This has caused a bit of debate in the last few weeks.. I know what the general answer to this is (just go to a table and look) but I'm interested in the views here..

You have just entered a table. at 0.25/0.5. Most ppl have deep stacks and you have nothing on them from PokerTracker.

I think buying in with a shortstack and buying in with a large stack lead to completely different aproaches to the game.

The reason I am in favour of buying in with a large stack is that if you believe you are better than average player at the table (and if you don't - why are you playing there?), then you want to maximise your profits.

How do you feel when you buy in shortstacked and get dealt AA, someone goes all in preflop for $100 and you can only call with $20? Or if you have raised 1/3 of your stack on QQ and got a call, the board reads AAQ and someone holding AK with a stack of $60 is prepared to call any bet on the flop but you have left only $6?

Now I understand that by playing shortstack you can remove the implied odds for you to get outdrawn on when raising with hands like AA, and also I think people are more inclined to call all in's from shortstack just because it is not a large amount of money which works to your advantage.

However it is hard to play any non premium hands using the short stack approach, and I genuinely feel a bot could be programmed to play optimum short stack strategy.

If you are playing NL, and feel that you are one of the better players at the table, why would you not want the most chips at your disposal to play with?

Unless you are a losing player, you want a large stack.

I prefer a stack of 50bbs.

But in this situation I would probably choose the shortstack, seeing as I don't have any information on the players anyway. With a shorstack you play more odds than you do players, so It'd probably be the decision to make.

I'm probably wrong though.

Originally Posted by gaash

Unless you are a losing player, you want a large stack.

but maybe you are a winning player with a short stack but a losing player with a big stack.

i guess thats possible, however, if you can manage to win in a game like that where the odds are stacked heavily against you (due to the blind size relative to your stack and opponents 'standard' preflop raises) you can probably do even better with a large stack.

In these Deep vs Short sack discussions, I have realized I don't know emnough to answer, so I just stick to limit. Sorry bout the edit.

Originally Posted by gaash

i guess thats possible, however, if you can manage to win in a game like that where the odds are stacked heavily against you (due to the blind size relative to your stack and opponents 'standard' preflop raises) you can probably do even better with a large stack.

please explain how the odds are stacked against you?

personally, I like to buy in for 50bb, but I am very tempted to try Ed Miller's short stack method.

Deme,

Sometimes at the tables I play you get a 4BB raise followed by 2 calls, are you then correct to play your 66 (for example) if they all have big stacks? My answer is yes. Even investing 4BB, how many times do you need to win a 300BB pot after ending up all in vs AA and AK on a K63 flop to make this profitable?

Yes - you would reraise with AA or AK preflop, and yes you would lay down AK when hitting top pair to an all-in but not everyone does. That's how you make money.

You can take advantage of the tendency of players to fall in love with their hands. I see players regularly (and have been guilty myself) of ending up all in with AA/KK on the flop and losing to trips/2 pair. Some players seem incapable of even laying down AK, when they have missed, never mind hit their pair.

If you (and you use Poker Tracker) know who these players are then you can identify them and make them pay.