Mathematical explanation of having advantage with big stack

[jusander]

Subject ^

[punter11235]

There is no. Because big stack has no advantage. In fact the opposite is true. It was discussed in this forum to death already.. use try to search for the posts.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
use try to search for the posts

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when people say, "Go search," with no suggestions about search terms, parameters, etc., they're overestimating the usability of the search engine. I have no idea if that's the case here or if I'm just overlooking an obvious search.

Searching "large stack", this forum, last 1 year (yes, I know it's not retained that far back) yields 30 hits. Browsing them, two seem relevant; this one seems most relevant.

This is a pet issue of mine (since reading GSiH) so I'm interested in knowing if there are better threads on the topic. Furthermore, I'd like to put up a wiki page with arguments on both sides, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

[pzhon]

This thread is more relevant, and has some links to others.

I found it using Google. I looked for, but couldn't find where limon also talked about buying in short.

[AKQJ10]

Thanks much.

I also found this one that I had saved away on the wiki (under NLHE, but I should move it).

I pasted some content in at http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Short_stack so if anyone wants to summarize the arguments for and against, go for it.

[guyincognito210]

quick question, i read some of the argumnet for the small stack against a big stack, ie 200 v. 20,000. In NLHE the best you can hope for preflop is 80% v. 20% correct? 4 to 1 favorite. two pocket pairs facing off. if the short stack gets all his money in preflop with the best of it everytime he'll still lose his stack by the 5th race. at that point he'll have $3200 dollars. my point, or question is the big stack can afford to keep gambling against this guy with almost anything until they get lucky. thats a pretty big advantage to basically not have to think critically against a player simply because you can out bankroll him even if he outplays you severely.

[eisanm]

This is not true. Try reading anything on the topic written by Ed Miller on this forum, and I hope you will understand why. I'm not the best person to explain it to you.

But in short, it does not work that way. To stay short-stacked you would have to leave the table and re-buy as a short stack after doubling up. And this is one of the reasons that your argument does not hold up. When you lose, you don't lose everything you have won so far.

[dogmeat]

There are some good reasons that can be found for playing behind a small stack as well as a large stack. With a small stack, the only mathematical advantage that I can think of has to do with the edge you get when you go all-in (in limit as well as nl)because you get to stay in the hand for a smaller price than others are paying. Nevertheless, you still win less when your hand stands up, so I personally think much of this edge is negated. It is one way of limiting your loses, however.

With the larger stack, you have the ability to really lean on people and take down small pots by using your chips as a weapon. You simply can't do any of that with a small stack.

FWIW, I sometimes play with a small stack in higher NL games (and often find myself in this condition in tournaments) and don't have a problem with it. I know I can push certain hands and get no callers with a small stack (usually after the flop) because there is no payoff for an opponent's drawing hand; and preflop I am often able to steal a small pot because the other players assume I have been waiting to get a very good hand before going all in - often I haven't.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[UATrewqaz]

If you are talking about a cash game then the big stack has no advantage.

If you are talking about a NL tournament then a big stack does indeed have a big advantage, namely the threat of forcing an opponent to play for all his chips (and thus risk elimination). Thus a big stack usually has alot more fold equity to his bets.

Cash games I am assuming that $1 = $1

this is not always the case (why??? do you ask?)

Simple, if you are very poor and scrap together $1,000 to play in buy in NL cash game and I am a multi-billionaire having kicks and I buy in for $10,000 your 1K means alot more to me than my 10K.

The relative value of money changes depending on how much you have, something to consider.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
quick question, i read some of the argumnet for the small stack against a big stack, ie 200 v. 20,000. In NLHE the best you can hope for preflop is 80% v. 20% correct? 4 to 1 favorite. two pocket pairs facing off. if the short stack gets all his money in preflop with the best of it everytime he'll still lose his stack by the 5th race. at that point he'll have $3200 dollars. my point, or question is the big stack can afford to keep gambling against this guy with almost anything until they get lucky. thats a pretty big advantage to basically not have to think critically against a player simply because you can out bankroll him even if he outplays you severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can cash out any time I want, this game is still to my advantage if my bankroll can handle busting two or three times. All I have to do is double up a couple/few times and then leave.

A -EV bet is still -EV regardless of what you have left over afterward.