Short Stack Play
 

I've read in numerous books that there are advantages to playing short stacked. 1 main was is that because of your short stack your hand selection is generally better than bigger stacks, so when play pots you usually are ahead. I, however, seem to have trouble winning when I'm short stacked. It is as though I'm reducing to poker to coin flips when I play short stacked, and I really don't get the opportunity to see too many flops. When I do, or if I make a couple implied odds calls, then my stack is damaged beyond repair (for the most part). Thoughts from the people in this forum in regards to playing short stacked?

Is short stacking only beneficial for beginners?

Re: Short Stack Play
 

You cannot make implied odds calls with a short stack. If you want to, you must play with a full buy in. Either method can be profitable, but you can't play deep stack poker with a short stack.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

I dont understand why people play shortstacked. Even Doyle Brunson said he always wants to buy in the most so he has enough money to bust people. If you have a great hand, wouldn't you want to have the greatest potential profit ?

Re: Short Stack Play
 

I think what I was trying to say is that playing short stacked usually reduce everything to a coin flip or a little better, and it's hard to win/enjoy this.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

And if I understood the concept behind you are not that false. With someone having good reads on the opponent it's actually better than flipping coins I guess. You mainly decide preflop or latest on the flop to put it all in, we are talking about NL, do we?

This makes for a pretty tight preflop range compared to deep stacked play. A nice reason I read was to get a grip on a game you are new in, for example a new level. I think I read this in one of Sklanskys books. Although I did not try myselfe, I can imagine this might be not the worst thing to do. Basically he said (IIRC) "You can get into the game with lesser risk and you can always buy in deeper if it seems apropiate to you, but never remove chips from the table once they are on."

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand why people play shortstacked. Even Doyle Brunson said he always wants to buy in the most so he has enough money to bust people. If you have a great hand, wouldn't you want to have the greatest potential profit ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting Starting in Hold Em (GSIHE) by Ed Miller covers this.

Playing short gives a couple of almost unfair advantages and is relatively easy to play. It's a very tight (and very boring) way to play... and you won't get very good doing it. It can be effective when done properly, certainly better than flipping, though it's generally viewed as uber nitty and bad for the game.

And yes, it is of little use to good players, since better winrates are possible playing deep.

[ QUOTE ]
"You can get into the game with lesser risk and you can always buy in deeper if it seems apropiate to you, but never remove chips from the table once they are on."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's against the rules.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot make implied odds calls with a short stack. If you want to, you must play with a full buy in. Either method can be profitable, but you can't play deep stack poker with a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to expand bc it seems like the poster doesnt understand implied odds, using implied odds, you must consider both the size of your stack and the size of their stack. I cant make a call preflop for 1/4 my stack with a low pp hoping to hit a set because it wont hit often enough to be profitable for that much payout. It doesnt matter if I am playing against deep stacked players.
As for the question at hand, short stack strategy is different and you shouldn't find yourself resorting to a lot (granted some) coin flips. Be aware of the size of the pot and your folding equity.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"You can get into the game with lesser risk and you can always buy in deeper if it seems apropiate to you, but never remove chips from the table once they are on."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is? Just to be sure it's not my bad english that brought up a misconception here:

When I come to a table with say 100$ Max and 10$ min buyin and buyin for 50$, I cannot buy in extra 60$ an hour later, when my stack shrinked to 40$, but I whant to go on with a full stack?

Or do you mean it is against the rules if I won something? So having bought in for 10$ made it up to 25$ I cannot put another 75$ on the table to play on with a full stack.

I was pretty sure it's possible online (never played in B&M).

Re: Short Stack Play
 

I always tought that the advantage of playing short-stacked was that you'll have a better read on your opponents cuz they wont come after you with implied-odds hands(for the obvious reason). So they'll mostly play high cards thus giving you a better read.

This can be totally wrong since i haven't really thought it trough.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always tought that the advantage of playing short-stacked was that you'll have a better read on your opponents cuz they wont come after you with implied-odds hands(for the obvious reason). So they'll mostly play high cards thus giving you a better read.

This can be totally wrong since i haven't really thought it trough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most vilains simply don't know enough about implied odds to make it worthwhile readwise

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot make implied odds calls with a short stack. If you want to, you must play with a full buy in. Either method can be profitable, but you can't play deep stack poker with a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to expand bc it seems like the poster doesnt understand implied odds, using implied odds, you must consider both the size of your stack and the size of their stack. I cant make a call preflop for 1/4 my stack with a low pp hoping to hit a set because it wont hit often enough to be profitable for that much payout. It doesnt matter if I am playing against deep stacked players.
As for the question at hand, short stack strategy is different and you shouldn't find yourself resorting to a lot (granted some) coin flips. Be aware of the size of the pot and your folding equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah, sure. But your stack size matters. That would be deep stack poker--ie a stack large enough to benefit from hands that require substantial implied odds. I didn't think we needed to discuss that because the hypo is how to play a shortstack. And if you can give me any single example when a shortstack should be voluntarily playing a speculative implied odds hand, I'll revise. Otherwise, I'll stick to pushing quality hands in against deep stacks who may be attempting to lure other deepstacks into an implied odds hands. The profitability from a shortstack comes from the inability of a deepstack to get the correct odds when you push over their small pp small raise or their 98s small raise. That's the main advantage of a shortstack-- the ability to not give the right implied odds to deepstacks in pretty much any instance. There are others - for example some players just take small stacks less seriously-- but at its core smallstack theory is a manipulation of the implied odds that deepstacks are laying to other deepstacks.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

1. i do understand implied odds.
2. one point i was trying to make is that since your range is so limited (good starting hands) you have an information disadvantage and that usually creates a situation where you risk your whole stack against a bigger stack...who can take shots at you or put you all in and/or call an all in if they're getting the right odds.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. i do understand implied odds.
2. one point i was trying to make is that since your range is so limited (good starting hands) you have an information disadvantage and that usually creates a situation where you risk your whole stack against a bigger stack...who can take shots at you or put you all in and/or call an all in if they're getting the right odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Read Skalansky-Miller. You are clearly missing the point. "Your whole stack" is no big deal, and that (in this very limited instance) is precisely how it can be used as a sword. The flip side of it you cannot get proper odds on your own implied odds hands in almost all instances.

2. You will be the one "putting it all in" if you are playing a shortstack correctly. The point you are missing is youe are shortstacking in order to "get it all in." You are not getting bullied because the hands you are playing are primarily those that you want it all in with.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

Short Stack Play options:

1. Raise
2. Raise ALLIN
3. Fold

NO CALLING/LIMPING!!!! And don't call raises preflop. RERAISE ALLIN or FOLD. Being shortstacked, the only implieds you should be thinking about is when YOU should be going allin.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. i do understand implied odds.
2. one point i was trying to make is that since your range is so limited (good starting hands) you have an information disadvantage and that usually creates a situation where you risk your whole stack against a bigger stack...who can take shots at you or put you all in and/or call an all in if they're getting the right odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Read Skalansky-Miller. You are clearly missing the point. "Your whole stack" is no big deal, and that (in this very limited instance) is precisely how it can be used as a sword. The flip side of it you cannot get proper odds on your own implied odds hands in almost all instances.

2. You will be the one "putting it all in" if you are playing a shortstack correctly. The point you are missing is youe are shortstacking in order to "get it all in." You are not getting bullied because the hands you are playing are primarily those that you want it all in with.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're an idiot...i've read nlhtp

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Short Stack Play options:

1. Raise
2. Raise ALLIN
3. Fold

NO CALLING/LIMPING!!!! And don't call raises preflop. RERAISE ALLIN or FOLD. Being shortstacked, the only implieds you should be thinking about is when YOU should be going allin.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is preciesly my point, when short stacked you're basically all-in or fold. thus reducing many situations to a coin flip. Ex...lets say I hold A.K. on the button, with 3 limpers and I move in...I'm basically 60-40 to win against any random holding.

That's why i suggested that the advantage of short stacking don't seem to apply to an experienced player like myself, because as an earlier poster stated, i can achieve a higher win rate with a bigger stack when I have the opportunity to take some implied odds situations/play some poker.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

Umm, I win short stacked. You don't, and asked how to win.

Several things you have said make it absolutely crystal clear why you are losing money playing shortstacked.

But whatever. You can lead a donkey to water, but you can't make him drink.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Short Stack Play options:

1. Raise
2. Raise ALLIN
3. Fold

NO CALLING/LIMPING!!!! And don't call raises preflop. RERAISE ALLIN or FOLD. Being shortstacked, the only implieds you should be thinking about is when YOU should be going allin.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is preciesly my point, when short stacked you're basically all-in or fold. thus reducing many situations to a coin flip. Ex...lets say I hold A.K. on the button, with 3 limpers and I move in...I'm basically 60-40 to win against any random holding.

That's why i suggested that the advantage of short stacking don't seem to apply to an experienced player like myself, because as an earlier poster stated, i can achieve a higher win rate with a bigger stack when I have the opportunity to take some implied odds situations/play some poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, you really ought to quit calling people idiots when you are asking for help. Don't bite the hand that feeds you and all.

At any rate, your AK is 60-40 against any reasonable holding. However, what hands are likely to call you if you are in position and seen two limpers. Perhaps large stacks with dry Aces or maybe AJ-AQ, in which you would be 70-30 or so. Also, with AK vs an underpair you are about 45-55, but with say two limpers plus SB and BB as well as the fold equity limpers get for their hand, they may well just hand it to you without a fight. In any event, only rarely will you be at a big disadvantage. Plus, if you make these moves in position and raise JUST enough to get it heads-up with one caller, you could still bail if the flop looks sick and the villian puts the rest of your stack in. At any rate, only one of the situations above is a coin-flip really, and I feel like your expectation with the correct move would more often than not be higher than 60-40 given the above (but hell, 60-40 is still pretty good).

And of course you won't just be moving with AK either.

However, you are right, in general an experienced player (say one of the two best players at a table during a session) probably would do better to just avoid this strategy. Still yet, if you can't achieve +EV with it, I doubt you are implementing the strategy correctly.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

A short stack strategy is most beneficial at a table where there are a lot of deep stacks. If you are trying to apply a short stack strategy at a table full of short stack, you're not applying it right.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"You can get into the game with lesser risk and you can always buy in deeper if it seems apropiate to you, but never remove chips from the table once they are on."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is? [...] I was pretty sure it's possible online (never played in B&M).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I was referring specifically to removing chips from the the table, not adding them. You can add-on anytime, at least up to the table limit.

Also, OP, you really have to read the GSIHE chapter on this. The NLHETAP bit isn't as complete. If you're finding SS play to be equal to coinflipping, you're not doing something correctly, you should be showing marginal wins over time, especially at the lower limits.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

It doesn't matter if you're in a coinflip situation if the pot is paying you enough of an overlay. If you are 60-40 and the pot lays 1.2-1, you will profit and that's all there is to it. In addition, you will often win more than that because some players tend to play too loosely against shorter stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
NO CALLING/LIMPING!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way oversimplified. There are situations where a shortstack can very well limp in preflop.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if you're in a coinflip situation if the pot is paying you enough of an overlay. If you are 60-40 and the pot lays 1.2-1, you will profit and that's all there is to it. In addition, you will often win more than that because some players tend to play too loosely against shorter stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
NO CALLING/LIMPING!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way oversimplified. There are situations where a shortstack can very well limp in preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it because ShortStackPlay to me in a tourney is 10BB or less. In this case, it would be stupid to limp with barely any fold equity.

In a cash game, limping is stupid, being ANY stack, deep or short.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a cash game, limping is stupid, being ANY stack, deep or short.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a cash game, limping is stupid, being ANY stack, deep or short.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many limpers Equity

Re: Short Stack Play
 

Playing shortstack doesn't preclude you from limping if you have a situation where you're getting decent odds to call, but a raise is risky or ineffective. Generally you'll be more aggressive when playing hands since you'll be doing it less often, so you'll be limping relatively infrequently, but it's still the best option from time to time.

If you're $40 deep in a 1/2NL game, imagine you're holding A4s on the button after 3 limpers, and the blinds aren't especially aggressive. Folding is too tight here, and raising is more likely to get you in trouble than not.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing shortstack doesn't preclude you from limping if you have a situation where you're getting decent odds to call, but a raise is risky or ineffective. Generally you'll be more aggressive when playing hands since you'll be doing it less often, so you'll be limping relatively infrequently, but it's still the best option from time to time.

If you're $40 deep in a 1/2NL game, imagine you're holding A4s on the button after 3 limpers, and the blinds aren't especially aggressive. Folding is too tight here, and raising is more likely to get you in trouble than not.



[/ QUOTE ]

$40 isnt deep at all in a 200NL. I suggest refilling at that point. But anyways, raising to about $6 or $8 would be good in that situation, throwing out 1 or 2 of the limpers, either way after the flop you have position, and most people fold to a c-bet anyways, so it's all good.

I wouldn't blame anybody for folding in that situation either if you have any reads on the limpers.

Re: Short Stack Play
 

A subtle effect that makes it attractive to be shortstack at a table of deepstack players, is the implicit collusion that occurs between you and all other players. If you are all-in preflop with your short stack, further betting of the opponents on the flop/turn/river help eliminating other players and increase your EV, whilst you don't need to put any of your chips at risk.

A said before by various posters: short stack strategy is dull but effective.

Johannes

Re: Short Stack Play
 

Taking short-stack strategy to the -hypothetical- extreme of nano-stacks, it can be shown that such strategy is unexploitable and strictly EV positive. Simply because some folding is bound to happen after the short stack has gone all-in, the deep stacks are collectively in an EV negative position, no matter how many WSOP bracelets they carry with them...

As the shortness of the stacks assumed are well below the minimum buy-in generally imposed at cash tables, this analysis can not be turned into $$$s. However, if one accepts that nano stacks are unbeatable, it is difficult to accept that buying in for more than the minimum would make your game less exploitable.

http://www.google.com/base/a/1121639...85863830241740

happy to hear your views...

Johannes