Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[jason1990]

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?

[Part Time Baller]

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.

[trader77]

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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with TV poker small restricted buy in NL games have helped attract new players by taking away a lot of the fear. Many of these players have graduated to unrestricted buy in games.

At the Commerce Thursday night I counted four $600 min games with 10-20 blinds, one $2000 min game with 20-40 blinds, three $400 fixed buy in games with 5-10 blinds (I call this restricted buy in on steroids [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), about eight $200 fixed with 3-5 blinds, and perhaps a dozen $100 buy in games with 2-3 blinds.

~ Rick

[sully4321]

In the short term, yes they do all essentially have $200. However, even if you double up, they "all essentially" will have $400. Then $800 and so on. The problem is that they can make you broke each and every hand, which you cannot do to them. Thus, the big stack has an unwritten advantage... especially in tournaments.

[Triumph36]

The entire point of this thread has been to show that 'going broke' to a properly bankrolled player is meaningless in a cash game. The big stack has no intristic advantage.

[jpg7n16]

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, yes they do all essentially have $200. However, even if you double up, they "all essentially" will have $400. Then $800 and so on. The problem is that they can make you broke each and every hand, which you cannot do to them. Thus, the big stack has an unwritten advantage... especially in tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) This discussion is about cash games
2) Ed's point (if I've understood correctly)is "who cares about going broke (losing the buy-in)? I'm tryin to earn money in the long run here. Yeah you can bust me out, but I can also make money easier when you try and bust me w/ a marginal hand and I have a great one. Your zeal for bullying me acutally causes you to put more money into a pot as an underdog. Keep it up!"

Thus the dilemma.... do you make enough when you successfully "bully" me off a marginal hand in the blinds that I was going to fold anyways to cover your loss when I catch a great hand and double up off you??

You see whereas you can potentially make me go broke every hand, you also have the potential to double me up. People are so scared of the former that they forget about the latter. (Plus the big stack can't double up off a short stack - sucker [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] )

[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.

[willthethrill]

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.

[k_squared]

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