short stacks

[morgan]

My friend was playing 7-stud in a California card club, low limit, and found many people would play with "short stacks" -- that is they would buy in for the minimum ($20) only, and try to get all in early in a hand. We were discussing as to whether this can be a good strategy.

In particular, this game was VERY loose-passive and we were wondering if this would be the ideal game in which to play with short stacks.

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks in advance...

Morgan

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This is a terribly weak way to play. You leave too much money on the table. Imagine hitting a monster hand, with three loose-passives with 2nd best type hands still in the pot, but you're already all-in?

[Louie Landale]

This is theoretically extremly sound poker. As Malmuth has better said it, the most optimum buy-in is a single ante. You get "full value" for your investment meaning you ALWAYS get to show your hand down, whereas other players with actual bankrolls will often be forced to fold hands (when 3rd players bet) that WOULD win.

- Louie

[Ed Miller]

If you were in a game where everyone would promise to stay in the hand as long as you still had money, and then they would play normally after you were allin... that would be an unbelievably lucrative game. So, to this extent, a very short stack would be very successful against a field that would call almost any bet with any hand on third street.

[Ed Miller]

Yup... allin for the ante... *drool*.