[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be ignoring the symmetry of the situation. When you have a small stack, you force everyone to play shallow-stack poker with you. Anyone who doesn't gives you chips, but a big stack who plays shallow-stack poker is vulnerable to the other big stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is only true in pot-limit as opposed to no-limit that larger stacks must be careful of small stack actions which may run it into another large stack. The counter to this in pot-limit is simply to reraise a small stack pre-flop raiser allin so that it cannot act post-flop where a large stack might wish to check behind another larger stack and take a free card without being exposed to a check raise by calling a short stack's bet on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Small stacks can not effectively bluff/semi-bluff to take down pots on the flop or turn because a small stack carries no threat of a caller having to call a much larger bet on the next round. Thus they actually have to make the best hand in order to win;

[/ QUOTE ]
Big stacks cannot effectively bluff/semibluff against small stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two words: W H O C A R E S. While it is true that a big stack is not going to call a small stack behind to set up a steal on a later street, big stacks will merely slowplay more headsup against small stacks to get all their money with a big hand and give no action when they have nothing.


[ QUOTE ]

MP (big stack) open raises with AQ.
SB (big stack) calls with QQ. A smaller stack could reraise all-in, but it is unwise to reopen the betting against a big stack while out of position and only a slight favorite over MP's range of hands.
BB (small stack) calls with JJ.

Flop: KT9r.
Check, check, AQ makes a pot-sized bet.
QQ folds in fear of further bets which will come if QQ is beat, JJ calls all-in because he could be best, and could have 6 outs if not. In this case, AQ ends up with 6 outs after pushing out the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


All you are saying here is that a small stack can make bad calls with second best hands and draws and not be compelled to put even more money in on the turn and river to see it through.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Small stacks who get an excellent flop cannot bet enough to protect their hands from the weakest draws;

[/ QUOTE ]
Big stacks who get an excellent flop cannot bet enough to protect their hands from small stacks with the weakest draws. Meanwhile, someone with a stronger draw but a deep stack may get knocked out, giving the small stack more outs, or even the best made hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


So again you are saying it's smart for small stacks to call their stacks off with weak draws money/odds wise.

[ QUOTE ]
Many people are prejudiced against small stacks because bad players often buy in short. However, buying in short does not force you to play poorly. It gives you an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]


I do see other players complaining online about very small stacks but they don't bother me in the slightest because they can't make squat off me and I'm savvy enough not to let a small stack run me into another big stack who has a better hand.

Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that small stacks cannot effectively bluff/seim-bluff thinking it is balanced by larger stacks not being able to run a small stack off a hand. I can tell you categorically, that there is more money to be made in big bet poker over time by taking down pots uncontested than by having to show the best hand, which is what small stacks have to do.

I am not trying to convince you of these things because I don't care. The more very short stacks like you who can't take off big fish stacks, the better for me because there will be more fish money for me. If you want to play in games above your bankroll and run away scared when you double up without learning how to play a larger stack, then again all the better for me. Who needs more good players?