Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[Louie Landale]

Big stack vrs big stack poker is a lot different than small stack vrs small stack poker. There are plenty of times you may move all in with a small stack but would never bet that much if you have a lot more money. Well, that's also true for the opponents, or it should be.

It DOES matter how much more than you the opponent's have since it affects they way they play their hands. No it doesn't matter if they know they are heads up against you on their first decision, but that's rarely the case.

So you need to get a feel for the way folks adjust their own play when their big stack is at stake, and you can use that information against them when they've already acted before they know its just you and your small stack.

One reason to restrict the buy in is so the inexperienced player who's won a lot of money isn't suddenly at huge risk when a new player sits down.

- Louie

[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.

[GFunk911]

[ QUOTE ]
4. This is the potentially controversial point (though it shouldn't be): Playing a large stack, in general, holds no intrinsic advantage over playing a small one. Take the AVERAGE (in every way) no limit player and give him a deep stack. Have him play many, many hours of NL. Then give him a short stack and have him do the same. His long-term results should be roughly the same, break-even (excluding the rake) for all stack sizes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, can you clarify this? I assume you mean that, give a player a big stack (AND ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS THE SAME SIZED STACK), as opposed to giving a player a short stack (and all the other players the same sized stack).

Is this what you meant?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
When I sit down at an NL game, whether I'm sitting w/ $500 or $20,000,

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 2+2 authors, other than Zee, have sat down more than a few times with 10K in NL cash games? And by more than a few times, I mean other than research. I'd say none. I'm sure DS won't respond but, somehow I doubt these weren't the games he chased.

[soah]

It means that some people win at poker, and some people lose at poker, and this must hold true for every possible stack size. Some players may play better as a shortstack or with a large stack, but in the end there still must be winners and losers and this will be determined by who is getting their money in with the best of it and not simply by who buys in for the most.

[Solami17]

To be perfectly honest, I woould much rather have $200 when 9 guys around me have $1000. The main reason is it helps my play. I am a tight player and being shotstacked helps me fold marginal hands that I might play if I was not in so short on money. You could also not feel so bad when you take a bad beat and lose only $200 instead of $1000. Another reason for this is that the big stacks will almost always to bully the short man around. This is great if you have the patience to sit there and wait and then pounce on him when you have a monster hand.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason for this is that the big stacks will almost always to bully the short man around. This is great if you have the patience to sit there and wait and then pounce on him when you have a monster hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that does hold pretty true - there's definitely a psychological aspect at work here. People with big stacks like to bully; people with small stacks often let themselves get bullied. This is an edge that big stacks often have, but it is not one that the short stack is forced to give them (once they realize that extra 200 BB the big stack has can't be used against them, they shouldn't be so afraid).

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt read any of the other posts except for yours. And I think you are absolutely correct. And I would have to assume that all the rooms that you have played are legal. In certain states that is not the case. Limits on buy ins become effectively insurance that you can only lose so much. If you were to factor the illeagal factor into your decision to sit down at table ie cops criminals, you would be grateful for a cap on buy ins. At a legitimate casino there is no excuse and i agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with TV poker small restricted buy in NL games have helped attract new players by taking away a lot of the fear. Many of these players have graduated to unrestricted buy in games.

At the Commerce Thursday night I counted four $600 min games with 10-20 blinds, one $2000 min game with 20-40 blinds, three $400 fixed buy in games with 5-10 blinds (I call this restricted buy in on steroids [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), about eight $200 fixed with 3-5 blinds, and perhaps a dozen $100 buy in games with 2-3 blinds.

~ Rick