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.

The flaw in both of your arguments is that you’re considering only all the bad things that happen when you’d wished you’d had a big stack and instead you have a small one. Your opponents get to draw in situations you could push them out. You don’t get value for your big hands, etc.

But each of those situations will also get turned around on you eventually. You’ll get to draw to hands you’d have to fold if you had more money. You’ll save your stack sometimes by not losing a huge set-over-set, etc.

In fact, that’s the entire point of the article. If you’re playing with a short stack then, de facto, so are your opponents. They can’t possibly have an advantage over you because you’re both playing with the same amount of money. Sure, the fact that the stacks are short changes the math of things and makes some hands profitable that otherwise wouldn’t be (and makes other hands unprofitable that otherwise would be). But it doesn’t give anyone the ADVANTAGE. It just changes the way the game plays.

Now you might be a better player with a deep stack than you are with a short stack, so you might make more money over time by playing deep. That may well be true, but it’s not what the article is about.

To understand the point of the article… assume you have a $1,000 stack. On this hand it’s irrelevant whether your opponent has $1,000 or $10,000 on the table.