Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[vexvelour]

imo i like being short stack in a game. not only do you seem like less of a threat to big chips, but it also makes me play better cards. besides, like someone said above, if you lose it, no big loss, go at it again. [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof, and I would be grateful if Ed Miller would post proof of this statement, or state whether it is just a convenient axiom for the perspective of small stacks. As I have made clear before in another thread, I only think the value of playing a short stack is for beginners who don't know how to properly play a bigger one, and even if played in a winning manner, is nonetheless not the optimal way to provide the best earn in no-limit.

I believe that big stacks hold the following intrinsic advantages over extremely small stacks (which I define as only 20% of the max buyin in fixed buyin games or 20% or less of average stack sizes in no-cap games), and that such advantages cannot all be correspondingly negated by what advantages a short stack might have:

1) Big stacks can profitably play a wider variety of hands against other big stacks;

2) Big stacks can bluff/buy pots whereas a short stack always has to make the best hand to win (and there is way more money to be made this way than by having to make the best hand, and which is of more monetary value than the advantage of a small stack in not being able to be bullied);

3) Small stacks can never effectively protect a hand postflop, which overall in the course of many hands played negates it's immunity from being bullied;

4) The implied threat of a big stack versus other big stacks often results in being able to take free cards and see checked rivers with drawing and marginal hands which is always favorable;

5) Besides the ability of a big stacks to play more hands profitably than a small stack, the blinds are small in realtion to the big stack, whereas the blind pressure on a small stack is extreme. This is an important point because the cost of playing via the blinds forces small stacks to pay a high price for waiting for premium hands whereas well-played big stacks can often steal enough blinds to have a virtual freeroll.

Point #2 above is the most important in no-limit, because the accumulation of many small pots without showdowns when holding nothing or a marginal hand can allow big stacks to take slightly the worst of it in big pots by raising with draws that can often push better made hands out or still improve to win (the Doyle way).

Finally, pzhon's point about small stacks being able to call allin on draws on the flop without having to make any more decisions or be forced to pay more on the next round is illusory. Drawing hands in big bet poker gain precisely from the ability to bet on the end (implied odds again). If a small stack is just going to call allin on draws with no further ability to earn if it makes the hand, then it might as well just be playing limit.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof, and I would be grateful if Ed Miller would post proof of this statement, or state whether it is just a convenient axiom for the perspective of small stacks. As I have made clear before in another thread, I only think the value of playing a short stack is for beginners who don't know how to properly play a bigger one, and even if played in a winning manner, is nonetheless not the optimal way to provide the best earn in no-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm splitting my response into two posts (the second of which may come at a later time) so we don't lose the forest in the trees or some such.

My statement is an axiom. Perhaps I didn't articulate myself 100% clearly, but this is my point:

You are playing in a no limit game with a $300 stack. Daddy Warbucks sits in an empty chair and puts $1 million on the table. Assuming that Daddy Warbucks doesn't play any better than average, you are no worse off than you were before he sat down. That is, it is 100% irrelevant to you that he has $999,700 more than you... and from your perspective it's the same as if he put only $300 on the table and kept the rest in his pocket. (Yes, others might play differently against him for psychological reasons because ridiculously big bucks are on the table, but I'm not talking about that.)

While hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site, it's nowhere near obvious to your average NL player. NL literature is infested with people talking about how big stacks can "bully" small stacks, buying in small "puts you at an unneccessary disadvantage," or that simply buying in bigger than someone else will give you an advantage. I was trying to address those misconceptions.

GSIH, which is where this statement and the subsequent advice to play small stacks appears, is targetted for beginners. I don't claim that playing a small stack is optimal. I claim that it simplifies the game so that beginners will have a better chance to win right off the bat.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theory offerred without proof,

[/ QUOTE ]
This has been proved numerous times including here: "You haven't come up with any theoretical advantage a big stack has over a short stack. You can't, because the short stacks are free to play as though no one has a larger stack."

In response to this proof, you repeatedly called me a donkey, on that thread and elsewhere. Are you going to keep posting this question until you get an answer you can twist into something you want?

Suppose you are convinced that what I say can't be trusted, and you are unwilling or unable to check the logic for yourself. Here are two threads on the advantages of playing short-stacked:

Tommy Angelo +
Tommy Angelo: "I bought in for the minimum $100 for the usual three reasons: ... 3) I don't need to compete guys. I'm just here for the money."
Ulysses/El Diablo: "FWIW, I do pretty much the same thing, and I learned it from Tommy. For example, when I play the Commerce 10-20 game, I usually buy in for $1000 or $1500 when I first sit down. Within an orbit or two I often have a reason to buy in for another few thousand. And in unfamiliar territory, it's always more comfortable to have a little bit of a feel for what's going on before playing deep stacks."

KaneKungFu +
KaneKungFu: "this game is particularly good for this type of strategy."
ZeeJustin: "FWIW, I do think that against this lineup, it is easiest to be a +ev player w/ a small stack."

I hope you don't start calling all of these people donkeys just because they don't share your illogical bias against short stacks.

[BluffTHIS!]

And you are ignoring Ed, the first person that I ever saw give full treatment of this strategy in writing, who just said that it is not a theory that has been proven, but an axiom. And as far as my comments about you being a donkey, your stubborn insistance that you have proved it while not fully addressing arguements to the contrary, plus your choice of 2 of the 3 persons whom you quote, clearly show that I can recognize a member of the species equus asinus when I see one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
NL literature is infested with people talking about how big stacks can "bully" small stacks

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100% which is a big part of the reason this strategy can be profitable, even if not optimal, which is my main point regarding buyin size.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are ignoring Ed, the first person that I ever saw give full treatment of this strategy in writing,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not ignoring Ed Miller. You want me to prove it? Ok, you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them, about which Ed Miller said, "hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site."

[ QUOTE ]
who just said that it is not a theory that has been proven, but an axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]
It appears he uses the term "axiom" differently from how I use it. It looked to me like he gave you the same proof that I did. (Technically, there is an additional assumption that short stacks are not harmed by a schooling effect.) This is the same as earlier arguments by others including Mike Caro and Ciaffone & Reuben.

[ QUOTE ]
And as far as my comments about you being a donkey, your stubborn insistance that you have proved it while not fully addressing arguements to the contrary,

[/ QUOTE ]
I refuted your naive objections before, as did others on that thread. You responded, "Who cares?" Would you like to make a wager on whether Ed Miller would say my arguments in that thread countered yours?

You ignored the symmetry of the situation. Every time you talked about a limitation of a short stack, the big stack would be just as limited against a short stack. The freedoms you mentioned for a big stack would not apply when facing a short stack.

"...hopefully this is so obvious that it isn't even worth mentioning to posters on this site." -- Ed Miller

[ QUOTE ]
plus your choice of 2 of the 3 persons whom you quote,

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players.

[ QUOTE ]
clearly show that I can recognize a member of the species equus asinus when I see one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've merely shown that you can be nasty when thoroughly and obviously wrong. You can't defend your misconceptions, so you turn to insults.

[blackize]

BluffThis' numerated post seemed to be the best constructed with most arguments inside so I will address it first. Also note that most of my arguments dont hold up against very weak players. The schooling would also harm short stack strategy, but short stack strategy holds up if most pots are heads up or 3 way usually.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Big stacks can profitably play a wider variety of hands against other big stacks;

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, how does it affect our short stacked play? Forgive me if I dont see it.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Big stacks can bluff/buy pots whereas a short stack always has to make the best hand to win (and there is way more money to be made this way than by having to make the best hand, and which is of more monetary value than the advantage of a small stack in not being able to be bullied);

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the whole point of a shortstack is to make your decisions easier and get your money in when youre ahead thus offering limited implied odds to anyone on a draw. As a shortstack you either want to get all in with a big hand preflop or all in on the flop once you hit. A big stack "bluffing/buying" pots doesn't faze a short stack who wants to be all in or fold on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Small stacks can never effectively protect a hand postflop, which overall in the course of many hands played negates it's immunity from being bullied;

[/ QUOTE ]

Ill neglect the fact that #2 was at least partially about how a big stack can bully a small one. With an extremely small stack being 20% of the max buyin the short stack can still easily protect his hand. A standard raise is 3-6x the BB and 20% is usually 20BB. So even in a raised pot the short stack can easily bet or overbet the pot. While there may be more money to be had with the ability to bluff on later streets, you can still get into the gray areas of decision making that short stack strategy is designed to avoid.
[ QUOTE ]
4) The implied threat of a big stack versus other big stacks often results in being able to take free cards and see checked rivers with drawing and marginal hands which is always favorable;

[/ QUOTE ]

Rarely are big stacks afraid to bet into eachother in a ring game. In tournaments yes you try to avoid getting into a battle with another large stack, but in a ring game you should be value betting and bluffing against other big stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Besides the ability of a big stacks to play more hands profitably than a small stack, the blinds are small in realtion to the big stack, whereas the blind pressure on a small stack is extreme. This is an important point because the cost of playing via the blinds forces small stacks to pay a high price for waiting for premium hands whereas well-played big stacks can often steal enough blinds to have a virtual freeroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stack doesnt mean short bankroll. If you really want to play a shortstack effectively you could buy back whatever you pay in blinds and preflop raises. You say that a big stack can play more hands profitably. This is true, but playing more hands means more gray area decisions. Again this is what the small stack is trying to avoid.

I actually feel that in a game where 2-4 people see the flop usually, preferably 2 or 3 players, the short stack can actually more effectively push small edges. I had some more thoughts of my own to add, but I have already forgotten though so Ill leave you all with this.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You want me to prove it? Ok, you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears he uses the term "axiom" differently from how I use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you just need to review a mathematics textbook on the defintions of "axiom" and "theorem".


[ QUOTE ]
(Technically, there is an additional assumption that short stacks are not harmed by a schooling effect.) This is the same as earlier arguments by others including Mike Caro and Ciaffone & Reuben.

[/ QUOTE ]

The so-called "schooling effect" is a theory proposed by the late Andy Morton regading limit poker, not no-limit.

[ QUOTE ]
I refuted your naive objections before, as did others on that thread.

You ignored the symmetry of the situation. Every time you talked about a limitation of a short stack, the big stack would be just as limited against a short stack. The freedoms you mentioned for a big stack would not apply when facing a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, as stated above, you are talking at cross purposes to what I said, which has to do with the advantages big stacks have to win more money, not how they interact with short stacks. If you want to "refute" the points I made in my first post in this thread, then address them directly without viewing them through the prism of big-stack-versus-small-stack-in-a-particular-hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides myself, I quoted 4 people: Tommy Angelo, Ulysses/El Diablo, KaneKungFu, and ZeeJustin. What is your point about my sources? They are generally considered to be insightful posters in the Mid-, High- Stakes NL/PL forum, among other places, and successful players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again regarding two of them and yourself, I am sure that members of the breed equus asinus think highly of one another.

[BluffTHIS!]

Hi blackize,

Regarding some of your comments see my most recent post above in which I stress I am not talking about how big stacks interact with short stacks in a particular hand, and my point #2 was NOT about big stacks bullying short stacks, which I agree generally won't work, but how they can bully another big stack to win pots with marginal/bluffing hands. And regarding your comment about big stacks not being afraid of betting into other big stacks you are wrong, since playing many types of hands out of position with another big stack is always perilous when you don't already have the nuts. As to short stack not meaning short bankroll, I did not imply that, only that the blind pressure on extremely short stacks is severe, forcing them to play tighter and thus less optimally than a big stack could.