Article: Short Stack yourself to win Big

[degenrat]

My first attempt at an article, be kind.



Since I am such a well know and respected online player I believe it is my duty to help out the poker playing community. There are tons of commonly accepted poker principles that are flawed. They may apply in most instances, but not all. I am here to talk about one case of the other side.





Buying in short has Merit at Small Stakes No Limit Hold Em Games.



Most NLHE Cash Games have a buy-in maximum of 100BB. This means you can win up to 100BB per player per hand, or lose your 100BB. This is believed to be the most profitable way to play NLHE.



“Buying in short limits your earning potential.”

I disagree.

Buying in short has a big upside and I’d like to go through some of the positives I take out of doing it.



Table image: when you come to a 100BB table and buy-in for 40bb you are immediately labeled a donkey. This works to our advantage as thinking players. Players ether subconsciously or consciously are more willing to gamble with a short stack. Further, if/when you double, triple, even quadruple up your opponents will now label you a lucky donkey. You now have a sizable stack, and a table or at least a few players willing to gamble it up with the loose, lucky donkey.



Better Pot Odds: As a short stack we are able to get all our chips in with better pot odds than a big stack could. Example is we play a hand to the turn there is 80bb in the pot we have 10BB left and we have a nut flush draw: OPP pushes- INSTACALL!!!! This is a luxury you would not have with a big stack. If you have 200bb behind and an opp pushes the turn you need 1.9-1 odds or better. These odds actually decrease, the more chips you have.



Smaller Bankroll Requirements: I won’t go into much BR detail as I think it has been covered to near perfection already. I will say however that if your buying for a set level is 40% of the max, then logically you will have more buy ins per $1 compared to a full buy-in player. Let’s say you need 30 buy in’s for a given level. If you are playing 100NL(.50-1.00), you would need $3000 to play this level by conventional standards. By buying in short at 40BB($40 in this case) you would need $1200.



Bigger upside with a limited downside: You are really only short stacked until you double up. At which point you are near or above the max buy-in. You have limited your exposure by under buying while still having the potential to win an infinite amount.







Short Stack Ninja - The Cockroach Effect

These terms are commonly used to describe well executed short stack play in tournaments. This leads us to another commonly accepted principle I will dispute, as it relates to my theory.



Principle:



Cash games and tournaments are light years apart. In a tournament the increasing blind structures and heavily top weighted payout structures change the most profitable way to play. In a cash game you can pick your spots a lot more carefully. With most games having 100BB buyins or more there is no need to push small edges.



Counter Argument:



We all know that we play poker to make money. And money making situations are commonly described as having +EV. Expected Value (EV) whether it be chipEV in a tournament, or $EV in a cash game is our holy grail. It’s what we are trying to achieve every time we play, a +EV situation. I am no mathematician, but 1% is all you need to make a play profitable in the long run. Casino’s make billions of dollars using little more than this principle.



Blackjack gives the house only a 2% edge.

Roulette is 2.7%.

Spanish 21 is .40% edge.

Baccarat is 1.06-1.26%.



This is how we as poker players should think about taking small edges and running with them.



By buying in short we can basically play PUSHBOT poker. Many people can attest to the profitability of push botting SNG’s. SNG’s are not poker. They are a different beast.

As a short stack in a cash game you essentially turn yourself into a post flop PUSH BOT.

You limit yourself to playing good cards in profitable situations. No need to get fancy with 78s from the button. No need to limp raise AA in EP. No need to slow play a set. Just open up as many tables as you can comfortably manage, (I have played 10 for hours on end at FTP with NO Problem) and start playing a simple brand of poker.

As you begin to accumulate chips at some tables you can close some. Letting you play real opoker at the tables where you have a real stack.



As a short stack we can comfortably push small edges, and be +EV while doing it. I’ll cite a few examples.



EX.

You have a 3 or 4xbb raise and a caller in front of you, you have AK: Instapush!!! You are way ahead of the given ranges, and the raise, call and blinds make up a nice chunk of your stack. This is something that might be debatable if we were deeper stacked but not this short. With a 25% equivalent of our stack already in the pot, the Fold Equity of our push, and the fact that our hand is a coin flip to most callers, a favorite over AQ/AJ and only a dog to AA/KK. Over the long run our opponents will not have AA/KK often enough to make this a -$EV play.



EX.

2 EP limpers, you limp in MP with KQ’s as the blinds are passive preflop, the sb completes the bb checks. The flop come Q93 rainbow, or even 2 of a suit. EP1 min bets, EP2 calls, you INSTAPUSH. We have 6xbb in the pot and 38BB behind. We are again SO FAR AHEAD of our Opps ranges that the call makes us money long term at the Small Stakes. tables. Of course we must mix up our play to avoid predictability, but this play makes money.



Let’s remember a few things here, most SSNLHE players are not thinking players. They are not perceptive. They do not adapt. They are our main source of income. This article, this style, this theory DIRECTLY targets those players. Take the cash game out of the cash game and start pushing edges.

[ama0330]

....I hate you.

[degenrat]

? please elaborate.

[degenrat]

is it that bad?

[Claunchy]

Shortstackers aren't a popular bunch around here. If I get online tomorrow and see a bunch of 20BB nits at every table there's gonna be a bounty on your head.

[degenrat]

lol

[the machine]

some of your thining is flawed.

first off we never limp AA in EP. just raise it up and start building a pot. no need to get fancy.

second while it gives you insta odds to call off getting 8-1 for a FD your opponent at times will have the same odds.

third the same opponent who has these great odds to draw against you most likely would have paid more for that exact same draw so when he loses he says meh its only 10 bucks when he would have paid an extra 40 for it.

short stacking sucks and if you are good enough to beat a game then you are leaving money on the table by buying in short. if your underrolled but want to take a shot at something i dont see it a big problem to buy in short just to see how the game plays but by no means do i think it is a good way to be playing the game consistently. buying in short too much will affect your game esp because youre not trying to get fancy with a hand like 78s. what do we do if we are card dead.... dump our 40$ and be blinded off only to rebuy for another 40?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
short stacking sucks and if you are good enough to beat a game then you are leaving money on the table by buying in short. if your underrolled but want to take a shot at something i dont see it a big problem to buy in short just to see how the game plays but by no means do i think it is a good way to be playing the game consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't necessairly true. I've read threads in the hsnl where very solid players have said they buy in short at some types of games. Buying in short at ss-tables will most often be losing money, but that doesn't mean the concept can never ba applied.

[ QUOTE ]
what do we do if we are card dead.... dump our 40$ and be blinded off only to rebuy for another 40?

[/ QUOTE ]
This obviously isn't a problem. You won't lose more money when card dead just because you buy in short.

[the machine]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't necessairly true. I've read threads in the hsnl where very solid players have said they buy in short at some types of games. Buying in short at ss-tables will most often be losing money, but that doesn't mean the concept can never ba applied.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mean ever. were in SSNL so im talking about SSNL games where it is def -EV if you are a solid player.

[ QUOTE ]
This obviously isn't a problem. You won't lose more money when card dead just because you buy in short.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah and with full stacks we can make plays with hands like Kxs and Qxs from the button and 76s and 65s where playing short we dont have the effective odds and we actually get reverse implied odds with these hands. short these hands cost us money, full they make us money.

PS dont be a nit

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't necessairly true. I've read threads in the hsnl where very solid players have said they buy in short at some types of games. Buying in short at ss-tables will most often be losing money, but that doesn't mean the concept can never ba applied.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont mean ever. were in SSNL so im talking about SSNL games where it is def -EV if you are a solid player.

[ QUOTE ]
This obviously isn't a problem. You won't lose more money when card dead just because you buy in short.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah and with full stacks we can make plays with hands like Kxs and Qxs from the button and 76s and 65s where playing short we dont have the effective odds and we actually get reverse implied odds with these hands. short these hands cost us money, full they make us money.

PS dont be a nit

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me my post missed you completely. I didn't intend to be a nit, I just think this post deserves a little respect as it has points as I was trying to point out. The biggest con of buying in short obviously is that we don't get nearly the same ammount of implied odds against bad player, just as you've pointed out several times.