Axs or Kxs, and they don't mind doubling you up once or twice because when they catch you, you get stacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big mistake on their part, and if they are indeed "setting short stacks in" before the flop with these hands, they will get destroyed by a table full of GSIH (perhaps slightly modified to account for the excessive action) short stack players. The extent to which they aren't getting hammered by doing this only shows how incompetant their opponents are.

[ QUOTE ]
This is what i mean by "being hurt" It is almost impossible to read the BS hand in these cases and if you are forced to call then your 'stackability' goes way up. Not to mention that when they have a 'real' hand they really get paid. These players will often just run over the table, esp. if they win a few suckouts. Some of them will also increase whatever the 'standard' raise has been, say from $50 to $200 making it real tough for a SS to play any pairs under KK, since they are calling for all of their chips and have less of an idea where they are. This makes the whole 'tight with SS' strategy very difficult to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Joel, but you have some major misconceptions regarding the game you "grind." Perhaps you won't ever believe me, but realize that failing to understand this stuff will do you harm in the long run.

Fortunately, NL is different from limit in that you can be successful without understanding this theoretical stuff if you read hands real well. So you may well win in your game if you play well, even getting all this stuff wrong. But if you understood it, you'd win even more.

Good luck. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Question for Joel (and anyone else who\'s interested)
 

You arrive at the Bellagio poker room with $1,000 in your pocket to play their $2-$4 blind $200 required buy-in NL game. The only allowed buy-in is $200, no more, no less. (I don't know if this is currently the baby NL game Bellagio spreads, but it was for a while.) If you fall below $100, you may buy an additional $200 (so if you have $50, you may rebuy to a $250 stack). If you fall between $100 and $200, you may buy back to exactly a $200 stack.

You are a significantly above average player in every important aspect of the game: hand selection, hand reading, psychology, etc. That is, you're basically a favorite in any NL game you play.

When you arrive, they are just starting a second game. But the first game has one seat open. The brush allows you to decide whether to play in the existing game or to take part in the new game.

You check out the first game... seven out of the nine players have more than $1000 in front of them (remember, their initial buy-in and all subsequent buy-ins are $200). You don't recognize any of the players though, and you don't have time to watch any hands being played.

Obviously, in the new game everyone will have exactly a $200 stack to start out.

Brush asks you which game you want. You are primarily interested in maximizing your winrate.. that is, you'd rather play a $100/hour game for 2 hours than a $50/hour game for 5 hours.

Which game should you choose and why?

A. The one with lots of $1,000 stacks

B. The new one with nothing but $200 stacks

C. You don't have enough information to make a preference. In other words, you might as well just flip a coin.

Now, say you have only one $200 buy-in in your pocket. Does your answer change, and if so, why? Remember, you care primarily about maximizing your winrate. It's no big deal if you lose all your money in 15 minutes... it's just important that your winrate is as high as it can be.