Stack size theory (cash games)

[CurryLover]

I don't suppose this is a revolutionary point but I've been thinking a lot about this idea recently and would like others' opinions. This is the idea:

In NL/PL Hold'em cash games, both the short stacks and the big stacks have a significant strategic advantage over the medium stacks.

What are your thoughts on this? I know Mason has been experimenting with buying in short in NL cash games and I believe Ed Miller's new book has a section on buying in as a short stack, but I haven't read it.

My thinking is that the medium stacks are in trouble because they can be bullied out by a big stack, allowing both the big stack and the short stack to benefit from the dead money in the pot.

Simple example:

Short stack raises in early position with ... it doesn't matter for the sake of this example.
Medium stack either flat calls, or re-raises attempting to isolate, with ... again it doesn't really matter
Big stack in late position raises again...

It's easy to envisage many situation akin to this where the medium stack will have to fold, but the short stack has an easy all-in call because, well, he's a short stack. In this type of coup both the short stack and the big stack are benefitting from the dead money that the medium stack put in before he got chased out.

I know that is a dead simple example, but I think there is something to the idea that a medium stack is at a big strategic disadvantage in a big bet cash game. What ideas do others' have?

[Guruman]

I don't know how much of an edge anyone has over the big stack here. The small stack is going to have to push with less than premium hands on occasion, and often will push at anyone that has him covered.

Also - assuming that the small stack pushes and doubles up, the he's the medium stack. That means being short-stacked is a strategic advantage for a total of one or two hands - IF the push gets called and wins.

I'd rather gain my advantages from the cards, position, and my reads.

Also: If a medium stack raises to isolate the short stack with a big stack still active, then it's his own fault if he picked a hand that he doesn't want to push all in himself.

[BluffTHIS!]

All I play is no-limit and pot-limit, both holdem and plo. I firmly believe that a short stack is ALWAYS at a disadvantage since it cannot effectively bluff/semi-bluff which is so important in these games. Thus a short stack virtually always has to make a hand to win. It's only advantage before it doubles up+ is that bigger stacks know they cannot run it off a hand and thus will often let small stacks win small pots uncontested.

I often see players in 1K buyin games online buyin for only $200. Most often they are weak-tight players who have no confidence in playing post-flop against aggressive players who make more moves. No doubt they think they are being clever and 'leveraging' with small buyins in a large game, when in reality they would be better off buying in for a full amount in a smaller game and learning how to play and read players better.

Big stacks that are smart will never let such short stacks limp in unraised or have free plays in the blinds, thus making it very difficult to overcome the blind pressure. Thus the only recourse for such short stacks is the limp/reraise with premium hands, with the decided disadvantage that they can never protect their hands in multi-way pots.

By all of this I certainly do not mean that in live play without artificial capped buyins that you have to cover the biggest stack on the table, just that extremely short buyins are at a decided disadvantage for the reasons given above.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking is that the medium stacks are in trouble because they can be bullied out by a big stack, allowing both the big stack and the short stack to benefit from the dead money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see no reason the medium stacks or the short stacks would be bullied by the big stacks. Is it intimidating when someone has a lot of chips that can't be used against you? I don't find it frightening.

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to envisage many situation akin to this where the medium stack will have to fold, but the short stack has an easy all-in call because, well, he's a short stack. In this type of coup both the short stack and the big stack are benefitting from the dead money that the medium stack put in before he got chased out.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can reverse the positions of the medium stack and the large stack. This only shows that the short stack has an advantage. It doesn't show any advantage for the big stack.

Each player can imagine all larger stacks are actually equals. However, larger stacks have to pay attention to the extra chips against each other. The result is that the larger stacks do not play optimally to take the smaller stacks' chips, while the smaller stacks can play optimally to take the larger stacks' chips.

[catlover]

I want to be short so the bigger stacks can push each other out. This is wonderful because they have to fold sometimes when I'm all in. Effectively they get pushed out of the pot without me having to risk any money.

In PLO this effect is so big that if I am doing well I will often leave the table.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The small stack is going to have to push with less than premium hands on occasion, and often will push at anyone that has him covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking a cash game here. The small stack doesn't have to push with less than premium hands, because there aren't any escalating blinds that are threatening to eliminate him. He can bide his time until the moment is right, then get all his money in early.

Big stacks may have a psychological edge over players that confuse tourney strategy with cash game strategy, but there's no real strategic advantage.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Big stacks may have a psychological edge over players that confuse tourney strategy with cash game strategy, but there's no real strategic advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave the strategic disadvantage of very small stacks in my previous post and will re-iterate:

1) Small stacks can not effectively bluff/semi-bluff to take down pots on the flop or turn because a small stack carries no threat of a caller having to call a much larger bet on the next round. Thus they actually have to make the best hand in order to win;

2) Big stacks who collectively make sure small stacks rarely get free plays in the blinds or see an unraised flop effectively increase the actual blind pressure on the small stack;

3) Small stacks who get an excellent flop cannot bet enough to protect their hands from the weakest draws;

4) The apparent true reason, despite whatever reasons might be actually given, for playing in large games with very small stacks is either due to the lack of a sufficient bankroll or a lack of confidence in ability to play post-flop against aggressive players (fear of being bluffed off the best albeit non-lock hand). By not learning how to play well post-flop a player severely limits his future earning potential.

[m2smith2]

I think number 4 is the big key. Most people who play with a short stack are looking for a chance to get AI pre-flop with a big hand because they basically don't want to play post-flop. The other "strategery" is to try to limp around and catch a set, but that's tough to do because of the earlier points - facing raises that make getting the right implied tough (at least, the right implieds more than a time or two).

Besides losing the ability to semi-bluff I think a ST can also increase his chances of getting hit out on for another reason - other players often are annoyed with them - they call with outs they might usually fold. If one person does that it's statistically advantageous to shorty, but when more do it chances are shorty is done.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave the strategic disadvantage of very small stacks in my previous post and will re-iterate:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are some advantages that big stacks have over small stacks, but small stacks have counteradvantages.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Small stacks can not effectively bluff/semi-bluff

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but OTOH, small stacks can't be bluffed out of a pot.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Big stacks who collectively make sure small stacks rarely get free plays in the blinds or see an unraised flop effectively increase the actual blind pressure on the small stack;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually playing into the small stack strategy. Small stack wants lots of people in the pot, so that when they get all in early they get maximum payoff. There is no "blind pressure" on a small stack in a cash game. The blinds don't increase, there's no elimination (you can chip up to 20BB or whatever when you get ground down a bit).

[ QUOTE ]
3) Small stacks who get an excellent flop cannot bet enough to protect their hands from the weakest draws;

[/ QUOTE ]

But, they can't lose any more if the draw makes his hand because they're already all-in when the flop hits them.

[ QUOTE ]
4) The apparent true reason, despite whatever reasons might be actually given, for playing in large games with very small stacks is either due to the lack of a sufficient bankroll or a lack of confidence in ability to play post-flop against aggressive players (fear of being bluffed off the best albeit non-lock hand). By not learning how to play well post-flop a player severely limits his future earning potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a VERY good point. A good small-stack strategy is extremely tedious, and is so simple to master that it doesn't force you to develop (though an observant player will still develop (at a reduced rate) while playing it). However, that's more of a philosophical objection, it doesn't make the small stack strategy any weaker inherently.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

So, apparently, people think that it's bad to have a medium-sized stack? If you have a short stack, then you aspire to eventually become a medium-sized stack, unless there is some magic method to playing a short stack which allows one to jump all the way up to being a big stack without first being a medium stack along the way. Or is the goal to cash out when your short stack becomes a medium stack? This may work online where you can hop around from table to table, I suppose. It seems like am especially limiting strategy if you play live.

The weakness in weak-tight is the susceptibility to being bullied. A good player will make good laydowns of strong hands, a weak-tight player will make bad laydowns out of fear of strong hands. There is a difference. This is a cash game. You should not be afraid of losing your stack. If you go broke, you rebuy. If you can't afford to buy back in, then you shouldn't be playing. Now, you don't go off and risk all your chips just because you can, but you shouldn't be afraid to if you are a favorite against the range of hands your opponent is playing.

A short stack is only advantageous against players who don't know how to adjust to playing against short stacks. Otherwise, you are making money because your opponents play badly, period, in which case, you should be happy to play against them with more money on the line.