Short Stack (Article)

[Red_Diamond]

There was a little article in Bluff this month regarding short stacks, and I’m curious on a couple things.

“Many winning tournament pros spend a lot of their tournament time below average stack. The main reason for this, and some pros may even be unaware of it, is that the fewer tournament chips you have, the more each tournament chip is actually worth.”

Well, maybe I agree with that, and maybe I don’t. I suppose in a certain way you can link this to that.

But lets read down a bit further…

“As a poker tournament progresses, increasing the blinds and implementing antes mean that your opponents have to put more in the pot prior to the hand being dealt. These increasing amounts are ultimately what give your chips more value.”

I’m not 100% sure on this. I used to be under the impression the main reason chips go up in value as you get short is because you are paying back a less percentage of your stack when crossing the bubble. This is all related to the payout prize structure, and is why your chips don’t devalue when you grow a larger stack in a winner take-all tournament.

The author goes through an example of winning little blinds, vs larger blinds in relation to stack size. And mentions how when the stack is shorter in relation to the blinds, it gains more % wise of its size when winning. And while I sort of follow this, I still think there are some conflicting items here.

[SplawnDarts]

The first quote is correct for structured payout tournaments.

The second quote makes no sense that I can see. The fundamental reason that chips vary in value is that survival has value. One chip or half the chips keeps you alive to the next hand equally well if you don't play the current hand.

There's arguably more to it than that, but the basic view isn't far from correct.

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]
The first quote is correct for structured payout tournaments.

The second quote makes no sense that I can see. The fundamental reason that chips vary in value is that survival has value. One chip or half the chips keeps you alive to the next hand equally well if you don't play the current hand.

There's arguably more to it than that, but the basic view isn't far from correct.

[/ QUOTE ]I could be completely off base and wrong here but...isnt the quote pretty much simplifying the M theory?

[RobNottsUk]

The article seems poorly written, by someone who is unclear in their minds. The real reason, is because prizes aren't awarded after certain number of hours according to number of tc you hold.

Ppl are busted out, in "Winner Takes All" your tc are worth the probability they give you to win, the whole thing, you must win all the chips.

When like in a SNG, 50% is 1st, 30% for 2nd, 20% for 3rd, your last chip, may be worth 20% of prize pool if a bigger stack busts out.

Read Sklanky's Tournament Theory for Advanced players to find out more, or Harrigton on HE for a more practical, up to date, less theoretical approach.

[Red_Diamond]

After some more thought, I think I should quote the whole article in the author's defence, so there is no misconceptions anywhere. So here it is. Any further input?




In a tournament, finding yourself shortstacked at some point is almost inevitable. Dealing with the decisions of being shortstacked can be crucial in determining whether you will be a winning tournament player. Many winning tournament pros spend a lot of their tournament time below average stack. The main reason for this, and some pros may even be unaware of it, is that the fewer tournament chips you have, the more each tournament chip is actually worth. Now, I understand that might be a confusing statement, so let me explain.

As a poker tournament progresses, increasing the blinds and implementing antes mean that your opponents have to put more in the pot prior to the hand being dealt. These increasing amounts are ultimately what give your chips more value. For example, let’s say I am at a final table, there are 10 people left, and I have 100K in chips.

We’ll say that average stack is 200K and the blinds are only 1K/2K with antes at only 100. So pre-flop, there is 3K (BB + SB + antes) in the pot. The first hand I am on the button, it is folded around to me, and I go all in for 99K. Both blinds fold and I pick up 4K on a potentially disastrous overbet. In this example, with the blinds and antes ridiculously low (done intentionally for illustrative purposes), the value of my short stack is not much different than if I had an average stack or were playing in a cash game. This is because the amount of money that my opponents are forced to put in is still low relative to the amount of chips in play, allowing for the bigger stacks to sit back and be more patient in picking a hand to call an all-in.

Now let’s take the previous example and just change the blinds to 15K/30K with a 5K ante. We have the same action and I shove all in for 95K. After some thought both blinds fold, doubling my stack to 190K.

Wow! In this example you can see that my short stack is much more valuable. I have put the same pressure (99K and 95K) on my opponents in both situations, but in the later one I was rewarded much more for my efforts, simply because the blinds and antes are higher.

So the next time you take a bad beat and you still have chips left, take comfort in knowing that your chips have increased in value, and that you can be greatly rewarded for aggressive short-stack play.



Reference:: March issue of Bluff p. 42.
The Art of Short-Stack Tournament Play
By Gank

[AnyMouse]

easy call for BB [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

the author seems to be very unclear about "short stack" as compared to other players' chip stacks vs. "short stack" compared to the blinds + antes.

also
[ QUOTE ]
Many winning tournament pros spend a lot of their tournament time below average stack. The main reason for this, and some pros may even be unaware of it, is that the fewer tournament chips you have, the more each tournament chip is actually worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong! while the last statement may be true, it is not "the main reason" for the first. this is very simple to see if you look at the distribution of chip stacks during a tournament. the median is always* (*not necessarily, but practically) below the mean. "ave. chip stack" refers to the mean. therefore, the Majority of players in Any tournament have less than ave. stacks. it's math.

[IzanDV]

[ QUOTE ]


So the next time you take a bad beat and you still have chips left, take comfort in knowing that your chips have increased in value, and that you can be greatly rewarded for aggressive short-stack play.



[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know who this writer is, but he's writing a lot of crap.

In this last thing, he does not define short-stacked game well with 'agressive'. You need to be tight-agressive.. agressive means playing a lot of hand attacking small pots and accumalate chips a few at a time. When you're short- stacked you have to wait for a better then average hand, you'll want to be the one who opens the pot (or second to a loose, weak player) and push all-in..

Soo what this writer says is that it's not bad to have a bad-beat..it speaks for itself.

[weknowhowtolive]

He's just talking about basic chip ROI when it comes to stealing. its just worded weird.