Beginner's series: Playing the big stack effectively

[daryn]

calling out el diablo!! turnip agrees with me! what say you??

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BIG STACK BULLYING ANYONE IN A CASH GAME WHERE YOU CAN REBUY EVER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there is.

Short stacks can't play a lot of hands when there are big stacks at the table, 'cause big stacks can make it too expensive to play and their own stack size kills their implied odds.

Also, short stacks face a big psychological challenge from big stacks who are willing to gamble w/ perceived small edges - they will often put a small stack to tough decisions in what are likely to be coin-flippy situations for the small stack.

In general, short stacks have to wait for premium hands or draws to get their money in if they're going to win.

[Rah]

The normal stacks have the same implied odds as when playing against a normal buyin. A larger stack doesnt effect the implied odds, they stay the same! A bully who tries to make it expensive to play is killing his stack. Maybe this may work against players not daring to push good hands, but it sure isn't a good strategy as soon as the players start to catch on to what you're doing.

Neither is it an advantage to push "small edges" when having a big stack. It's just a matter of time until a short stack picks up a monster and crushes the small edges.

The only advantage of having the large stack is the psychological advantage.

[Kaz The Original]

Small Stacks can't draw as well while playing bigger stacks because they cannot take advantage of implied odds. Also they cannot be drawn against as effectively.

[Rah]

You are actually saying that a stack has larger implied odds against a stack with the same size, compared to a larger stack?

[vulturesrow]

You cannot win all of the big stack's chip. Therefore your implied odds are smaller since you can only pick up as much as is in your stack. I think that is the point being made here.

[Rah]

No, the implied odds are exactly the same, since you can't win more than what's in your stack. Am I misunderstanding something??

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the implied odds are exactly the same, since you can't win more than what's in your stack. Am I misunderstanding something??

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple example:

If you have a bigger stack than your opponent your implied odds are cut down because your draws won't get paid off.

For example, suppose you have a flush draw against a short stack that moves all in for a price you, a bigger stack, can afford, though the call would be marginally thin. However, you know you're not going to get any more money out of him even if you do hit your flush because he's already all in. Hence, you have no implied odds in this situation.

[Rah]

I assume the scenario we're discussing is for example NL with 25$ buyin, where a player has tripled his stack while the others are still at 25$. The implied odds do not change at all here. You can still draw the same amount of chips from a player with 25$, and he can still draw 25$ from you.
The implied odds doesn't change for either person.

Of course the implied odds change if one guy loses 15$, but from what I understand, this is not the situation discussed.

[Leo Bello]

The main point about a short stack is, everyone says that in Poker you have to maximize your win moments and minimize your losses. If you are short-stacked in relation to the table, you are giving up that much money in a double-up situation. We know that unfortunately these situations don´t happen all the time, and being short-stacked when you are about to double-up is not a good feeling.
Anyway, I just think that saying that playing a short-stack is better like I read here in Turnipmonster´s post, is just like saying he will have a longer road to get there. Considering he is a winning player, and someone who play with the full-buy-in and also a winning, and that they get even chances to double-up, the full buy-in will have his bankroll built up way faster.