[AaronBrown]

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.