small-stack = advantage?

[schwza]

I haven't read anything about this specifically, but I've been wondering if it would be an advantage to buy in small in order to be the short stack at the table.

One (presumed) advantage would be that you're playing for the same stakes against all the players. If A has $100 and B and C each have $5000, A knows he can blast away with TPTK without fear of losing too much. B and C are kinda stuck though - they are each playing in a potentially $100 pot with A and a potentially $5000 pot with the other big stack. In a given situation, B and C would act differently against the small stack than the big, but they have to pick some action that does ok against both opponents. So while all three are in the pot it seems the big stacks have to be giving up some equity.

Does this make sense? Are there successful players who buy in light?

It's possible there are other advantages to being short-stacked - getting all-in when others will have to fold on later streets, etc. These might be outweighed by not getting fully paid off with a monster though.

[gavrilo]

Well I don't know about you, but I would much rather win $5K or more on a given night than a couple hundred, but that's just me. If you are a better player than the $5K stacks, ideally you would want to have them covered so you can take all their money. $5k to $100 is just too big.

[bunky9590]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there successful players who buy in light?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh no. Buy in for the max. If you are worried about calling big bets, grind it out at limit.

[schwza]

Thanks for the replies. There's a NL game at my local casino (Foxwoods) with no max buy-in. If the blinds are 5-5 (don't know why small blind = big blind) and I buy in for 300 (approx same ratio as party NL), am I putting myself at a disadvantage to those who buy in for several grand? I don't see how I could be, but I'm curious to hear others' thoughts. I'm sure I would not be the best or the worst at this game, but I don't know where in the middle I'll fall.

One reason I would be inclined to buy in relatively small is that all of my NL cash game experience has been at Party where the money's shallow.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]

Uh no. Buy in for the max. If you are worried about calling big bets, grind it out at limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

in many live games, there is no limit to a player's buyin.

--turnipmonster

[AZK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the advantage of you having a short stack, according to what you wrote, is so that you can push when you have TPTK, and this hurts them cause they can't draw out on you, however it also HURTS you, because when you are trying to decide whether or not to stay in on a draw, you go buy the smallest stack....that being said, most of the time, even if you hit your draw, the odds to call weren't there because your stack is so small....it works both ways, does that make any sense? Am I thinking correctly?

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this make sense? Are there successful players who buy in light?


[/ QUOTE ]

there are advantages and disadvantages to playing a short stack, but to answer your basic question, there are players that buyin for a short stack on purpose and are very good.

I think it's a great idea to buy in short stacked in a game where you don't know the players, and/or when you are learning the game. for the former, I think it's a good idea because you can't take money off the table, but you can always add it if you decide you're a big favorite. for the latter, it's a good idea because your mistakes (which you WILL make) will cost you less.

another good reason to buy in short is all the fish have small stacks, and a very good player has a huge stack. you only want to cover the people you think you are a favorite against.

I recommend 100 big blinds for a short stack, obviously varied slightly depending on the table. anything less and you just don't have enough money to do anything with, as you will be pot stuck too quickly and go bust a lot.

I don't agree at all with the knee jerk "I want to cover the table" response a lot of people make. you want to cover the table if a big fish has the biggest stack, or if you are the best player at the table, which is a lot of the time not going to be the case in live games, unless you're matt flynn or limon or ray zee or something. for average players like me, I think stack size should be a dynamic decision based on the texture of the game and your targets (obviously your bankroll also).

--turnipmonster

[CrisBrown]

Hi schwza,

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the replies. There's a NL game at my local casino (Foxwoods) with no max buy-in. If the blinds are 5-5 (don't know why small blind = big blind) and I buy in for 300 (approx same ratio as party NL), am I putting myself at a disadvantage to those who buy in for several grand? I don't see how I could be, but I'm curious to hear others' thoughts. I'm sure I would not be the best or the worst at this game, but I don't know where in the middle I'll fall.

One reason I would be inclined to buy in relatively small is that all of my NL cash game experience has been at Party where the money's shallow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you'll be at a disadvantage, although perhaps less so than if you bought in big and don't know how to play deep money NL.

With a small stack, you can play tight and do okay. You may get paid off on your big hands because it won't cost them much (comparatively) to look you up. Then you can make the occasional steal because, frankly, you don't have enough money to be worth tangling with.

But if you're going to stay in a game like that, you'll need to learn how to play a deep stack. Otherwise you're limited to quick hit-and-run sessions -- win a couple of hundred dollars and leave -- and the other players at the table are likely to get more than a bit irate.

Cris

[Guy McSucker]

It is an advantage to have a small stack, if you know how to play it. However, playing it properly is very different from playing a big stack properly.

Ray Zee agrees.

Greg Raymer (FossilMan) used to talk about his early days in the big bet games at Foxwoods, where he would buy in much shorter than most of the players at the table. As you suggested, this led to his being able to get all-in with a decent hand (TPTK, pocket pair) for a main pot that the rest of the players were essentially ignoring. He got say 4-1 on his money. Meanwhile the other players would (semi-)bluff one another off the much larger side-pot, leaving Greg with only one hand to defeat, and when the semibluffer missed his draw, Greg got the money.

Guy.

[togilvie]

You always want to cover your opponents. That way, you ensure that you get the maximum payoff when you get all-in with the best hand.

Hopefully, you're doing this more often than you're getting in with the worst hand. If you're not, and you're concerned about your bankroll, I'd move down limits before I decided to play with a short-stack.