all ins with deep stack vs short stack

with some marginal hands like pocket Q's or J's, most poker player will go all ins with a short stack but not with a deep stack.

but as a gambler, this is irrational. bet size should be irrelevant. you bet if you think you have an advantage. you don't bet if you think the odds are against you.

any reason why poker players do that?

Quote: andysif

with some marginal hands like pocket Q's or J's, most poker player will go all ins with a short stack but not with a deep stack.

but as a gambler, this is irrational. bet size should be irrelevant. you bet if you think you have an advantage. you don't bet if you think the odds are against you.

any reason why poker players do that?

With all due respect, I believe that the question is too general. I don't know if this is just a general observation on your part, or maybe you could offer some specifics as to player position, how much money is already in the pot, what the blinds are, ratio of the player's short stack vs. the blind...anything like that?

The thing that you have to keep in mind is that QQ is only about 22% against nine opponents, so if you're the first to act, you might not want to throw everything in immediately with a large stack, especially if you have the largest stack on the table because your expected value...expressed as a percentage of your stack...could actually be worse than a guy who calls you with an inferior hand.

If you're the big stack and go all-in, then anyone who calls you is going to be playing for 200% of their stack, minimum. Alternatively, you may end up faced off with a player who only has 25% of your stack, so you're going all-in early and putting 25% of your stack at risk for a payoff that may not exceed 25% of your stack.

Furthermore, the big stack might want to get a better payoff out of his hand than having one guy call while the rest of the table folds. In my opinion, this can be encouraged by making a Small-Moderate raise and seeing if it gets re-raised prior to going to the flop. You could very well put in only 5% of your starting stack with the potential of seeing a flop where the pot is more than 25% of your stack, which is what you would have gotten if only one person with 25% of your stack called.

The other problem is that, at a big table, a higher proportion of rounds are resolved by way of a Flush or a Straight, so some players like to see a Rainbow-Spread Flop before they go putting all of their money in on an inside pair. That's usually my reasoning for not pushing all-in if I am playing NL with the biggest stack at the table and an inside pair. I'm a somewhat conservative player though, usually, so that may be coloring my opinion there.

I would say that the smaller stack (in addition to having less money to lose) would also be just as happy to scare everyone else at the table off of his pair and collect the antes and blinds, but if he gets a call, then all the better. He's also betting 100% of his stack, but he's also likely to double-up, minimum, unless the only call is an even shorter stack.

Thus, you have one guy with a hand that is far from made who will likely only increase his stack by a fraction compared to a guy who will likely double his stack or better.

From the standpoint of the other players, calling the Big Stack's All-In exposes all of their chips, pre-flop, to the Big Stacks hand, making them more hesitant to call. If they lose, it's over. Therefore, it is quite possible that the Big Stack is playing to maximize his value by actually getting more money in the pot by NOT going all-in.

In the event of a Raise prior to the decision to either go all-in or not, I have no idea why either player would refrain from going all-in, unless it was bubble-time during a tournament...

of course my statement is just a very loose generalization on my observation.

not specifically limited to pocket Q's, what i am trying to say is stack size seems to have a more significant role in deciding whether to go all in in any given situation than what logic would have dictated. everything else the same, if you have a large stack, you are more reluctant to go all in than when you have a short stack.

Its actually a point well made accounting for the bias involved in doubling-up. Player A short-stacked goes all-in on FishHooks. Anyone else at the table risks Player A doubling-up. You wanna play 85-off, be my guest, the classic Big Slick vs. JJ... OK. Suited Royals, sure. The last two have a chance at the high pair. 85-off needs a set or 2-Pair. Player A figures only the better hands will play., giving "fair chance" at win/lose.

Now Player B is deep stacked and holds QQ... what are the chances Player B doubles up on an all-in. Might be a shark tank looking to wipe-out thr leader, might be donks with suited-connectors, or maybe its good enogh not to draw action at all (except for Rockets, Cowboys, and Big Slick)

Quote: andysif

with some marginal hands like pocket Q's or J's, most poker player will go all ins with a short stack but not with a deep stack.
but as a gambler, this is irrational. bet size should be irrelevant. you bet if you think you have an advantage. you don't bet if you think the odds are against you.

Of course. It's because QQ or JJ has the advantage for a short stack, but not for a long stack.

Going all-in has two possible outcomes: 1) Fold around, 2) Showdown.
With fold around, you are 100% to win let's say 1 unit that's in the pot now, at the risk of B units.
With showdown, you are p[n]% to win 1+B units against the hand that stays.
Where B is your bet as a multiple of the pot.

If you're short-stacked with B=1, it's rational to call you for anyone who has a mere 33.3% chance of winning the pot.
And not only is AK unsuited 42% to win vs QQ, but even KQs is 35%, AQs is 33%. A few can speculate. That's quite a few hands that you have an advantage against - but it's still worthwhile to call for them because of the current pot. Whether the hands go to showdown or not, you've got an edge.

If you're medium-stacked with B=6, one would have to call 6 units to win 7. That requires odds of 46.15%.
The only hand that you have beat and that could still call is AKs, at 46.2% barely ahead. The other hands - QQ, KK, AA - all tie with you or dominate you.
So, roughly, you have 4 slight winners (54%), one tie, and 12 massive losers (18%). Overall that gives you a mere 30% chance to win at showdown, assuming that other players behave rationally. This gives you a 65% return on your money, making a showdown have EV of -2.1 pots. Since each fold has a value of +1 pot, you need to have a 70% fold-around ratio to win, because now showdowns are bad for you. You can still realistically get it however.

If you're long-stacked with B=20, the only hands to call are KK, AA and not likely even QQ. With an 18% chance to win, a showdown returns you -12.25 pots. Only a fold-around ratio of more than 93% will save you. A player gets dealt AA or KK ~1% of the time, so on a 10-seat table, the chance that someone else gets one of these is 9% each hand.
Note how KK doesn't have this problem, it can be shoved even in deep-stack play. But if your hand was only a mere JJ, things go even worse, as now QQ beats you too.

Quote: andysif

with some marginal hands like pocket Q's or J's, most poker player will go all ins with a short stack but not with a deep stack.

but as a gambler, this is irrational. bet size should be irrelevant. you bet if you think you have an advantage. you don't bet if you think the odds are against you.

any reason why poker players do that?

You're very wrong. When you're gambling with a robot, or a dealer who might as well be a robot, you have the advantage when you have the advantage. Gambling against humans with free will, what you bet changes the advantage. In a cash game, going all in when short stacked is a time saver, since you would have had to go all in on the flop anyway, even an unfavorable one, if you had basically any chance of winning, and everyone who could have possibly beat you then would have had to call - and it projects a bit of extra confidence. In a tournament, when short stacked, winning with a bet significantly less than all in will just leave you still short-stacked, although there it's so well understood that you would prefer folds to calls that limping while short-stacked is often seen as the sign of a strong hand. However, what's said about having to go all in anyway, and others having to call, still holds.

Going all in when deep stacked, on the other hand, will prompt folds by people you could have gotten a lot of money from, and calls from people willing to risk it, whose hands will likely cost you dearly. In a tournament, those calls mean throwing your life away. Basically, it all makes perfect sense when you remember you're not playing a table game.

As a short stack, you can do the calculations pre-flop. If I raise before the flop, do I have enough money to bet on the flop, turn and river without going all-in? If the answer is no, they you commit to two cards and let the Poker Gods decide your fate. If the answer is yes, then you tend to just play the hand.

" any reason why poker players do that? "

Gee, let me try. I am not in Stephen or Switch's class in any way. But a short stack might decide to call just because he has a short stack and antes and blinds are eating him alive.


When will the big stack call ? When he has a hand good enough to knock you out of the tournament. DUH !!

Quote: 24Bingo

In a cash game, going all in when short stacked is a time saver, since you would have had to go all in on the flop anyway, even an unfavorable one, if you had basically any chance of winning, and everyone who could have possibly beat you then would have had to call - and it projects a bit of extra confidence.

Not really a psychological tool. If you don't go all-in pre-flop, you let people see cheap or free flops. A good flop can upgrade 72-off to a full house. Then people with that 72o will call your bet, instead of folding preflop.

On the other hand, when short-stacked in a cash game (and sometimes in a tourney) many hands that are normally raising hands now become checking and calling hands. At a certain stack size, your odds change so much that you no longer need a fold and even beacons of mediocrity like 99 are now worth trapping with.

In short, there are two kinds of all-ins: weaker aggressive all-in and stronger passive-aggressive all-in. The former tries to win just the pot, the latter several of your stacks.


A classic delayed aggression all-in that I like to employ is forcing your opponent into pot-committment with a quarter-stack bet. It's used when you feel that your opponent has a strong hand, but you have a stronger hand. Let's say you bet 2,000 into a pot of [it doesn't matter, anywhere in the 1k-6k range] with opponent's remaining stack of 8,000.

Now your opponent is in a very unfavorable situation.
He can fold, so you only do it when you don't think he will fold easily.
He can call, but then he inflates the pot and allows for more aggression down the line, so he'll only do it with a monster.
If he isn't confident in his hand, he has to raise, and the smallest raise is 4,000. Then he only has half his stack remaining, which pot-commits him. Should you reraise, the pot is now 3 times his stack, so he'll just need 25% to win to call.

The only reasonable move he has now is an all-in - an all-in that he didn't want to make, given the limited strength of his hand.
His other move is a fold, which he also didn't want to make, and which he wouldn't make to a bet of 2,000, if only it wasn't sized according to his stack.
Every move you force upon your sole opponent that he doesn't want to make costs him money and earns you money, statistically.*

This time you get the effect of a value all-in with a fraction of the chips it costs to make one. If you just went all-in, he would comfortably fold. If he merely calls, you can suspect that he has a monster hand and get out.
A reasonably strong opponent will almost always read your intention to put him all-in, but there just isn't anything he can do about it, except respond to it as an all-in and not fall for it with overly weak hands.


*Only applies to a sole opponent. When you have an all-in player in the pot already, any further moves between non-all-in players cost the lot of them money in favor of the all-in. There's an unspoken convention to just check around in these cases so as not to lose money to the all-in.

Nice to see a reply that actually takes in the thought process, not just would you ever fold this hand, etc. Amazed at people criticizing a player for folding quad 8's and swearing it is always a mistake. Quads 8's was second nut with that board. If you can not fold second nut occasionally, you are not a world class poker player and barely rise to the level of a 'good" poker player.

Quote: P90

Not really a psychological tool. If you don't go all-in pre-flop, you let people see cheap or free flops. A good flop can upgrade 72-off to a full house. Then people with that 72o will call your bet, instead of folding preflop.

I'm assuming here that the choice is between going all in and (placing or calling) a raise, not going all in and limping/checking.