[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain how a situation can favor a short stack?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here are examples:

If I find that the fish have shallow stacks, and a few good, tough players have deep stacks, then I often want to be able to attack the fish without having the rest of my stack exposed to the good players.

It is easier to punish people who play speculative hands when you have a short stack. Buying in short deprives them of the implied odds they need to justify calling your raises, which frequently allows you to steal the limps, and prevents you from losing too much against a slow-played AA. Think about how it feels when you limp with 44 UTG (which is fine), and the one player with a short stack, 25 BB, raises to 5 BB behind you. You can't defend your limp. In addition, when you have a very short stack, players are often pot-committing themselves with any raise, which means if few people act after you, you can reraise with anything ahead of their range. That's much weaker than normal. It makes it much easier to punish people who raise with speculative hands.

The rules of poker give short stacks an intrinsic advantage. When you are all-in, you can't be charged any more, but the deep stacks with chips left can knock each other out. In a recent game, a very short stack pushed with A9, someone called, and I reraised with QQ, knocking out the caller. The short stack was about a 2:1 underdog, but because of the dead money, he was getting 2:1 on his money, so he shouldn't mind. By reraising, I transferred some equity to myself, and some equity to the short stack.

It can be worth giving up the advantages of having a short stack for the ability to outplay people in big pots. I often do that. To me, it's not worth giving up the advantages just to be fashionable.

[ QUOTE ]
Just bet less, unless you are talking about image, which is crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sentence makes no sense to me.