FR Theory - stack sizes and how you should modify to them

[akak]

You're passing the wrong information. They CAN have an advantage over large stacks. If the large stacks are playing too LAGgy, you will have an inherent advantage over them.

The statement: small stacks have an advantage over large stacks is false. No stack size has a theoretical advantage over another stack size due to the table stakes rule.

If you are less skilled post flop than your opponents then shortstacking is the best way for you to make money.

If by best way to make money, you mean make the most money, you are wrong again. The best shortstacker will have a smaller winrate than the best full stacker. Shortstackers cannot push their edges as hard, therefore their expectation is not as large.

I KNOW miller wouldn't have said these things, so you are passing on his information incorrectly. This post may seem a little harsh but you should be more careful when you are passing on someone else's information.

[tagWAG]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd usually fold 22-66 IP with these stacks, unless fold equity is very good (those left to play are more likely to fold than call/raise).


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks diebitter. I agree. I've been experimenting with different stack size strategies (from 30 BB to 70 BB).

With 40-50 BB (which I like), it can be a struggle knowing how to play 88-TT in many spots.

For instance, a reasonable TAG 3 off the button opens 3.5xBB, and we have 99 IP. It's too good to fold, not quite good enough to want to get ai, and there aren't set odds just to call. I've generally been calling, but just looked in Poker Tracker, and I'm making a loss with both TT and 99 in these spots. But JJ (which i would always 3 bet) seems very profitable.

Maybe with 40BB it's worth turning TT/ 99 into a bluff and 3 betting?

[Webster]

OK from the article.

The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack then everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you enjoy the advantage when you are playing opponents with much deeper stacks.
------------
With THAT said - he explains that of you buy in short - you have the advantage if the rest of the table is deep. If you buy in short and the rest are also all short you lose that advantage.

[Webster]

HOWEVER - in Sklansky/Millers book the goes on to say that Good Deep stacked players will make far more money when they go AGAINST Poor and mediocre deep stacked players they they could playing short stacked even thought there is an intrinsic advantage to playing short stacked.

[akak]

Well I was waiting for a reply from miller, but he's taking awhile to respond, so I guess I'll respond now.

Sorry about accusing you of misquoting Miller. I didn't think he would say those things.

I'm still not convinced that you guarantee yourself an advantage by buying in short. In most cases, yes I agree you will have forced an advantage for yourself.

However, if I know that you have entered the pot or are still to act, and I tighten up my range to the point that I am not exploitable by your short stack, you cannot have an advantage over me.

I'm not saying that playing this way maximizes your EV. It might, but my intuition is that the correct thing to do would be to tighten your range up to somewhere between the optimal range against short stacks and the optimal range against deep stacks. A short stack would have a tiny advantage in this case.

The point I'm trying to make is that playing with a short stack does not guarantee you an advantage against deeper stacks. It goes against intuition, and I think I've proven it to be false.

[akak]

Well, Ed responded and said he thinks I'm right. Look for a post on his website soon.

[fabadam]

A few months ago I tried the Miller shortstack strategy at NL50 when I had to play more tables than I was comfortable with.
It is indeed much easier to play (I had 10/8 stats over a few thousand hands, so it's pretty easy to play a bunch of FR tables even if you're not used to playing a lot of tables), and is probably +EV if you keep the discipline to leave a table when you double up, so that you never really need to adapt your play.
It IS definitely high variance though -- you get into a lot of coinflippy situations for stacks where you have small equity advantages. At least I did.