Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[konangrit]

Short stack will get less action on his decent hands as he's giving out very little in implied odds preflop. When people do see a flop against him they may very well have correct pot odds to call him on a draw even if he goes all in.

Another disadvantage is that by the time he gets a big hand half his' stack may well have been blinded away, resulting in only a very small win even if he gets any action.

Of course, this only applies to tight short stack play, a loose short stack will probably go bust very quickly.

I really think it would be better to buy in for max buy in at a smaller table than short at a higher one. This also has the added benefit that the standard of play is also generally lower, and thus should be easier to make money.

I can see how people who just like to gamble would enjoy playing at the highest stakes they can afford, but to play proper poker, I think it makes far more sense to work on your game at a lower level.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack will get less action on his decent hands as he's giving out very little in implied odds preflop. When people do see a flop against him they may very well have correct pot odds to call him on a draw even if he goes all in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deep stacks don't want to offer those implied odds. Ideally, they are only getting more action because they are paying off even more to sets and straights.

That a deep stack may correctly call a short-stack's push with a draw is balanced by the fact that a short stack can correctly call all-in with a draw. This can't be a weakness of having a short stack because you can imagine no one has more chips than you.

Short stacks can play optimally to take the big stacks chips. They play for high pairs and don't mind getting everything in with a draw. Deep stacks can't play optimally to take the short stacks' chips, because if they do, they are vulnerable to the other deep stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
Another disadvantage is that by the time he gets a big hand half his' stack may well have been blinded away, resulting in only a very small win even if he gets any action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing stops you from buying more chips before you blind down, but you shouldn't be waiting for a big hand. A short stack allows you to value bet much more effectively with weaker hands.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it makes far more sense to work on your game at a lower level.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may be good, but there is no inherent disadvantage to having a short stack. You are not harmed by the chips that can't be used against you. For beginners, it may be a good idea to simplify the game with a short stack. This also lets you see more showdowns, so if you are losing, you can figure out what your opponents are doing.

[konangrit]

Offering implied odds and not paying off the implied odds when hit against is +EV. When you both hit, you're likely to take all their stack, which is highly +EV. Obviously, in an idea world you'd like to get all your chips in the middle and offer no implied odds when you have the best hand, but those opportunities don't come along very often.

As you note, short stacks play for high pairs. Therefore the cards that they play will dictate that they will be playing less drawing hands than the average deep stack. It won't balance out. It reduces your options, it takes away much of the ability to bluff. I guess you can argue that it takes away a lot of your opponents ability to bluff you too.

I concede that nothing stops a short stack from buying more chips before they blind out, but it begs the question, why not buy in for more in the first place? The only reason that I can see is that if you're a losing player, it will minimize your' losses.

I agree that a short stack can take advantage of people calling from early position only for them to get raised out of the hand by someone in late position. It also results in the short stack getting less action on his good hands when he raises from early position because good players won't want to get reraised from behind, and will lay down marginal hands like 88 etc.

Any successful short stack player won't have a short stack for long, what does he do then? Call it a day and take the profits? Find another table he can start with a short stack again? Or stay there and learn to play with a deep stack? Once he does, he won't be starting with a short stack for much longer.

As you suggest, for beginners it can simplify the game, but from what I see, it's generally someone playing beyond their bankroll or skill level.

It may be a useful strategy for someone with a low risk tolerance level, or maybe a limit player starting out in no limit.

The majority of short stacked players I see are just people gambling, most likely had a bit of luck on a lower table and move up to try and make some quick money, they generally lose. There are a few regular short stack players who I play with, they are all long term losing players.

At the end of the day, it minimizes both losses and winnings, so I guess it depends on how much you win or lose as to whether you wish to play short stacked or not.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to play against opponents who "push me around" by making it $200 to go as the standard preflop raise in a $5-$10 blind game.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to play against opponents who "push me around" by making it $200 to go as the standard preflop raise in a $5-$10 blind game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are a $200 short-stack, while profitable, this is not very fun. I used to play in a 1-2-2 $100 buyin game where at times many of us had $3000+ stacks. The guys who bought in for $100 did not have very much fun when it was $50 to go every hand. It was very profitable for them, though.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to play against opponents who "push me around" by making it $200 to go as the standard preflop raise in a $5-$10 blind game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. If I'm calling with the better hand, it is to my HUGE advantage to see all 5 cards. However, if I had $20000 instead of $200, I might see the flop and miss it all.

[Suntzu00000]

Who cares. In a NL cash game stack sizes are irrelevant.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares. In a NL cash game stack sizes are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously have no understanding of big bet poker games.

[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.