Small Stack vs. Big Stack

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this shows that you're arguing something completely different than what people think you're arguing. Ed's statments (here and in GSIH) only said that 1) his short stack strategy is a winning strategy and that 2) big stacks don't have any inherent advantage over small stacks. You keep arguing that the small stack strategy is "not optimal" - but nobody ever said that it was! Geez. Why do you keep bringing this up? It's been said about four xillion times now.

[vexvelour]

Two nights ago in a home cash game I lost my entire buy in. Someone tossed me a couple of chips (charity) to keep playing. Short-handed, 5 players, and I came back to double up and a half.

Short stack is sweet.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you refuse to admit the validity of the idea that short stacks in cash games are not harmed by chips that can't be used against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not addressing my topic, which does not have to do with how big stacks interact with short stacks, but the intrinsic advantages that big stacks have in the game as a whole, again NOT just how they matchup in hands against short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The total advantage adds up to 0. The short stacks have no disadvantage, so the bigger stacks have no advantage.

Your intuition is wrong. This has been explained to you many times whether you understand the explanations or not. Every theorist (rather than casual poker hack) disagrees with you. Ed Miller says, "hopefully this should be obvious..." Many experienced winning players disagree with you. You should consider that you are wrong, and stop making a public fool of yourself.

[BluffTHIS!]

Again, you insist on looking at things through the perspective of how big and small stacks interact in a hand, not whether big stacks do or do not have an instrinsic advantage in the game as a whole. I have never disagreed with Ed's strategy being a winning one for inexperienced players who do not know how to properly handle a big stack, just that big stacks have more weapons in their arsenal which allow them to earn more in more situations, not just because they can in fact take more money off another big stack than a small one can.

If you want to continue responding pzhon, then go back to my first post in this thread and respond to my points from the persepective stated above, and not the big-vs-small in a hand perspective you insist on using. This is a clear case where you can't see the forest for the trees.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you insist on looking at things through the perspective of how big and small stacks interact in a hand, not whether big stacks do or do not have an instrinsic advantage in the game as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

A stack of any given size has no advantage over a stack that is smaller.

A stack of any given size has no advantage over a stack that is bigger.

In a heads-up cash game, the stack sizes are irrelevant. The stacks are effectively the same size (i.e. the size of the smaller stack). Neither player has an advantage.

Add a few more players into the mix. Assume most of these new players have stacks somewhere between the big and the small stack. Where is the "big" stack player gaining an edge? What, exactly, is that edge? You accuse others of offering no proof, but you haven't offered any to back up your theory that big stacks have an egde in "the game as a whole".

How, then, does a "big stack" have an intrinsic advantage in "the game as a whole"?

[Ed Miller]

Ok, I promised a followup response. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time, so I'll be brief and hopefully that will be enough.

1. As I said before, large stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in the sense that when they play a hand together the fact that the large stack has excess money on the table is irrelevant. Hopefully that is obvious.

2. Playing a small stack versus a large stack simplifies the game. It tends to turn NL hold 'em into a two betting round game rather than a four round one. That vastly reduces the importance of hand reading (particularly intricate, multi-street reading).. an advanced topic.. and elevates the importance of starting hand selection... a relatively simple topic.

3. Simplifying the game necessarily lessens the edge a good player has over a bad one. A good player can be only so good when there is just enough money to play before the flop and on the flop. Likewise, a bad player can be only so bad... there's no situation where he can get in thousands of dollars drawing stone dead like he can with a deep stack.

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.

Stack sizes merely accentuate skill differences, they don't provide any intrinsic advantage or disadvantage. If our player is now below average, he should expect to do better with a short stack. He'll lose with both stack sizes, but he'll lose MORE with a large stack.

Likewise, if he's above average, he should expect to do better with a large stack. He'll win with both, but he'll win MORE with a large stack.

Hopefully that clarifies everything.

[BluffTHIS!]

pvn, see Ed's point #1 above regarding your comments.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

Stack sizes merely accentuate skill differences, they don't provide any intrinsic advantage or disadvantage. If our player is now below average, he should expect to do better with a short stack. He'll lose with both stack sizes, but he'll lose MORE with a large stack.

Likewise, if he's above average, he should expect to do better with a large stack. He'll win with both, but he'll win MORE with a large stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your response Ed. I agree with your statements insofar as the limiting condition you make, which is that an average player will do no worse and possibly even better with a small stack. Notice though that in my first post in this thread where I gave the reasons I believe playing a big stack versus other big stacks does have intrinsic advantages, is that it allows more optimal results in the game as a whole, which of course can only be achieved by better than average players when taking correspondingly greater risks. I think implicit in your assumptions regarding the results of short stack play is that they must "hit & run" after having doubled up or more and resume short stack play at another table or a later time.

Again to the other readers and posters in this thread, I have not said that I believe a short stack is at a disadvantage versus bigger stacks in a hand, just that bigger stacks played by better than average players allow more optimal play which allows for earning more money. The difference between these two things, short vs. big stack in a hand, and short vs. big stack in the game as a whole are clearly differentiated by Ed even though some you refuse to differentiate them, keeping in mind the important contraint Ed placed on his comments, that a merely average player is playing either stack size.

[joel2006]

Ed, I too disagree with your position on short stacks for the following reasons

"1. As I said before, large stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in the sense that when they play a hand together the fact that the large stack has excess money on the table is irrelevant. Hopefully that is obvious."

This isn't obvious simply because it isn't true. Although those chips cannot be bet against you (in this hand) they do give the big stack the ability to set you all-in for a broader range of reasons (for example, since your doubling through him will cause less damage to him than a bigger stack would, he may be much more willing to bluff at you) and with a broader range of hands, and this greatly complicates your reading of his hand.

"2. Playing a small stack versus a large stack simplifies the game. It tends to turn NL hold 'em into a two betting round game rather than a four round one."
This is limit thinking, because the single biggest difference between limit and no-limit is that in the latter you can be put to a decision for all your chips, AT ANY TIME. So the amount of rounds isn't relevant if the big stack pushes on the flop, you still have a very difficult choice to make, which may be much more difficult than making four $50 decisions.

" That vastly reduces the importance of hand reading (particularly intricate, multi-street reading).. an advanced topic.. and elevates the importance of starting hand selection... a relatively simple topic."

The above is nonsense since the most difficult decision one has to make is for one's whole stack, and hand reading will be crucial in that decision. Thus if having a short stack makes you a target, then hand reading becomes more not less important. And if one is willing to lay down a big pair in these situations then one is susceptible to being bullied, and if one is too willing to call, then one is susceptible to being easily stacked by two pair and sets.

Not to mention the fact that there is a huge difference between istiing short stacked with four more buy-ins behind you and sitting with only one more. The shorter your money is the easier it will be for you to be pushed around.

[BluffTHIS!]

joel,

Even though I have a different position seemingly, it has to do with the ability of big stacks played by better than average players to make more money. You probably should read, if you already have not done so, Ed's book Getting Started In Holdem, in which he explains this short stack strategy in detail. You will find that that it advocates playing extremely tightly and that they don't really mind getting set in with such good hands by a larger stack and isn't really that difficult of a decision to make for them if you reraise them preflop. This doesn't mean they aren't sometimes calling with hands like QQ when you have KK and might have gotten away from it having a large stack, which of course clearly narrows the range of hands a big stack should reraise such players with depending on the position in which they raised. You will also see from reading that book that they aren't always going to call if they haven't got a significant portion of their stack in and have a little larger stack, as guidelines are given for calling that depend on the stack size versus the amount already put in the pot.