Short stacks, something that ticks me off.

[Bob T.]

Ok every once in a while there is a post that goes something like this:

I had such and such a hand, there was some preflop action, then there was a flop and some flop action. I ended up going all in, because I was shortstacked. Then this and that happened, did I do OK?

And somewhere, someone always says, 'well your first mistake was playing shortstacked.'

Well, what ticks me off, is that I don't think that that comment is very well thought out, in fact, I think that saying that 'playing shortstacked is a mistake', is a mistake.

First, I am going to say that for your table image, buying in for a healthy amount, and maintaining a healthy amount in front of you is a good thing. I played a session a long time ago with a 2+2er, and when he sat down he asked me how I was doing, I told him I had flopped two sets, and an OESFD, and hadn't won a hand yet, so with not too much arithmatic, he should have figured that I was stuck. But I still had a little over a rack in front of me, and I sat for a couple of hours with somewhere near that amount. When he wrote a trip report about our adventure, he said that he thought that I must have been about even all night. That was probably just based on the impression that I had chips in front of me, because I had told him that I had had some bad luck. Clearly, having a healthy amount of chips in front of you gives you the impression of being a healthy player.

On the other hand, having a shortstack in front of you gives either the impression that you are on life support, or are scared money. Right? And those things are so bad, that you have to avoid them? Maybe??

Well, I think No. I think instead that it is just an adjustment that you have to make. Just like you make an adjustment when your opponents are playing short.

For what it's worth, Barry Greenstein has said that he thinks that playing a short stack can turn a breakeven player into a significant winner, and he recommends buying in as short as possible, and says that he does that when he plays in the 2000/4000 game. Additionally, I think Mike Caro wrote that the best size stack would be one small bet, so you could make your first preflop decision, and get whatever odds you would get on the first round of betting, and then as your opponents forced each other out, your pot equity would grow, until you equity was larger than your pot odds for your initial investment. And one of my friends has won a significant amount of money by buying in short in online NL games.

Anyway, when you are playing short, the game changes a little bit, and if you make the correct adjustments, I think that you can profit from them. These adjustments also apply when you are playing against a player who is shortstacked, because when he goes allin, you are effectively allin for that hand, even though you have a lot of chips left in your stack.

The first thing you have to realize, is that when someone is shortstacked, the likelyhood of the hand going to showdown, is a lot higher. That means that whoever has the best hand at the end, is going to win the hand. Not who can make the cleverest bet, or play. So whenever you enter the pot, you need to consider how well your hand is going to showdown. As much as you love 97 suited, this might not be the time to play it, but on the other side of the coin, Ax suited might be okay, because you have an Ace which might win you a showdown.

The second factor that you have to consider, and it leads you to playing the hands which will win showdowns, is that the implied odds are going to be reduced. You can't make a lot of money after you make your flush or straight, because someone is going to be allin already, and there won't be any betting left to do. Again, 97 suited might get there, but you aren't going to recover enough on the back end to pay for the times that it misses. So this favors hands that have reverse implied odds, ( because no money will be going in on the implied odds streets) so you want big pairs, big cards, and already made hands like pairs. Similarly, if a player is almost allin, usually other players cooperate with him to get him allin, and if he has a reverse implied odds hand, his entire investment happens before the flop, and before the reverse implied odds kick in. Or maybe put another way, when someone goes all in, someone elxe calls him, because he doesn't have to pay anymore to see the showdown.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that you can't play draws, but you just have to calculate your odds of getting there, against the pot odds. It's like an automatic freecard play. You know what the maximum investment is, and you know how many card you get to see, so you get to decide whether or not the pot odds are right, and you don't have to worry about the implied odds.

Finally, because an allin hand can't fold, it reduces the options that your opponents have. They can't bluff, because thay are going to have to show down a winner to claim the pot, so they have to play more straightforwardly, and this takes away some of the problems of playing against a tricky or skillful player. If you have say one small bet, and if you call it, you are getting 8-1, then a lot of hands become playable, because you would need only three outs each on the flop and river to call that bet, but if you had a bigger stack, you couldn't call, because you needed 17 to 1 to justify chasing the same hand if you weren't going to be all in.

Anyway, by playing shortstacked, you simplify your decisions, you reduce the effect of implied odds, you make your opponents play more straighforwardly, and you have a better chance of taking your hand to a showdown, which you have taken into consideration when you decided to play.

[johnnypaws]

Very well written. I agree with you on almost every point. For me, buying in short stacked forces me to play a patient game, and that is an attitude/philosiphy that I tend to carry throughout the session, and it has helped me turn a profit. Especially live.

On the flip side, I have friends that buy in for an insane amount of money, and that does give them a factor of intimidation when people chose to go in a hand with them. They are good players, but not the great players that the 60BB in front of them makes them appear to be.

[Frond]

Some thoughts here. One needs to always be aware of others stack sizes. Maybe a lot more so in NLHE than in LHE but still it is something to consider. I see people buying and rebuying short at live low limt HE all the time. To me, this is lame for LHE. I play 3/6 and see people buy in for $40 and rebuy $20 at a time. By the time they get a good hand to raise and bet with, they have lost a few blinds & they are all in by the turn. I know because I used to play until my stack got whittled down to about 8- BBs, get QQ, raise PF, it gets capped all the way, I'm all in by turn if not sooner and I win the pot only to miss a bunch more bets. I used to then rebuy short(another $40 is easy to throw on the table is it not?)I just assume OP is talking about LHE since this is that forum or perhaps HE games in general? I just don't see the argument for playing with less than needed to cap all streets if you ever need to and even that is a minimum. I can for sure agree with the short stack theory for NLHE especially against tougher opponents.

[gobbledygeek]

Does this post only apply to NL (a game I don't understand nor play)?

I can't possibly see how playing shortstacked in Limit games is a good idea; when you're all-in you remove so many weapons from your arsenal (the free card raise, the protect raise, the value bet, and so on). I went all-in a couple of times when I was just starting out, just to sit thru the turn and river like a retard with the nuts and not be able to bet. Soon as my stack dips below $50 on the 2/4 table I always buy in again.

GcluelessnoobG

[cdlarmore]

Beautiful post! Just Beautiful!

Only thing to add would be that as an advanced limit player, if we are very comfortable we can beat opponents, preflop play can really make us some extra $$$...and u miss out on the $$$ on your one bet theory...

[BigBadBabar]

i assume this is in limit hold em:

i don't disagree with you that playing shortstacked reduces the number of difficult and tricky decisions to be made in a potentially big multiway hand, or even a smaller hand. i also don't disagree that it's good for your game as far as finding good spots, being patient, and keeping opponents somewhat honest.

where i differ is that i believe (even when running badly but more so when i am running hot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) that i am better than my opponents; that i will make better decisions than them on every street, and that having a big stack of chips in front of me is the best way to take advantage of this.

as a side cute example, i was playing live a few months ago and an older woman regular to my left was taking a lot of beats at the hands of an old guy regular 2 seats to my right. finally she gets down to her last couple chips. the guy raises preflop, and she reraises all in. the board comes att67 and the guy flips aces, and she flips tens. she would have made back most of her session deficit from that one hand. obviously it's an extreme example but if you play a lot it's pretty likely to occur at some point!

so in conclusion, short stacking = not intrinsically bad, but assuming you are rolled, not tilting, and have your mind right, full stack = slightly more EV.

[obi_wang]

- no bad beat jackpot? that sucks.

[BigBadBabar]

yeah, none at foxwoods

[Frond]

I played a short 2 hour session this morning of 3/6 LHE. The guy on my imm left was pretty passive and somewhat of a calling station. (I watched stacks a bit more this morning thanks to this post OP) Anyways, the guy on my left has only about $20 in chips left, he limps in EP, he ends up doing the limp reraise thang, it gets capped 6 ways PF(I ditched my weak hand PF)he ends up getting his $ in and he ends up making Aces full and wins the pot. Should have been a monster pot but it wasn't. Another hand there was a guy showing down crap hands a lot who had only about 3 BBs left. I had somehting like 33 and HU I ended up putting him AI and he sucked out on me. With hand he was showing down it was the right play, bad result. In his case, the short stack didn't mean much. I gueess it is player dependant.

[James.]

i agree that being all-in has the distinct advantage of ensuring that your hand goes to the river. it allows you to fully realize your pot equity.

i disagree that this is a good argument for buying in shortstacked in LHE. as players we expect to have a certain edge over the competition. this edge is what makes us money. we play well, they play worse. we make better decisions than they do. for this reason we need to be able to fully take advantage of our quity edges in situations versus our opponents. if we are unable to cap every street, we can miss quite a bit of EV that comes from big hand over big hand or just big hand getting max action situations. since they are rare, they are important to maximize when they occur. this is my beef with the shortstacked strategy.