Shortstack definition question

[Javanewt]

In a cash no limit Hold 'Em game, do you consider yourself shortstacked compared to the blinds, the buy-in, or the other stacks?

e.g., Are you short-stack with $170 at a 1/2 table with a buy-in of $300?

Are you short with $270 if everyone else has $500?

[shoefactory]

I say its a combination of blinds and other stacks.

[Javanewt]

Funny. My first inclination is buy-in.

The reason I asked is because I was down to $170 in a $300 max game and felt short-stacked. Because I felt shortstacked, I pushed a hand that I normally would not have pushed if I had a full stack. I won the hand, but it still made me think about this. If I had thought about 100 big blinds ($200) as a full stack, I wonder if I would have acted differently?

[Mazzinger]

I always thought it was compared to the size of the other stacks. In your specific case you had more than 50% of the original stack (buy-in) and more than 20x the bb. Why would you think you were the short stack?.

[Javanewt]

Because I barely had more than 50 percent of the buy-in. That's why I asked. When you are down $130 in a $300 buy-in, you don't feel as if you have a full stack [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

If I'm comparing my stack to the bb, I consider 100x to be full stack, and anything less than about 70x to be short-stacked.

[PantsOnFire]

My own definition is that you are a short stack when you can't play a hand for implied odds (assume villain has you covered). So for playing a small PP, you generally need room to hit 10:1 or maybe 9:1 implied odds. So for calling a 4x pf raise you would need a 40xBB stack.

If you have the shortest stack at the table, you could be called "the shortstack". But even if you are shortest, you can still be deep and don't have to play strategically like a shortstack. As a matter of fact, this might be good because automatically every other opponent can be played for implied odds.