an *objective* look at shortstack strategy

[akishore 0]

i've been debating in my mind for a while about whether it's even worth my time and energy to educate all the posters in this forum who have no clue what they're talking about.i'd say, in the spirit of these forums--to help educate the players who are interested in learning and to invoke objective discussion--i probably should.so, here it is: an objective look at why playing with a short stack in a no limit hold 'em cash game can be very effective.introductionyou have $100 in your stack. the rest of the table has you covered. (it should go without saying that this is no limit hold 'em cash game.)you pick up A J on the button.scenario 1: blinds are 25 cents and 50 cents.one player limps, you raise to $2.50, only the limper calls. $5-ish pot, the flop comes J 8 2 . your opponent bets $2.50, you raise to $12.50, he calls. $30-ish pot, the turn is a 5 . your opponent checks, you bet $20, your opponent calls. $70-ish pot, the river is a 2 . your opponent pushes in for his stack, which covers you. you have $65 remaining and must call all-in or fold.scenario 2: blinds are $2 and $5.one player limps, you raise to $25, only the limper calls. $50-ish pot, the flop comes J 8 2 . your opponent bets $25, you raise all-in to $75, he calls. $200-ish pot, turn 5 , river 2 .there is a clear visible difference between the two hands. in the first, the stacks were deep (200 big blinds each). this meant that there was enough money in the stacks to extend action all the way to a pot-sized bet on the river. in the second, the stacks were short (20 big blinds each). this meant that there was just enough money to properly play only the first two streets.this is the fundamental difference between deep-stack poker and short-stack poker. in the former, there are many more decisions since there is much more room to play. in the latter, there are much fewer decisions since there is less room to play.let's think about that.consider the sitaution in hand 1 on the river. do you call the all-in or fold? there's no easy, correct answer--it's a tough decision! without any other information, you might fold. or, you might be forced to think on a higher level and deduce from your opponent's tendencies that you have the best hand and should call. this requires that you be playing well aware and keeping track of all of your opponents' tendencies.so, playing with deep stacks induces tough decisions and tricky play. it rewards the best player or players at the table, the ones who play well in these tough spots for big bets.consider the same situation in hand 2. there are far fewer decisions, and most of them aren't nearly as tough as the river decision in hand 1. the decision to push on that flop is fairly clear-cut. while knowing your opponents will obviously improve your winrate, keeping track of each opponent and gathering lots of information really isn't necessary anymore.so, playing with a short stack decreases the "skill" per se (i hate using that word, since obviously even in a short stacked game, skilled players will win money from unskilled players). it reduces both the frequency and magnitude of tough decisions, so you no longer need to be the best player at the table to win the most money.the goal of shortstack strategyyou noticed in the second example that when we raised to $25 on the button with A J , we only had $75 left. let's ask a question: why did we raise preflop?we raised because we felt that we had the best hand, didn't we? after all, there was only one limper, and for all we know, he could have any two cards. without a specific read that he is a tight player who only limps AK or a pocket pair, it is reasonable to assume that our hand is best, so we raise for value and to push an edge we believe we have.if we do indeed have the best hand, is our opponent making a mistake in calling our raise? well, it's not so clear cut.if our stack was instead $1000, he might not be making a mistake calling even with J 2 , a hand which we have dominated and which has very little hope to flop a reasonable hand. why? well, if he is a skilled player, he will have a huge postflop edge, regardless of his hand, since the stacks are deep and he thrives on big-bet turn and river decisions.for example, he can call knowing that he will only give us action when he has two pair or better, and he knows that he can get our money on the river if he hits jacks up and we will call a big bet with just jacks top kicker. or, he can call knowing that he can successfully push us off the best hand if he makes a good read or a good bluff.but here, our stack is only $100. this means there is only $75 left for our opponent to win. there are no tough turn and river decisions. is he now making a mistake calling with worse hands? again, maybe not, but usually, yes, he is.usually, the magnitude of this mistake is also bigger. if he calls with jack-deuce offsuit when we have $1000, it might not be a mistake altogether, but if it is a mistake, it's extremely tiny compared to the huge overlay he might have on the river when he does hit a big hand. but when our stack is $100, calling $25 with jack-deuce offsuit is a HUGE mistake.this leads to the most important goal of short stack strategy:we want to get our money in as fast as possible while we believe we have an edge. if we can get it all-in preflop, fantastic. otherwise, we'd like to get it all-in on the flop.why is this the case? let's look at the most important factor.implied oddsi mentioned that if we had a deeper stack (say, $1000), our opponent might not be making a mistake in calling our preflop raise with bad hands, even one as terrible as jack-deuce offsuit. why is this?i mentioned "overlay" as a reason. if he rivers a huge hand or makes a solid river bluff on a scare card, he might expect to win a big pot. if he flops jack-high, he can easily fold and has lost only $25. that loss is tiny compared to what he might win in those lucky hands, $1000.this idea is called implied odds.when you call a raise with a low pocket pair, say deuces, you are generally hoping to hit a set. these pairs have great implied odds, since you lose very little when you miss--just the preflop bet--but might win a huge pot with your deceptive and strong set when you hit on those rare occasions.the same idea applies with suited connectors. if you miss the flop, you can easily fold. but if you flop something strong, or maybe turn/river the nuts, you can expect to win a good amount of money.now, when you have a short stack, the implied odds are usually shattered. why? well, when you raise to $25 and you only have $75 remaining, the amount of money an opponent can expect to win from you when he gets lucky is severely limited.this means that when your opponents call your raise with speculative hands like low pairs and suited connectors, they are making a huge mistake. they can no longer expect to win a huge pot-sized river bet to make up for all the times they miss the flop and folded. now instead, they will be missing the flop and losing $25 a bunch of times, then hit the flop and win only $100 at most the few times they get lucky.so, this idea that implied odds are shattered when you have a short stack is key when it comes to analyzing how best to play in this strategy.the strategy itselfat all times, we want to get our money in as fast as possible when we believe we have an edge. we do this so that we can shut our opponent's implied odds.so, with our premium hands--aces, kings, queens, ace-king--we want to get all-in preflop if possible. since this usually isn't the case, we want to make a healthy raise preflop and then get it all-in on the flop.the same idea applies to lesser premium hands like jacks, tens, ace-queen, ace-jack. we still want to get all-in preflop if we can, but we need to be wary of being up against bigger hands. so now, position comes into play as does playing the flop somewhat well.because our implied odds aren't there, both for our opponents and ourselves, speculative hands like low pocket pairs and suited connectors usually need to be folded preflop, especially to a raise. they can sometimes be limped, so again, position comes into play.so, in essence, you must play ultra-tight in this strategy. more importantly, however, you need to play ultra-aggressive. you need to wait for your strong hands, and then push your edge hard when you believe you've got one.note that this strategy has very high variance. nothing sucks more than getting your money all-in with pocket kings and losing to ace-queen, or getting your money in with jacks on a nine-high flop and losing to a flopped set of twos.but, realize that this strategy makes money in the long run. ace-king lost money by calling your all-in with kings. pocket twos lost money by playing to your preflop raise when you had jacks--it doesn't expect to flop a set so often that it can compensate for all the lost money the times it both misses and the times it loses to your jacks.there are lots of finer intricacies to this strategy, but i won't discuss them here. you need to know about stack-to-bet ratio--this helps you decide what to do when you raise under the gun with pocket tens and someone reraises behind you. you need to know about position--just what hands can be played where, and how does this affect your outlook on flop play?all that stuff, i won't discuss. for that, you should get and read the no limit hold 'em section in ed miller's book, "getting started in hold 'em". it is an excellent book and is among my favorites.conclusionif i can leave you with one tip, it is that this strategy requires extreme discipline and extreme patience.it takes a lot of discipline to fold ace-jack suited under the gun, or to fold pocket fives to a raise in the big blind when it's just so tempting to see a flop. it takes discipline to fold suited connectors three hands in a row. it also takes a lot of discipline to go through three sick beats where you got your money in as fast as possible as a huge favorite and still lose.but, i will also say that this strategy pays off extremely handsomely in today's no limit games, both live and online.this is because today's opposition just doesn't understand implied odds and how to adjust when your opponent only has 15 big blinds behind him. they still call big raises with low pairs and suited connectors and "creative" hands because they want to play fancy and loose and like the pros on television. this strategy exploits those tendencies very handsomely.again, for a much more in-depth look at this type of strategy, check out ed miller's "getting started in hold 'em".i hope this little post, which took a considerable amount of time on my part, can help you all to better understand the intricacies of playing with a short stack.i get tired of repeatedly seeing posts like "if you can't buy in for the max, you shouldn't be playing poker" or "good players only buy in for the max so that they can win every chip possible". using absolutist phrases and statements in poker is always a sign that the person does not truly understand poker, and this is no exception.yes, the amount of money that you can win is limited, but so is your risk, and they cancel out. it just boils down to adapting properly. if you can properly adapt with a short stack, you can expect to see a very healthy winrate over time, mostly because today's opposition is just so bad at adapting in this way.that said, i hope you learned something. if you don't have something objective to post in this thread, don't post at all.remember, no tilt. this strategy certainly invokes it well.good luck,aseem

[Royal_Tour 0]

Interesting ideas, good read.However My main cash game has always been nl. And your thoughts on buying in with the low stack are flawed.I can tell you first hand from experience playing tight and loose tables that buying in with the short stack is never +EV.Your theory boils down to lack of skill. Its like pushing all in everyhand in a HU match.You could compare this idea to buying in with the max amount and seeing a lot higher percentage of flops and just hope to get lucky.Any idea what i mean here?. When blinds are 2,5 and you have a stack size of 100.00 how often are you playing hands?. 17 - 22%?.. ok sounds fair right.and these are usually premium hands, but lets say for instace you have A,Q suited. and dominating hand to a lot of hands. Flop comes 6,7 8. rainbow, you raised pre flop to 20.00 like you did in your example, but now what?do you push with this garbage?. you are sitting with 80.00 now you can only do these moves so many more times before you are broke.Thinkin you still have anyone beat?. sure push all in cuz its a much easier decision than trying to make skill full plays. You get called by a normal size stack who holds 10,10. and you lost your money.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

I don't think the short-stack theory is really all that flawed at all. I do think it's important to leave the table once you double or triple up and then buy in to another table at your original small buy-in however. The problem with buying in to a table with a minimum buy-in (or close to it) is you will often go broke before you catch up to the big stacks. Therefore, you cannot make that your strategy anymore. I believe your goal becomes to double or triple up and then leave the table, securing your profit. If you want to stay at a table because it is just too juicy to leave, buying in for the max is likely best (since I believe many sites don't allow you to leave and then come back with less money at that table for a certain amount of time).

[Royal_Tour 0]

I don't think the short-stack theory is really all that flawed at all. I do think it's important to leave the table once you double or triple up and then buy in to another table at your original small buy-in however. The problem with buying in to a table with a minimum buy-in (or close to it) is you will often go broke before you catch up to the big stacks. Therefore, you cannot make that your strategy anymore. I believe your goal becomes to double or triple up and then leave the table, securing your profit. If you want to stay at a table because it is just too juicy to leave, buying in for the max is likely best (since I believe many sites don't allow you to leave and then come back with less money at that table for a certain amount of time).

so you're saying buy in and hope to get lucky??. hope that if you hold AA you get some action?hope that if you see a flop with AK, that a K hits the board?Have you ever had a long session?. playing 1 or multiple tables for hours?.The span of time is the exact thing that helps our skill over come the luck, because we see more hands and our edge over other players will start to show even if our cards have been slow.If poker is a game of luck to you, than by all means by in with the min. and push when you feel lucky.

[econ_tim 0]

I can tell you first hand from experience playing tight and loose tables that buying in with the short stack is never +EV.

That's a silly thing to say. Maybe for some players buying in with a short stack is lower EV than buying in for the max, but buying in for a short stack definitely has positive expectation at the right tables.

Your theory boils down to lack of skill. Its like pushing all in everyhand in a HU match.You could compare this idea to buying in with the max amount and seeing a lot higher percentage of flops and just hope to get lucky.

Short stack play is meant in part to help players win at games where the other players may be better postflop players. However, it's not just about getting lucky. Because of you small stack size, you will often get action on your premium hands.

you can only do these moves so many more times before you are broke.

No, you can reload before you go broke. That's what you do with a big stack, right?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Short stack play is meant in part to help players win at games where the other players may be better postflop players. However, it's not just about getting lucky. Because of you small stack size, you will often get action on your premium handsThan you are comparing horrible players against horrible players.I thought we were coming up with a sound strategy here??I personally dont make judgement calls on 1 single factor, and i dont play NL holdem if i'm insecure in my play.No, you can reload before you go broke. That's what you do with a big stack, right?yes. its called BR management. I stay away from tilting, and i play smart poker. I play for a set amount of time, and not on how much i win or lose.I've lost a full buy-in reloaded, and made profit on the day.

[joeltebbutt 0]

I wouldn't buy in for less then the max but I can see why some players would want to

[GWCGWC 83]

A few months ago, I posted a thread asking why I see so many players buying in for the min in a NL ring game.Aseem very politly roasted me saying that there was a sound strat available to all on 2+2 about short stack play in NL ring games.This thread completes the answer to my original question. It just took awhile for Aseem to get around to posting the answers I guess.BTW, I don't think many players who buy in for the min have this strat in mind. I think most of those players are just minimizing there risk in losing more than the min buy in. Many of those players aren't thinking in terms of implied odds or even pot odds. This is good.I enjoy seeing someone sit down with the min buy in and quickly losing it and doing a rebuy, again, and again and again. I wonder if they would have played the hands the same way if they had sat down with the max buy in. I think not.I agree that there is a good stratagy for the short buy method. I will not be employing it any time soon.Still, thanks aseem.

[WonderfulSplash 0]

I don't think the short-stack theory is really all that flawed at all. I do think it's important to leave the table once you double or triple up and then buy in to another table at your original small buy-in however. The problem with buying in to a table with a minimum buy-in (or close to it) is you will often go broke before you catch up to the big stacks. Therefore, you cannot make that your strategy anymore. I believe your goal becomes to double or triple up and then leave the table, securing your profit. If you want to stay at a table because it is just too juicy to leave, buying in for the max is likely best (since I believe many sites don't allow you to leave and then come back with less money at that table for a certain amount of time).

so you're saying buy in and hope to get lucky??. hope that if you hold AA you get some action?hope that if you see a flop with AK, that a K hits the board?Have you ever had a long session?. playing 1 or multiple tables for hours?.The span of time is the exact thing that helps our skill over come the luck, because we see more hands and our edge over other players will start to show even if our cards have been slow.If poker is a game of luck to you, than by all means by in with the min. and push when you feel lucky.

Saying that buying in with the Min is -EV is wrong. It has +EV, just not as high as the EV a good player would have buying in with the max. Ed Miller says it is a sound strategy, but it definately doesn't max your EV.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I agree with you and have argued a similar point in the past.There're a few issues though.If you are a vastly superior player post flop, you're foregoing a lot of profitable situations by always being a short stack. The existence of a session fee makes this significantly less profitable. Online this isn't an issue, but a lot of casino's do take session fee's instead of rakes, even for as low as a 1/2 game. The existence of a rake, on the other hand, probably a relative advantage.The variance is not _necessarily_ higher or lower than playing deep stack poker. Not relative to the blinds, anyways. That's only true if you're playing against players of poor quality. If that's the case though, you shouldn't be playing short stacked anyways, since you're foregoing many profitable situations. (the exception being if YOU'RE bad)

[mbreon 0]

You didn't write all that because of me, did you Aseem? I feel so special... on a serious note, very well written post. As always, you prove that you know much much more about poker than I do. Great post.

[HtotheNootch 0]

Short Stack Poker makes $$$. Maybe not the biggest, but it works. Besides if you like to play with a big stack just don't hit and run after you've worked that short stack into a big one.

[jayistheman 0]

i understand your reasoning, but you will never change the fact that short stacks/ being short stacked annoy me to no end. :lol:and i still want all of the short stacks to die :-) its just frustrating when im playing a 100 or 200 NL table and (especially common on prima) some broke ass swede sits in with 10 or 20 bucks... come on now. you try to not be bothered at this... especially at a 6max table.im all worked up now.all of your logic makes sense.. but i'll still take my ability to maximize pot size when i feel i have an edge (properly bankrolled, of course... so i can handle the beats)

[theStork 0]

in the last couple months i've started playing short stacked nl. i've been a successful sng player for some time and found this was a good transition to ring games.

[Chamonyx 0]

AseemLet's seperate the 2 questions of:1) Should you buy in for other than the max?2) If you are stuck with a short stack (either by choice or by events) how should you play it? Buying in for less than the max can absolutely be +EV. However if you can play a short stack in a cash game with +EV, your EV will be larger if you are playing with a full stack. If you have some other objective function in relation to your decision (e.g. duration of play, risk of ruin) then the correct decision may be different - and there are probably better games to play in any case. Alternatively, if you are a marginal player relative to the table, your EV will be better with a short buy-in because it will be less negative. Now, let's assume that (for whatever reason) you are faced with playing a short stack in a NL cash game.When you are playing PL or NL cash games, your objective is to double up and/or capture stacks. You do this by pushing edges and trapping people into over-committing to hands that are worse than yours. Funnily enough this applies whether you have a big stack or a small stack. The aspects that are unique to small stack situation are:More people can double you upYou can't bully as effectivelyYou offer limited implied odds to drawing hands (including yours)I think you nailed the last one of these really well in your post.Your strategy seemed to be:Play big hands fast and earlyPlay good hands fast and earlyOnly play speculative hands cheaply in multi-way pots (you didn't quite say this, but I think its what you meant?)Again, I think the third point is spot on, however I really disagree with the first 2: If you get a premium hand, you need to be able to extract the most value from it - ESPECIALLY if you are a shortstack that is playing fewer hands anyway. The objective is to get it all-in by showdown, not to scare opponents off early on. Also, although you may only have a short stack, if you have position and you haven't forced the pot to be too large, you still have enough chips to bluff effectively on later streets (so don't neccessarily push with AK pre-flop)Just to underline for everyone: we are talking cash games here, not tournaments :-)

[rog 0]

Sorry Asseem. I have to agree with Royal. Most of what you post is solid gold, but this is tarnished brass in my opinion.Whoever plays the most skilled game will always have the biggest edge in any game. If you only play on the first 2 streets, then yes of course you dont make mistakes on later streets, but you still have to play better preflop and on the flop to get an edge. This strategy can only work if you find players who are better than you on later streets but worse than you on ealier streets. The early streets are the easy ones to play. I think such players are probably pretty rare.The players who pay you off when you play this strategy are horrible. This is how you play in a tournament when you have no other choice.

[PrtyPSux 0]

Ace on the riverpg. 174.. Barry Explains why buying in w/ a min stack is better.. I dont like it, but I wouldnt mind it in a loose fast/gambling game. Read the book though (if u havent) its good.

[Tantalar 0]

My worst fears of being the shortstack are that my cards will not be live. After all, something like 86 off suit has a much better chance against AK than an A7 does!

[HtotheNootch 0]

N0 offense to Royal or anyone else, but quite frankly I'll take Ed Miller's advice over anyone who posts here.I've been playing this way recently, and have made serious money. I stay after I double/triple/quadruple up and then play my big stack like a bih stack. Starting short RULES!!!!!Seriously, it's great. You push big edges when you have the best hand. You make people play badly against you. Then when you have a big stack nobody respects you so you see cheap flops and/or people call you with garbage. It's great!!!

[jayistheman 0]

i've been debating in my mind for a while about whether it's even worth my time and energy to educate all the posters in this forum who have no clue what they're talking about. by the way... you are one seriously coc ky mofo.

[akishore 0]

i've been debating in my mind for a while about whether it's even worth my time and energy to educate all the posters in this forum who have no clue what they're talking about. by the way... you are one seriously coc ky mofo.

it was after reading two threads in a row about how buying in for anything less than max means you shouldn't be playing poker and that you need to grow a pair and that you're not a real player, etc.and why does it come off as cocky? i have a huge amount of vested interest in keeping the intricacies of this system a semi-secret. these players with these attitudes are the reason this strategy makes so much money--you don't get any respect when you have huge hands, and you only push hard when you have huge hands.aseem

[Petoria 0]

I have always seen .25/.50 NL as a $20-$25 buy in game, if that makes me a fish so be it. It is useful though to know and practice strategy for every type of play, whether it be short stack or big stack. You need to practice these at every type of table, shorthanded, ring game, tight, loose. Poker is such a situational game that it would be impossible to be ready for every situation that presents itself, but it is worth it to play and study general strategy for as many as possible.I'm sure aseem isn't advocating that you should always buy in with a short stack, he's just trying to educate people in a specific type of situation that comes up in the course of normal play. Does anyone disagree with the theory discussed in the post?

[jayistheman 0]

i've been debating in my mind for a while about whether it's even worth my time and energy to educate all the posters in this forum who have no clue what they're talking about. by the way... you are one seriously coc ky mofo.

it was after reading two threads in a row about how buying in for anything less than max means you shouldn't be playing poker and that you need to grow a pair and that you're not a real player, etc.and why does it come off as cocky? i have a huge amount of vested interest in keeping the intricacies of this system a semi-secret. these players with these attitudes are the reason this strategy makes so much money--you don't get any respect when you have huge hands, and you only push hard when you have huge hands.aseem

i never saw those threads with all of that crap being posted in them.. that makes a bit of sense.fair enough.... you are proud of your strategy, and see it as a gift to all of us.that makes sense. just came off as a bit condescending to me at the time, but ,in this context, i get your point.

[mrdannyg 274]

i really think it all boils down to:playing Miller's shortstack strategy is probably +EV for most games. if you are a good NL player, this EV, although positive, will be lower than buying in for a full stack. So while it is +EV, it is only a higher EV than full stack if you do not have a certain skill level at NL. that skill level is debateable.i for one am not a good NL player. i rarely play NL for that reason. when i do play NL, usually to blow off some steam, i make a short buy-in and play it very tight-aggressive, usually just all-in pre-flop. so i think this shortstack strategy is good for me.however i think if you're good enough to be playing NL regularly, you should not be buying short. and if you're bad enough that buying short has higher EV than a full buy, you probably shouldn't be playing NL regularly.my two cents, but i think that sums up a lot of what's been said.daniel

[Sluggo 0]

Buying in for the minimum diminishes the magnitude of your EV (in bbs), but it's totally irrelevant.Look at ROI, not EV.Using the minimum buy-in strategy allows you to play at higher limits safely, which increases the magnitude of your EV.Which is better:$500 NLHE buying in for $500or$2000 NLHE buying in for $500?Ignoring the utility of money, your EV (in $) is equal (higher at $1000 if players don't adapt perfectly).Aseem is the third-smartest player here; think before you type.