Small stack theory

[The Canadian Kid]

It is generally recommended that you buy in for the maximum amount at a NL table. BUT I DISAGREE (see section 2).
Section 1: Reasons to buy max.

1.You can optimize your game by betting at will. For example you will not be intimidated by over the top bets. You yourself can go over the top. And you can gain the most amount of chips with the nuts.
2. Image: If you have a big stack, other players may pay you some respect. Others will take shots at you, especially fish.

feel free to add more

Section 2: Reasons to buy in less then max

1. It is understandable that you want more money in the pot when your ahead. But what about those suckout bets. The ones that when you turnover trips and the guy chases all the way down with 3/4 pot bets with 78 suited and you pay him off.

But what if you run out of money on the turn, is he willing to gamble with 4-1. Even if he is, your getting the best of it in the long run because there are no implied odds for him. But if you have a stack remaining and he bets at the pot, and you have equity, what do you do. Always fold to a big bet when the flush hits. ok, so not all the time, but assuming at the 400 level where there are a ton of solid players and few donkeys it becomes a tough decision. Some smart players will play for the implied odds because you are suppose to pay them off and they know it. Also, typically in a suckout you will lose a substantial amount of money. Where as if he is chasing and you bet out to deny him actual and implied odds, what can the guy do.

I don't know, maybe I'm talking horse [censored] but I have seen players buy in for 100 bucks, play pretty well and double or triple up. and if you lose, your going to be all in with the best of it (hopefully)

Can somebody sum up what Ed Miller says about buying in short stacked. I was wondering if his line of thinking was the same as mine.

What are your thoughts

RCK

[DrVanNostrin]

I don't play much NL but here's my take on the subject. If I'm off the mark feel free to straighten me out.

A short stack simplifies the game. There are fewer options and fewer factors to consider when choosing an option. A deepstacked complicates the game. It adds many factors and adds many much more challenging spots. As a good player you'll know avoid these spots and how to handle them better than your opponents when you do find yourself there.

If you play better than the average player at the table it will be in your best interest to be deepstacked. You'll be able to use the factors that your opponents neglect. This will give you an advantage you didn't have with a short stack.

The only reasons I can think of to buy in for less than the full amount:
-you feel that the average player plays better than you.
-You don't feel comfortable with the max buy in. If the max buy in is $1,000 and you don't feel comfortable losing $1,000 you shouldn't buy in for that much because it will effect your play.
-You don't have experience playing with stacks greater than 100bb. If a game where most are 400bb or deeper is unfamiliar to you you may not want to play with that much.

[The Canadian Kid]

Interesting response. I tend to agree with you. You want more chips to exploit weaker opposition to maxamize return. But, it terms of probability, and specifically implied odds, I am offering a counter-inuitive thought. You are at a solid table, where the skill is pretty even. Then, you could exploit the fact that you are on the short stack and make moves that you couldn't make on the large stack. Is this more clear? This argument only works at a tough table. Obviously you want the most chips where the fish are. I mentioned in my original post about chasers but a chaser is different from a player who know he'll get paid on future streets because of his unusual play. "Why would he chase a flush on pot bets" "I know he is a solid player"

[billygrippo]

not buying in for the max is -EV for a winning player.

[stokken]

I dont see the point in" making move you couldnt do with a deep stack" ? If you go all in with a short stack, you could just as well just bet your imaginary short stack amount with your big stack.
As for suck outs, the long run counts and thus in a money game small edges are more important because the long run gives the profit. It has been repeated, but someone getting all their cash in on a 1:3 shot with incorrect pot odds/implied odds are giving you their money. It is more about playing within your bankroll. If you cant afford to risk the suck out moving in/calling with the best of it then move down in limits until you can

Maximum buyin secures maximum profit, end of story IMHO

Cardsmart about to get mathsmart, improving on money smart

Stokken

[DrVanNostrin]

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned in my original post about chasers but a chaser is different from a player who know he'll get paid on future streets because of his unusual play. "Why would he chase a flush on pot bets" "I know he is a solid player"

[/ QUOTE ]
This, like everything else works both ways. You seem to be forgetting about the possibility that you will have a draw and your short stack kills your implied odds.

Like I said earlier having a short stack simplifies the game for you. Unfortunatly, it simplifies the game for your opponents too. There is no magical amount you can buy in for that will make the game simple for you and complicated for your opponents.

[Thremp]

I bought into a 1/2 live game with 60BB when others have 200-600BB. It sucked. Its boring. I don't get doubled up real big when I do, and unless I do something uber-dumb I can't reraise pre-flop (regular raise is 6-10BB) and have a pot-sized bet left.