Q&A #95: The Limits Of The Short Stack Advantage

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

Over the past few weeks I’ve been talking a lot about short stacks and how you can gain an inherent advantage simply by buying in for less than your opponents. Something I said, however, struck Joe, today’s questioner, as wrong, and he submitted the following:

First off, I must say that I highly respect your writing. I love all the books I’ve read that you’ve co-authored, and I think you’re a really great guy.

However, I have a problem with something you said in your article in Card Player. I was trying to correct another player who was citing you, only to find out you did indeed say what he was implying.

I don’t subscribe to the magazine, but you were quoted as saying:

The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack then everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you enjoy the advantage when you are playing opponents with much deeper stacks.

I’m fairly certain these statements are false without certain qualifications. I understand your arguments that against standard opponents you can have an edge. Against deep stacks that are playing against each other with implied odds in mind, you have an immediate (preflop) opportunity to punish their weaker hands. True.

However, against a better opponent, who takes into account the fact that a short stack is still to act or is already in the pot, and adjusts accordingly, you do not have an inherent advantage. Namely, they could tighten up to the point that their play is not exploitable by a short stack. More likely, they would tighten up to somewhere in the middle where they are making the most profit taking into account the deep stacks and your short stack. You would have a (tiny) advantage in the latter case, but not in the former. The important thing to keep in mind though is that it does not guarantee you an advantage. To state otherwise would go against the same argument you made against deep stacks having an advantage, citing the table stakes rule.

Because of this, to state that under all conceivable conditions, having the shortest stack at the table puts you at an advantage is wrong. Under most conditions, yes I agree that you are forcing a (small) advantage for yourself. But I think such a statement probably leads a lot of players into thinking playing a short stack is “best”, when in reality no stack size is theoretically best. “If ed says playing with a short stack always puts you at an advantage, then it must be best. I’m going to always play with short stacks.” In my opinion (obviously not yours) this will stunt their growth in the long term. We could argue all day about what stack size is the best to learn with, but that’s an entirely different issue.

You said “I’m fairly certain these statements are false without certain qualifications.” Instead, I would say that they are true in the vast majority of real-life situations. In other words, I agree with you.

 Print :: Trackback :: Respond ::