Home Articles Books Coaching Free Stuff About

Short Stack Play Is Not A Fight Against The Blinds

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

Here’s a question I hear all the time:

“How short a stack can you play before it’s not profitable anymore? At some point the blinds eat you away too fast and you can’t wait for a good hand anymore, right?”

This question is based on a false assumption that is the subject of today’s article. Yes, there are some stack sizes too short to play profitably, but the culprit isn’t the blinds. It’s the rake. Depending on the rake structure, at some point the house is taking too large a percentage out of each pot for you to profit with some short stack sizes.

But say you’re paying time instead of a rake, and the charge is relatively small compared to the game size. (For those who don’t know, live cardrooms often charge a flat fee of, say, $7 per half hour in lieu of taking a rake.) Now you can play any stack size profitably, from 1BB on up. The blinds are never so big that they will “eat you alive.”

The simplest reason why it’s impossible for your stack to be so short the blinds “eat you alive” is the table stakes rule. If you have a 10BB stack, then as far as you’re concerned your opponents all have 10BB stacks as well. The same rules apply to everyone. When poker is zero sum (as it mostly is in a time game where the charge is small compared to the stakes), if the same rules apply to everyone then no one can be inherently unprofitable. If I’m bound to lose money because I’m playing a 10BB stack, then who am I losing it to? The guy across the table who is also playing effectively a 10BB stack whenever he’s in a pot with me? If we’re both playing effectively the same stack size, then how can someone have an advantage? It doesn’t make sense.

No stack size is inherently unprofitable. It all comes down to what strategy you employ.

The reason the “blinds will eat you alive” mindset is easy to buy into is that we often assume that short stack players must necessarily play very tightly. After all, when you play a 10BB stack you’re going to see a lot of showdowns. And if you’re bound for showdown, you’d better have the goods, right?

It’s true โ€“ to a point. When you’re playing a 10BB stack, you probably won’t be calling many preflop raises on the button with 5-3 suited like you possibly might playing deep stacks. You do want hands with showdown value. But they don’t necessarily have to be massive hands.

For instance, say you’re in the small blind with 10BB. Everyone folds to an aggressive player in the cutoff who opens for 3BB. You have Ad7c. Your best play is to shove. Sometimes you’ll catch the cutoff with a hand like 9-6 suited and he’ll elect to fold. Sometimes he’ll have something like A-9 suited or K-J and call you. When you look at all the possible outcomes โ€“ sometimes winning the pot immediately and sometimes getting called and winning a showdown โ€“ shoving with the hand will show an overall profit.

A-7 offsuit isn’t a massive hand. But it’s strong enough given the stack sizes, the likely opening range of a player in the cutoff, and the random hand in the big blind to show a profit.

Short stack play is all about finding the right borderline hands in these situations. Maybe shoving with A-7 is profitable and Q-7 is unprofitable. What hands are at the break-even point?

If everyone had folded to you in the small blind, then Q-7 offsuit is actually right around the break-even point for open-shoving 10BB. (Source: The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman, p. 136) And that’s if your opponent plays a perfect 10BB stack strategy. If your opponent plays less than perfectly than you can profitably shove some even weaker hands.

The blinds won’t beat you because you can tailor your strategy to the situation. You can play as tightly or as loosely as the situation calls for. And when the game is shorthanded or the stacks are very small, you should actually play quite loosely.

I must take some of the blame for propagating the myth that playing a short stack means playing super-tight. In my book, Getting Started in Hold ‘em, I outline a strategy for playing a 20BB stack that I would classify as super-tight. I designed that strategy as a foolproof one for rank beginners. I wanted a strategy that was simple enough that literally anyone could follow it and that would be at least break-even in any standard, full ring cash game.

But my super-tight strategy isn’t the optimal strategy for 20BB stacks in a full ring game. It’s just a passable strategy.

In a fourhanded game with 10BB stacks, the strategy is downright horrible. The blinds will indeed eat you alive, but it’s not because the stacks are too short to win. It’s because the strategy stinks for those game parameters.

If you come up with the right strategy, though, you can profitably play 20BB in a tenhanded game, and you can profitably play 8BB in a fourhanded game. The blinds can’t doom you to lose. Only the rake can.

[This article appeared in the December 17, 2008 issue (Vol. 21, No. 25) of Card Player.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Short Stack Play Is Not A Fight Against The Blinds”


[…] Short Stack Play Is Not A Fight Against The Blinds ยท Professional … […]

@ Thu Jan 08, 2009 04:22:04 AM


Your application of the Jam/Fold table (p. 136) in Chen’s book is incorrect. That table only applies in a heads up situation.

@ Thu Jan 08, 2009 07:11:58 AM

I fairly certain that when it’s folded around to you in the SB and only the BB is behind you, this would be considered heads-up.

@ Fri Jan 09, 2009 03:10:51 AM


no, it wouldn’t. Because all of your opponents have folded the likelihood that the sb and bb will have good hands is higher than it would be in a hu situation. This is called clustering.

The sb and bb do not have two random hands. They have two random hands conditional on 7-8 other players folding.

Seth Baldwin
@ Fri Jun 26, 2009 04:38:09 PM

with 10 BB, what do you think of open shoving from the cutoff with K9o? The blinds represent 15% of your stack and seem well worth picking up against 3 random hands. Is K9 too weak? What’s the right way to calc this? If I assume my oppents will call me with a top 20% hand, then I win the blinds 50% of the time and get at least one caller the other 50%. If we estimate K9 is a 2-1 dog against my opponent’s calling hand, then I’m losing around 3 BB of pot equity when called, so overall a -1.5BB play. Does that seem right?

@Michael, when folded around to the small blind, I don’t think the blinds’ hands are going to be too much different than random cards. People are quite likely to fold A4 and K7 in other positions, so I don’t think deck is especially “rich” just because 7 people mucked their cards.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>