Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[grimel]

Did you see where Ed mentioned (right around the areas you have highlighted) where stack size doesn't matter the above ave player will win with either, the lose will lose with either, and the ave player will break even with both?

The man clearly states stack size has no intrinsice value, yet you skip it and go on with your theory.

Take Doyle Brunson give him $400 take J Random from Pary 200NL give him $2000. Let them play heads up. What frequency do you think J Random will end up with the $2400? What if they both started with $1200?

[soah]

I would choose the game with the 1k stacks. First of all, if I double up early on in the new game, then my $400 stack would be useless since I am still limited to using only $200 until several other players have doubled up as well. In the deep game I will immediately gain the benefits of having more money on the table.

Secondly, I will likely double up sooner in the deeper game than the new game, because the deeper players are forced to raise preflop more often with "deceptive" hands like 65s or mid pairs, and they will also have the implied odds to call raises with similar hands which they would be forced to muck preflop in a raised pot in the new game. When I happen to make TPTK or an overpair in this game, there is likely to be more dead money in the pot from players who had the correct implied odds to draw at longshots to bust each other, but did NOT have correct odds to try to draw out on ME. (This, of course, assumes that my opponents are competent enough to adjust their play somewhat based upon the size of their stacks. This may actually be a poor assumption.)

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
good players lose long term EV every time they lose a chip over the initial buyin assuming there are still stacks to cover, so there are more considerations to be made in a capped buyin NL cash game than strictly chip EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fair point.

[ QUOTE ]
that said, i think a lot of players are far too willing to lose EV playing short to get to this magical deep stacked land of bonus EV and cost themselves money long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too, especially because a lot of these guys that play wildly with their initial buy-ins to try and build a big stack aren't really even a big favorite once the stacks do get large.

[ QUOTE ]
PS- my girlfriend loves your book

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[set57hike]

I think one clear structural advantage that a short stack players has over a large stack player is fold equity against as many as n-1 opponents even AFTER the short stack player's all in bet has been called by n opponents.

Put another way, the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) type standoff of the All In Bet isn't balanced between the short stack and the large stack. If a large stack player puts a short stack player all in, the short stack player guaranteed to see a showdown if he/she calls. However, if a large stack player calls a short stack player's all in bet, the large stack player is not guaranteed to see a showdown and his/her money may die in the pot. In this way, it is the short stack that can be the bully!

[illunious]

1k stacks game, for sure. 7 out of 9 people with those stacks means people are doubling up/losing/rebuying like crazy, something that wouldn't happen in a tough game. Same answer if you only have $200, with your qualifications.

[jpg7n16]

I choose.... (Pikachu!!)...

[ QUOTE ]
B. The new one with nothing but $200 stacks

[/ QUOTE ]

couple of reasons...

1) 7 of the 9 have already shown that they are highly skilled at the game in that they have grown 200 to over 1000... several others must have sat down at this table and been busted out, otherwise their stacks could never have gotten so large (simple mathematics...). Sure they probably swap funds a lot (big stacks get good hands too), but they probably eat most new players alive - because of their skill. Not good for me. New game? Everyone could be amatuers who will eventually hand their 200 over to someone, may as well be me.

So table w/ several highly skilled or the possible fish farm? Bust out the rods.

2) The game is just starting. People don't want to be faced w/ large bets in a live game right after they sat down. I mean they came to play and have fun doing it and hope to win some money from being there. You start pushing them around for all their chips and they might fold very good hands away because they want to at least get their "money's worth" plus they could be in good moods and feel that luck is with them as they are ready to "gamble." Ensures me action on my hands.

So I'm goin w/ B. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

[joel2006]

Ed,
This is a very interesting and (I think) important debate, so let’s try to keep the level of the argument high, no ad hominem attacks or simple declarations that the other person ‘is just wrong’ without adequate explanations of why. I used to grind 10/20 limit HE and I own a very dog-eared copy of SSHE (The Red Book) and think very highly of it. I’ll try to address your questions all at once.

“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.”

I do not think otherwise, if I did I wouldn’t be grinding NL.

“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.”

Let’s say we’re playing 2/5 with a $500 max. It seems fairly obvious to me that if you have $200 and lose it, that you have lost 100% of your stack and if I have $2000 and I lose $200 I have only lost 10% of mine. If both of us have our entire gambling budget on the table, then your $200 loss means much more than mine. Not to mention that in NL the size of your stack in proportion to the blinds (and in proportion to the ‘normal’ big pair raise) greatly affects how you have to play. If I have $400 and lose $200 (with no more money behind it) then I will have to switch to a SS strategy, whereas if I have more money behind it I can just ‘top off’ my stack and keep rolling the same way with $500. This is one of the reasons for the relevance of the money in your pocket. You also seem to be unaware of what I call the ‘Big bank takes Little bank’ strategy of playing NL. The basic idea is this:

if I have $2000 and you have $200, and I put you on a big pair, then I can set you all-in on the flop with AK, AQ or any quality draw (8 outs or better). One pair (even an overpair to the board) isn’t that great of a hand in NL and is easily stacked, most NL players know this and the good ones understand the importance of being able to lay these hands down, this means that I may simply push you off your hand. If you are willing to call all-in raises with this kind of hand, then you will be easily stackable when I flop a set or two pair or smooth call your raise with a higher pair (say aces). It doesn’t matter if you call and I miss and double you up because all I have to do is keep doing it, since when my draw comes in I will have you covered and stack you. Let’s say the ‘normal’ big pair raise has been around $30 (6x the BB) $30 is a very small amount in proportion to $2000, so I can also call you with hands like small and medium pairs, 67s, Axs, or Kxs. If the flop misses me as is likely I will simply fold, but when I hit I will set you all-in and stack you. If I set this up by setting you or someone else all-in with a draw and show the table I will make it tough for you to play your big pairs (the heart of SS strategy) when I have position on you. There are some players who employ this strategy very well (I’m not saying that they are all winning players, but they are very dangerous to play against and almost impossible to read) The point is if I have you outstacked enough it is almost inevitable that I will either push you around all night or break you. Think about it in terms of me setting you in with a four flush, the odds say I’ll hit one out of three, so I miss and you double to $400, I miss and you go to $800, I hit and you’re rebuying. If I have enough money in comparison to you, then the odds favor me breaking you. And since the max buy-in is capped, I can do this over and over again with an ever growing stack. This is not simply ‘playing wildly’, it is a deliberate and effective strategy in the hands of the right person (one who is fearless and reads people well), all they have to do is be able to read who is likely to fold and who isn’t, then push around the folders and switch gears and only set the likely callers in with their best hands and stack them. The Big Stacker will be able to read your SS strategy easily, but you won’t be able to read him, which gives him an additional advantage. This is why I personally don’t play in uncapped games.


“I fail to see how it's relevant how much money you have in your pocket when you come to the table.”

Money in your pocket is huge because it allows you to replenish your stack (to the max or to your SS amount) and keep playing your normal game.

“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?”

No that simple fact doesn’t, but if Martha knows how to ‘Big Stack” then your ass is grass. Especially if there’s no cap.


“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. . . . .

"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."

The guy on the other end of the phone knows what he is talking about, especially if the max is $2000 in the 10/20 NL game. The reason is simple, if four or more players have 5x the max ($10,000), they can take over the game. Let’s say the previous ‘big pair’ raise was 5x the big blind ($100), they’ll just start raising 25x the big blind ($500) which is in the same proportion to their stacks as 5x was to the table max. After the flop they will bet in proportion to the pot (3/4 or the whole pot) this means the game will effectively play like a 50/100 game, but with 10/20 blinds. Players who have the table max are now shortstacked and forced to play as such. Players who would normally be SS in this game ($500 or less) will be forced to play for all their chips whenever there is a raise, greatly restricting the range of hands they can play (unless they just want to gamble). If you continue with a 5x raise, they will call you with a great range of hands and set you all-in when they hit. Because the raises are so small in proportion to their stack, it is just a matter of time (with normal luck) before they hit and break the smaller stacks. What does this mean? Ed stated it better than I could when he wrote:

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.”

The same is true of playing 25/50 with only $2000. Note that while you’re not getting blinded down at the 25/50 rate, you are basically playing that game, and if $2000 is all you have, it just isn’t an adequate bankroll. Sure you can play SS strategy for a + EV, but so what, most nights you and your +EV will be on the rail (where +EV is useless), which this guy didn’t want. If he’d brought $10,000, then he could play SS strategy with $2000 and have an excellent chance of surviving, and making money with his +EV, since he could ride out a stretch of bad luck like getting outdrawn the first time someone set him in with a flush draw. Once he doubles up he can adjust and play accordingly.


“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?”

With $1000 I sit in the big game, no question. If I have an advantage over the players then I want to be where the money is deepest (more cheddar for me). With $200 I would sit in the big game and ask the dealer to deal me out until my second big blind. I would then watch the game, if noone is ‘Bigstacking’ and the game is good, then I stay there. If not I ask for a table change.

Remember, you care primarily about maximizing your winrate. “It's no big deal if you lose all your money in 15 minutes...”

This is nonsense. If I’m busted out, I have no ‘winrate’ As a grinder I want to make money, sure I want to make it at the highest rate possible, but if I am going to bust out 80% of the time, then the higher ‘potential winrate’ is of little value to me. In that case give me the 80% chance of winning at the lower rate.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
7 of the 9 have already shown that they are highly skilled at the game in that they have grown 200 to over 1000...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking completely opposite of you, the only time I've seen stacks like these is in play money games. In my mind, this game is virtually guaranteed to be maniacally wild/fishy.

[illunious]

[ QUOTE ]
If I’m busted out, I have no ‘winrate’

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though your winrate would be negative for the day, you have a theoretical win rate in each game.

[ QUOTE ]
sure I want to make it at the highest rate possible, but if I am going to bust out 80% of the time, then the higher ‘potential winrate’ is of little value to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are contradicting yourself. You should consider that you have a 'potential winrate' in each game.

[Sakuraba]

Ed will probably explain this better than me, but I can't help myself from making two comments.

1) This is not a tournament. (The example you gave is pretty much a tournament where the big stack starts with more chips.) In a ring game, the player with the big stack does not win when he gets all my chips and I do not win when I get all of his. We are both free to leave at any time and we get to keep whatever chips we have at that time. All you care about is whether you have more or less chips than when you started, not whether you have more or less than anyone else.

To be clear, I think everyone would agree that the big stack is less likely to lose all of his chips. It really doesn't matter though.

I think this misunderstanding is confusing a lot of your thinking. It shows up in many parts of your posts.

2) A strategy like the big stacks making standard preflop raises of 25X the BB would be very easy for a short stack to beat. You would just wait for a premium hand and then stick all of your chips in. You can't argue that this counter strategy wouldn't work, can you? The blinds would be very cheap relative to the large expected value I would have every time I picked up a premium hand.