Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[jason1990]

In "Getting Started in Hold 'Em," Ed Miller writes (in a centered gray box for emphasis -- that is, this is a key point):

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

Does this mean that if I buy into a game for $200 and everyone else has a million dollars, then I shouldn't care? When I think about this, it just seems like common sense that I shouldn't care. After all, they effectively only have $200 each, from my perspective. But this means that when cardrooms put a cap on the amount you can buy in for, they are not actually offering anybody any protection. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than perhaps psychological) for them to restrict the buy in.

Furthermore, I recall someone quoting Doyle Brunson as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "No limit games without a maximum buy in are the only true no limit games. Everything else is just spread limit." But in light of the previous considerations, this seems to be just nonsense.

Is my way of thinking about this correct, or am I overlooking something here?

[Part Time Baller]

Cardrooms are protecting people from themselves. Yes if you buy in for $200 when everyone else has $1000+ they effectively have $200, but they are protecting the average losing gambler from buying in for $1000 when everyone else also has $1000, and losing it all alot faster.

[AaronBrown]

You are taking Miller too literally.

What people call "no-limit" today is what used to be called "table stakes." In the old-fashioned no-limit you had to meet any bet or fold. The usual rule was you had 24 hours to raise the money, with the cards sealed and held by a third party. In that game, having a short stack was a real disadvantage. But with table stakes, it doesn't put you at a huge disadvantage.

However, it does make a difference. Say you've got suited hole cards, and want to play for a flush. With $200 in a million dollar game, you can see all five community cards for $200. It might cost you $20,000 or more if you had a million dollar stack like everyone else. Of course you win a lot less when you win, but the point is you don't have to keep seeing bets after every round. That changes your calculations.

At the other extreme, suppose you're dealt Aces. The flop comes in A K K, giving you lots of opportunities for a monster pot. Unfortunately, you were all in before the flop.

So you play hands differently with a short stack versus a big one. It's not night and day, Aces are still better than 2's, but it matters. It's especially important in multi-way pots. You may have the obvious nuts, but it's worth it for two other players to pay you $200 each so they can bet it out with each other for $100,000. On the other hand, you may find that you don't get enough action on other hands, because no one wants to play against you because the upside is so limited for them.

Games work best with roughly equal-sized stacks. But I suspect the buy-in limits are designed to maximize rake, not protect players or improve the game. No casino wants money sitting around unbet because there's no one to call it. They'd rather the rich guy moves up to a bigger game.

[willthethrill]

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.

[k_squared]

it isn't about being pushed around. A small stack just decreases the size of the stakes in relation to the blinds. I guess if you have a stack which is limitless you can't lose because you could just go all in each hand until you win. But that simply isn't the case.

But that is not the situation at play. Here we are talking about a situation that does not give special advantage to deep stacks (i.e. they are not limitless). In the circumstances he is saying the advantage that a player with a small stack has is that they have to make fewer decisions! The deeper the stack, the more important your decisions are (with the caveat that your stack size is really only as large as taht of your opponent). The goal is not to 'hurt' your opponents... it is to win money (in a tournament stack size is much more important because teh blinds are constantly going up AND you can't rebuy after losing). And a small stack has NO INHERENT disadvantage for average to poor players. If you are good the disadvantages are that it limits your chance to maximize on small edges (edges bad players would not be able to take advantage of).

The whole point is actually that a small stack that waits for great starting hands is almost impossible to 'push' around because they have only easy decisions to make!

-K_squared

[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.

[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.

[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.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Offering implied odds and not paying off the implied odds when hit against is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, just like hitting the flop is +EV. You can't be sure you'll do it.

[ QUOTE ]
When you both hit, you're likely to take all their stack, which is highly +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no special bonus for stacking someone rather than doubling up against an opponent who covers you, so this applies just as well to a short stack. If you are playing speculative hands to make monsters, and your opponent is playing to make high pairs, you will hit infrequently, and you will not get paid off enough when all of the chips go in. That's why it is bad to play speculative hands when you are short-stacked or when your opponent is short-stacked.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
As has been pointed out many times, buying in for a short stack changes the game, and gives the short-stacked player an intrinsic advantage against players with the same skill level but larger stacks.

Many winning limit players who are trying out NL would be winners with short stacks, but losers with deep stacks. They can get used to choosing the bet sizes, and the different pot-odds found in NL while still winning.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is an advantage not to "get action" from someone with a decent hand and position. This allows you to raise more hands profitably. However, in my experiements with playing short-stacked, I have found that I got plenty of horrible calls from people with weak hands. Presumably they were just curious, or wanted to knock me out. Sometimes I would push with something like AJ, someone would call, and then someone with AK or QQ would reraise, knocking the caller out. That put enough dead money into the pot that I wasn't very unhappy to be dominated, and the deep stack who called first had just wasted a lot of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few regular short stack players who I play with, they are all long term losing players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see quite a few players who play short stacks profitably. They are annoying to have at my tables (where I almost always have at least a full buy-in). They cut down on my options, and take money from the fish. There are also plenty of bad players with short stacks, but having a short stack does not force you to become bad. Despite the prejudices people have against short stacks, it is reasonable to buy in short.