Okay folks, help me understand your thinking. I have seen comments from folks such as Beavis saying that they like to play shortstacked...that it is somehow an advantage to do so. If I understand the reasoning, it is so that you can limit your losses when someone hits a monster and so you can easily push allin and get called when you have a huge hand.

Here is why I always enter a table with the full buyin:

Whether I am calling an allin or pushing w/ 20BBs or 100BBs, I do NOTHING to increase my odds if called. I am getting the EXACT same odds on my money no matter how many BBs it is. Now, I might lose more...but I also might win more. So what is the downside?

When I do get a great hand like AA, I WISH I had the 100BBs. I want every penny I can get off this hand...and a shortstack will severely limit me.

Also, a short stack is very limited in their ability to bluff. I understand that this can work both ways, since you may get called by someone who figures their loses are limited...but I don't see any overall advantage here.

Try this reasoning...if you could play the exact same people you find at the NL25 table for NL250 (and you had the bankroll), would you do it? If you are a winning player, hell yeah! With the same earn rate, you will make 10X more money. Playing shortstacked is limiting your earning ability if you are a winning player. Now, if you are a losing player or just learning...shortstacked may make sense.

What I am speaking to is the idea that playing shortstacked is an advantage. I understand that calling a 100XBB raise is VERY different than calling a 20XBB raise. But I STRONGLY disagree that playing shortstacked with do anything to increase your BB/100 rate. I think it limits a good player's earn rate significantly. BTW, this is consistant with what most of the top cash players have written.

I am of the ChuckT school...buyin for the max and make your money work. I will have larger variances (and OMG do the downswings suck), but if I am a winning player, I will win more when fully rolled.

IMHO,

CORYAN

I always get the maximum buy-in when I join a game. First I bully a lot and for that I need a HUGE stack and I want opponents to be intimidated by my stack. I want them to think that I might push them for all their chips everytime they bet.

The only reason i would be short stacked is if I want to double by pushing only pf.
I HATE playing short-stacked. How can you look like a leader with 20BB ?

__________________

I'm only a casual ring player but, two reasons.

1) you can play at a higher level (if you want to push it)

2) it's not about you it's about the other guy. You may get less when you are called with AA but you will get called more often as people underestimate the small stack.

Number 2 is a quite remarkable phenomenon.

[quote=Coryan]I am of the ChuckT school...buyin for the max and make your money work. I will have larger variances (and OMG do the downswings suck), but if I am a winning player, I will win more when fully rolled.
/QUOTE]

Hahaha, we are from the same school I guess but I thought it was Doyle Brunson school !

Its just like in life

You need money to make money Yo !

__________________

Very true


But its also true that people fear the Large stack and are more likely to fold their medium hands.

Its all depend of the playing style

__________________

20bb is very limited.

I would think there is a happy medium between 20 and 100 40-50 should give you a good amount to play.

Pushing with AA and pushing all in pre-flop, you are actually much more likely to get paid off if you have 20bb than 100.

The bigger the stacks, the more important playing implied odds, trapping, and avoiding traps is going to be.

If you really want to play with a full buy in, you may want to try Pot Limit, where you will most likely have to play each street. PL is considered by many to be the form of holdem that requires the most skill.

With a short buy-in, you really don't have to make a decision after the flop. You are either pushing/calling all-in on the flop or folding.

Example: I am primarily a limit player and although I know alot of the strategy of NL tourneys and do well in them, I am not very experienced with NL cash games (yet). On the very rare occasions I play a NL cash game I buy pretty short because of there are a few sharks there with huge stacks it limits their fancy play options against me and it limits my ability to make mistakes against them postflop. My preflop game is awesome for NL, I have found that in limit your preflop game is much more important than in NL becuase of the "repeated edges" theory of limit hold'em. It is calling/raising big bets on the turn and river that I am not fully comfortable wagering large amounts of money on yet because I haven't had the experience of reading players and bet sizes yet in NL cash games.

Note I am not talking about some .10 NL pokerstars table, I am talking live play where there is no max buy in for NL like at the Wynn. There may be a few players that buyin for $1000. I would be a moron to do that considering my relative inexperience compared to them and if I wanted to put $1000 at risk I would go play $20-40 limit where I would be able to hold my own playing good poker with much less risk of getting outplayed.

This is coverd quite well in GSIH by Ed Miller. The bottom line is, that don't assume anyone buying in short is an idiot, if your honestly think you are one of the best postflop players at the table and your bankroll can allow it, try to have the biggest stack there if possible. But for somebody like myself, I am better off with a smaller stack.

There are certain playing cosiderations of course. Let's say an extremely tight but aggressive player raises UTG to $20 preflop and you have 88 but you both have $1000 stacks it is probably worth it to call if you think you can manipulate them into giving you their whole stack with AA vs your flopped set. But if I am shortstacked with $80 it is stupid to call because my implied odds are too low. As long as you understand these issues you will have the flexibility to play small/medium/large stacks well. Alot of people simply don't get the difference. I have seen people call off half their stack preflop with 67s at a no-limit table "well maybe I'll hit" - that is just dumb.

__________________

Growlers, that is a good explaination of a time when entering shortstacked is a good idea. Well stated. And I COMPLETELY agree with not underestimating the shortstacks at the table. I regularly play with a couple players who buy in at 20-40XBB and leave with stacks as big or bigger than mine.

However, if you have a good postflop game AND the bankroll to cover the variances that come with NL poker, I still believe that full buyins will give you the highest earn rate over time.

CORYAN

when i play i buyin for 50BBs and play till i reach 100BBs, then switch tables. If im running really well at that table or there are alot of fishy players, i may stay till i reach 200BBs.

shortstack is the way to go. why?

Here is one arguement:
when u shortstack (50BBstack), u can raise 4-7x the BB with QQ KK AA, without having to worry about the implied odds being against you because ur stack size is so small. Even if u raise that amount and someone at the table calls with a PP and stacks you when the flop comes J high. You can play confidently knowing that even if he stacks you on that hand, you will still make money off of him calling ur pf raises. The total amount of money he has to spend calling ur PF raises with a PP with the percentage of him stacking you when he does hit his set factored in is greater then the amount of money u have at the table (he will not stack u 100% of the time he hits his set because sometimes when u have KK or QQ a A or K will flop and sometimes when he hits his set, you will also hit a set. And also 8% of the time u will draw out on him in the turn/river to make a higher set). If u buyin for 100BBs then the tables have turned, because now he can stack u for 100BBs which makes it +ev for him to call down ur 4-7BB pf raises with any pp for set value. Because of this the value of ur QQ KK AA deteriorates, because if u decide to raise 4-7BBs with those high PP's then ur giving huge implied odds for all the other PP's at the table to call u down for set value. And since ur stack is so large, they know that if they hit their set, they will most likely stack u for 100BBs - and because of this QQ KK AA can quickly become losing hands for you with a huge stack at the table.

Eclipse, well stated, but I still believe the argument fails. The other side of the coin is that when I hit my flopped set against a 100BB stack, I can ONLY gain my 50BBs. Every player will have the same problem with folding strong hands to the hidden monster...so when I get that hidden hand, I like having other stacks covered so I can maximize my return.

Another way to look at this is that in any headsup situation, the maximum return for EITHER player is the size of the smaller stack. So, in the 50BB vs. 100BB situation, BOTH players are limited to the 50XBB gain or lose. How is the short stack at any advantage? Is implied odds are limited to the size of the stack. Just as my loses are limited to the size of his stack.

So, assuming that we will both get these great hidden monsters an equal share of times, we both have the same odds. Does he have better odds for making these plays then the big stack has doing the same thing when the shortstack raises 5-7XBB? No.

Example:

NL Holdem 5/10

SS ($500)
BS ($1000)

SS limps for 10. BS raises to 50. SS calls. SS has invested 50 with chance to earn 515 or just over 10:1. (not a 1000 as he can only get back the size of his stack).

NL Holdem 5/10

SS ($500)
BS ($1000)

BS limps for 10. SB raises to 50. BS calls. BS has invested 50 with a chance to earn 515 or just over 10:1. (BS is limited to winning only the size of SS).

NO DIFFERENCE. So the implied odds are the same regardless of who has what stack.

Okay, I have been up for several hours and need some sleep. Maybe my mind is way off on this...so please correct me if I am wrong. This just seems WAY too simple for me. The small stack does not gain any additional implied odds simply from being the small stack. But the big stack gains the ability to have increased implied odds. Look at what happens when the big stack is able to cover another big stack!

Example:

NL Holdem 5/10

BS1 ($1000)
BS2 ($1000)

BS1 limps for 10. BS2 raises to 50. BS1 calls. BS1 has invested 50 with a chance to earn 1015 or just over 20:1. (Now THOSE are implied odds.)

CORYAN