small-stack = advantage?

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
You always want to cover your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just wrong. pretend you are playing NL hold 'em with Ray Zee, Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey and Jessica Simpson. Ray, Doyle and Phil all have 20k. Jessica has 1k.

Do you still want to cover your opponents?

the counter argument to this is "well, only play in games where you're the best player at the table". IMO this is a silly argument, and severely limits your game selection for live big bet poker.

--turnipmonster

[gavrilo]

I'd find another game.

[togilvie]

I definitely want to cover my opponents in this game.

There are going to be times where I want to get all my money in the middle because I think I have the best hand. You're implying this when talking about wanting to get all-in with a big pair or TPTK heads up. When that happens, it's a better thing to have your opponent covered than to have him cover you. That's not an opinion, it's fact.

Good no-limit players make the vast majority of their money making tough decisions post-flop. While it can't hurt to learn relative value by playing a move-in game to understand what hands hold up when run hot & cold, it isn't going to make you an excellent player in the long run. You get there by bringing a good sized stack to the table, and learning how to use it.

I'll concede that it's not a terrible strategy to grind out some small-$ with a short-stack strategy, but it's not something I'd recommend for anyone looking to get good.

[The Ram]

A 2-part obvious answer that has yet to be mentioned is this.
1) You seem to have examined the value of getting in with TPTK and thus voiding draws. However, for the sake of a extreme example (that can be watered down as much as you like, but still demonstrates my point as relates to +EV), TPTK is not even necessarily a favorite to win if all in on the flop against a draw. T93 w/ 2 spades looks better for AT than for QsJs if you get it in on the flop, but the QJ is the favorite.
So, this nut-peddling mentality of looking for TPTK and shoving in isn't really all it is cracked up to be. Additionally, if you get in on a T93 type flop, even if it's a rainbow, I don't think you can reasonably expect to be winning all the time, so this "they won't outdraw me" thing isn't even necessarily relevant, as you might not even be winning to begin with--they clearly have to call you with SOMETHING.
2) Assuming you <font color="red"> aren't </font> planning a hit and run and you want to play after you double up once or twice, then you might find yourself with $1000 or so when the others have a few thousand, as in your Foxwoods example. With blinds of 5/5, now do you feel like you have a short-stack advantage? I think all of your "advantage" just got blown out the window, because now you're playing in fairly big pots that might not get to showdown, and you may find yourself quickly returning to where you started.

My point in all of this? Buy in for at LEAST the average stack size at the table. If you're short, any potential advantage will only last during the time you spend as the small stack. Once you get larger (and yet smaller than the big stacks, presuming that all players are at least average) this 'edge' will disappear rapidly.
If you don't want to buy in for more, this might not be the game for you. You can certainly give it a shot, but I wouldn't be taking consistent shots at it.

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read anything about this specifically, but I've been wondering if it would be an advantage to buy in small in order to be the short stack at the table.

One (presumed) advantage would be that you're playing for the same stakes against all the players. If A has $100 and B and C each have $5000, A knows he can blast away with TPTK without fear of losing too much. B and C are kinda stuck though - they are each playing in a potentially $100 pot with A and a potentially $5000 pot with the other big stack. In a given situation, B and C would act differently against the small stack than the big, but they have to pick some action that does ok against both opponents. So while all three are in the pot it seems the big stacks have to be giving up some equity.

Does this make sense? Are there successful players who buy in light?

It's possible there are other advantages to being short-stacked - getting all-in when others will have to fold on later streets, etc. These might be outweighed by not getting fully paid off with a monster though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because 95% of the time Im the best player at the table and want to have as many chips as posible.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

T93 w/ 2 spades looks better for AT than for QsJs if you get it in on the flop, but the QJ is the favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. And what a great situation the QJs is in if he's on a short stack. Suppose you're playing a 5-5 blinds game, limp in with QJs, there's a raise behind, two calllers in front of you, and you decide to call, closing the action.

Flop comes T93 with two of your suit. There's $120 in the pot. Checked to you.

Everyone else's stack is $3000. How much would you like to have in your stack?

A $3000 stack is a liability here. I'd dearly love to have about $500.

Guy.

[Gomez22]

It sounds like you're playing with a scared bankroll, so let me ask you a question....

Would you rather:

A. Win the MOST money you can in any given situation?

B. Lose the LEAST amount of money you can when at the table?




If you answered B, please go back to limit. Nothing personal, but you need to be able to capitalize on opponent's mistakes when they make them, but you won't be able to do so if you have a short stack. Make any sense?

If you're concerned about your poker skills, and not being completely comfortable with NL games yet, play a smaller stakes game, but ALWAYS buy-in for the max.

[ACW]

I think the most interesting question to ask is "Given that you want to buy in with x% of your bankroll, should you choose a low stake table where x% is a large stack or a high stake table where x% is a small stack?"

Which scenario gives you the best expected return/risk factor?

Clearly the style of play you adopt will need to be very different depending on the choice you make, so your choice will often be influenced by the other players at the table and your frame of mind.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely want to cover my opponents in this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

by saying this, you are implying you are going to make better postflop decisions on average than doyle, phil etc.

[ QUOTE ]

There are going to be times where I want to get all my money in the middle because I think I have the best hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

and there are going to be many, many times when you have to fold the best hand because you have no idea where you are because someone who can outplay you will consistently test you for all your money.

[ QUOTE ]

You're implying this when talking about wanting to get all-in with a big pair or TPTK heads up. When that happens, it's a better thing to have your opponent covered than to have him cover you. That's not an opinion, it's fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

getting all in with TPTK is not something I especially like doing in my games, because a lot of times TPTK is toast against a good player who is getting allin with you. not sure why you think I am saying this.

I fully agree that to be a successful NL player it is imperative to learn to play a deep stack and play it well. My main point is that you don't want to cover players that are going to outplay you. if you are always the best player in your game, then good for you. When you move on to higher and different games, this will not always be the case. the knee jerk "I want to cover the table" response doesn't apply to every game, and a player who adopts this strategy will pay dearly for it in a game where the toughest players have the deepest stacks.

just out of curiosity, where do you play?

--turnipmonster

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

ALWAYS buy-in for the max


[/ QUOTE ]

Most real NL games do not have a maximum buy-in.

Guy.