The Biggest No-Limit Myth

Big stacks are actually at a disadvantage in multiway pots.

i was reading pros john duthie and lee nelson chat on pokerstars… they hate shortstacks, well there might be a serious reason…

Once I have played very strange game with LAG very aggresive opponent at the table. He has more than 3 buyins (5 buyins when I quit the session). He was very aggresive and almost each hand ends with pot about 50BB or all-in push. With shortstack or even with full buyin it was very difficult game, because even if you win a few games in row you were still covered by his very big stack and you can loose it whole in any one next game (set vs. overset, or some similar setup …). He lose few games but then he get luck on river or get the monster and win everything back.

jev,

I know from experience what you mean, but this is just a psychological effect.

A few things you might want to think about:

1. How many times do you have to win an all-in against him to get an even stack? Most of the times 2-3 wins are enough: Say you have 1 buy-in and he has 7. You win once and double up => you: 2; he 6. Then you do it again: you: 4; he 4!
Even if there are no other callers, it doesn’t take many losses for your opponent to be down to your stack size! “Domination” over!

2. Of course there’s the “luck factor” and there’s nothing you can do about it. BUT: more important is to remember “Big hands for big pots”! Don’t commit your stack with weak hands (no matter against the “bully” or any other opponent)! Once you have a big hand, you should welcome a guy who is willing to go all-in. You might not be guaranteed to win, but if the odds are in your favor then PUSH!!! If he keeps calling you with just 2 outs that’s perfect!!!

Good luck!
Greyzy

Having the short stack is can also be a huge advantage in decision making. If your SPR is small, it makes the decisions on top pair kind of hands easy.

Ed said>In tournaments, the “bullying” concept has some merit, though it’s hardly what some people would have you believe.

Ed, what I seem to see on TV tournaments is that the big stack makes big bets pre-flop and on the flop, and forces the smaller stacks to make a decision of whether to play for their entire stack. This seems especially effective at the final table of an MTT where surviving a little longer makes a big difference in real money.

Is this what you mean, or do you have something else in mind when you say “it’s hardly what some people would have you believe”?

The big stack has huge advantages if you don’t have the same $3000 but only say $1000…even if you do have the same amount of money; he has the advantage of causing you to make MULTIPLE difficult decisions. How many times can you risk 1/10 of your stack, while he risks 1/100 of his… only to have him raise forcing you to decide whether to go all in on a marginal holding but good draw hand or fold. He keeps that money each time you fold. If you go all in and lose he also keeps that money. You still must win big before you lose to many nickel and dime hands forcing you to limit what you can risk playing especially if it costs you 1/10 of your stack just to see the flop. The only way you truly over come the big stack is to make your big win early without losing those 5/10 centers. Do you then only play premium hands? And if your premium hand QQ or KK loses to his A3 offsuit which he can afford to play often?

rumdum, are you talking about a tournament situation?

The stack size does affect the implied odds for you and your opponent. If you are on a drawing hand and you set your opponent on top pair, two pair or a set, you might double up your stack if you hit that draw. Your implied odds in this situation are definined by yours and your opponents stack size. If you or your opponent has a small stack, it is a disadvantage for drawing hands, but an advantage for top pair.

One advantage to buying in for the max is that if you hit that set or other draw, you can win more from the big stacks than otherwise. Most of the good players I see online (like the ones that make the Stoxpoker videos) keep their stacks at the max.

There is an advantage of having a big stack when others have as well but there is no advantage over the small ones.

Cash game multiple experiences. Stack size on board (not in pocket) determine strategy. You may want to call a $10 raise with KJ, but have to fold to raise from big stack risking smaller percentage of his stack. Unless you hit a big hand early before having to fold (or risk all in), many hands; your small stack is going to be pushed around by limiting your options compared to the big stack allowing him to hit more often or draw further into the board in order to hit… whereas a short stack risking significant portion of that stack must fold, while large stack successfully draws out on the river.

I’ve often won from the short stack position in tournements arriving at the final table as the shortest stack (significantly) players overtry to eliminate you. Often more than one will make the attempt if your loss to them isn’t crippling; but the win for you is great.If you hit big starting hand early and double up or triple up you’re on your way…shift strategy…Went from shortest stack to chip leader in 4 hands at Sahara eventually winning it. As long as I have 1/2 of the chips of my opponent, I’m one hand away from beating him.

The article is right in that if someone doesn’t want to be bullied they can’t be. However, you never want to play short stacked – it’s a huge disadvantage. Most good no-limit players including book writing pros will tell you this. You get much in the pot pre-flop and you’re left without the chips to take the correct odds away from your big-stacked opponent on a draw. This makes it correct for him to call in more situations. The money is not harmlessly in your pocket – it’s hurting you by not being able to help. When you do get a big hand, you win 300 instead of 3000. If you miss this opportunity once during the session and cost yourself even 1000 that’s possibly, if not likely the difference between a winning session and a losing one. I’m looking forward to the followup article that tells me how I’m going to overcome all of this and rumdum’s points.

Toddnic, I am also waiting, we may be in for some incredibly enlightening information which will greatly improve our games. (can’t wait for the profit to start rolling at 10% less than possible). There are good stratagies for OVERCOMING the advantage of a big stack in some instances, but generally big stack wins. Good point about the money in your pocket not being useful; how many times I’ve been short stacked and gone all in hitting a monster like quads only to put a minor dent in the big stack.( wish I had more money then). My problem is that I usually don’t have the reserve money.(2700) It’s nice to double up your 300 to 600, but I’ll always prefer to double up 3000 to 6000.

toddnic…..email me at evoalien@yahoo.com with the gist of the article please ; I probably won’t get it from the mag.

Ed,

I read the 2nd part to this article. You have done a good job of explaining some unique situations where it can be an advantage to have a short stack.

You said the flaw in my argument is that I’m considering only the bad things about being the short stack. Well, let’s consider both sides.

In the situations you have outlined, you win a little because of your status as short stack. In the situations where you can’t put enough into the pot to control the odds (which is much more common than the situations you talk about) you’re putting yourself in a losing situation. In the situation where you win $300 instead of $3000, that’s an astronomical loss.

Having the large stack DOES give you an advantage. You can control the pot odds. If you’re a better player than your opponents, their mistakes make you significantly greater profits. If you’re not a better player, you lose your short stack anyway, rebuy, lose your short stack again, and go home with empty pockets.

Having a short stack or mixed stacks at the table does change the math. In unique situations it is an advantage to be the short stack. Whether you consider it an advantage or not, a good player will control the odds and make more money with his big stack.

As I said before, playing short stack is ok IF you win one or more of the EARLY big hands. If you don’t you can only win YOUR money back, not his. Your theory focuses only on the positive, ignoring the odds and the negative possibility. Also, if you are operating on a theory which REQUIRES that you win your early attempts; wouldn’t you want those early attempts to make you 10 times more money? There are just to many more options with the big stack that short stacks are excluded from…how deep can you play suited connectors? bottom 2 pair? flush/strait draws? short stack must commit early big stack can afford to draw.

i think alot of you guys are missing an important point. We’re dealing with $1-$2 no-limit here and basicially everyone has a short stack. I’ve never seen a game where someone has $3000 in front of him. Maybe $1200-$1500 if he’s been running good for a long time? Plus, unless I have the nuts I would never risk $1000 on a hand, especially on some type of draw. Plus, the betting probably would never get that far. I’ve won $800 on a hand only because of mulitple all-ins in a crazy game. At this point I’d never risk that much. But, I’m alot more conservative than most of the posters on here. I prefer small ball poker where I can control the size of the bets. Maybe I’m wrong but when I have only top pair top kicker, I only put in a feeler bet then back off, when resistance is met. If a guy goes all-in or a major bet, I’ll usually fold, not wanting to risk a draw out. With big hands, sets or a made hand, THEN I’ll push.

[...] Full-Tilt Blog   Poker Authority Tony G.      Kick Ass Poker Blog Life of a Poker Player   FullTiltPoker – Pro Chat Archives   [...]

I didn’t want to write this as I use the same programmer as Ed does and he has MADE ME MILLIONS, but it’s time to reveal something to you all. Ed has a legion of POKER BOTS, some the size of trees, playing $1/$2 TWENTY FOUR/SEVEN, systematically exploiting the strategies he proposes on NPA. He then launders allthe money through his OTHER INTERESTS to pay for Mason Malmuth’s drug habit. Sorry to disappoint you everyone, but you are effectively p*ssing your money down MM’s inside leg.

as long as its *Manson’s* leg we’re pissing on, Ed can have as much money as I can afford to lose.