Short Stack Play

[afadeyi]

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?

[El_Hombre_Grande]

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.

[TrainHardDieHard]

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 ?

[afadeyi]

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.

[unseen]

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."

[Gonso]

[ 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.

[Matt G]

[ 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.

[unseen]

[ 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).

[IzanDV]

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.

[ofdabeat]

[ 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