Intentionally coming "short stacked" to a No-limit game??

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but here goes.

CONSIDER A SIT-N-GO NO-LIMIT Texas Holdem game..........

Do the followong benefits(?) make coming to this type of poker game advantageous?

1) When you go all-in on a good enough hand, people are more likely to call you. Often it is assumed (correctly so) that when a short-stacked player goes all-in, he
Is less likely to have a premium hand compared to if he had a bigger stack. Also since your all-in bet is less likely to hurt your opponents in the event that they lose, this
will also encourage them to call you.

2) After you go all-in on a short stack, you are no longer required to call other opponents raises. Compare this to if you had a bigger stack, but bet the same amount
as you would going all-in on a smaller stack; your opponent might raise you and you'll be forced to bet even more money than your otherwise comfortable with.

For me, 1) seems like an obvious benefit. There are drawbacks since when you don't have a hand that justifies going all-in, your opponent might force you to do just that if
each time you decide to play a hand.

Quote: Jamix

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but here goes.

CONSIDER A SIT-N-GO NO-LIMIT Texas Holdem game..........

Do the followong benefits(?) make coming to this type of poker game advantageous?

1) When you go all-in on a good enough hand, people are more likely to call you. Often it is assumed (correctly so) that when a short-stacked player goes all-in, he
Is less likely to have a premium hand compared to if he had a bigger stack. Also since your all-in bet is less likely to hurt your opponents in the event that they lose, this
will also encourage them to call you.

2) After you go all-in on a short stack, you are no longer required to call other opponents raises. Compare this to if you had a bigger stack, but bet the same amount
as you would going all-in on a smaller stack; your opponent might raise you and you'll be forced to bet even more money than your otherwise comfortable with.

For me, 1) seems like an obvious benefit. There are drawbacks since when you don't have a hand that justifies going all-in, your opponent might force you to do just that if
each time you decide to play a hand.

I think Mike Caro covers this, I believe you have best Value with the least amount of money on the table. I did say best Value not best hourly. then again i didn't read everything you said.

Quote: Jamix

CONSIDER A SIT-N-GO NO-LIMIT Texas Holdem game..........

Not sure about tournaments, but in a ring game you are best situated when you are the shortest stack.

For your opponents, all-different stack sizes yields a more complicated "perfect strategy" (whatever that might be), while from your point of view all opponents have the same stack size.

Then who is going to make more mistakes (with respect to "perfect" strategy?) You or your opponents ?

I think you hit on the biggest drawback of the short stack, and that is you only have a few, or one, move(s) available to you. Some considerations:
-- A premium hand may not come your way. You have a very limited ability to bluff.
-- You may be out of position when a middle hand does come your way. E.g., you are under the gun with a small pair. Do you ship it?
-- By definition, you will not be able to knock any other player out.
-- You will need to win every single race, including side pots, until you are able to put someone else in the box.

I think in the long run, it is better to be the big stack... "but that's me, I'm an aggressive gambler, Mr. Vegas..."

In a cash game, I allways buy in at the maximum amount. What if 1st hand you flop trips, it would suck if you had a small stack, small profit. With a large stack and you flop a killer hand, just means a huge profit if you play your cards correctly and suck in a sucker. Small buy in means small loss but also small win. I'm a real tight player so even though I buy in max amount, since I'm tight, chances are I wont lose a huge amount but can win a huge amount.
In fact if I get in a low stakes cash game with 100 max buy in and through the course of play down 50, will again buy 50 in chips from dealer to bring my stack back up to 100 just in case I get that killer flop to make a big profit.

Quote: terapined

In a cash game, I allways buy in at the maximum amount. What if 1st hand you flop trips

this is what happens... to me the other night, had $1200 in front of me, Flopped a set of kings, with a good raise pre flop, goaded the guy into calling me all in after a check raise. He had me covered, He went runner runner flush

I hope you congratulated him on his excellent play. These are the types of players you want to have big stacks.

Quote: AxelWolf

I think Mike Caro covers this, I believe you have best Value with the least amount of money on the table. I did say best Value not best hourly. then again i didn't read everything you said.

lol

Quote: Jamix

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but here goes.

CONSIDER A SIT-N-GO NO-LIMIT Texas Holdem game..........

Do the followong benefits(?) make coming to this type of poker game advantageous?

How do you "come to" an SnG with a particular size stack? The simple answer is that if you're paying the entry fee, but allowed to choose a stack size, you want more chips.

If you are allowed to buy any # of chips, at the beginning, with a 1:1, $Equity:chipEquity mapping, I would say you should should probably buy the smallest stack that gives you fold equity since chips higher on the stack are worth less, and you're buying them at 1:1.

If the game starts near the bubble and everyone knows this strategy, it's possible you would want to buy a big stack, if you're playing against good players, since you gain disproportionate fold equity because it becomes mathematically incorrect for short stacks to call in many situations. I haven't worked out the math and I'm not guaranteeing this is the case, but it's worth considering.

Finally, if you're buying in using ICM, but there are no other tourney's available, I'd buy a lot of chips since I'd want to make as many decisions against my opponents as possible. All of this assumes you have an advantage over the field.

In a cash game, you can often gain an advantage playing a short stack since you're essentially playing a different game, as MangoJ said. I'd be most likely to do this against better players, since I'd just want lots of chips against very bad players. There's also the drag from the rake which is a bit worse while you're only winning small pots.

Obviously if you have the option you would want as many chips as possible. So let's talk about the benefits of being on a short stack:

Your chips are more valuable than those of players with more chips. We can debate the flaws of ICM, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how many chips you get you can only be paid for a single finish position(You can't win more than 1st place money). There is an advantage to being able to apply pressure to shorter stacks(particularly on bubbles), but under most pay out structures and most combinations of stack sizes that advantage is much weaker than ICM.

Also, in a lot of tournaments your edge might actually be larger at a smaller stack size as opposed to a larger stack size because of how your opponents play. Often bad players are very very bad at 10-15 BBs and not as bad with ~40-50 BBs. There are also what are usually referred to as inflection points. An example would be the point at which you gain fold equity(this varies based on your opponents). The stack size just over x(x being the mimimum stack size to have fold equity) is much more valuable than the stack size just under X. There are other inflection points for example the stack size at which you can reshove over an open.

Most small blind no limit games have a 100 big blind max buy in. I don't like this. You can get yourself into some real tough spots with around 100 big blinds on the table. If I can't put at least 200 big blinds on the table then I'm only gonna put about 40. There's a reason for it.

Example: You put 100 big blinds on the table in a 2-5 no limit game. You post in the cutoff then muck the hand to a raise. $495 left in your stack. Next hand you pick up a big pair. You open raise to $20. Only the big blind calls.

The pot is $42 and you have $475 left in your stack.
You have an overpair on the flop. The big blind checks. You bet the size of the pot, $42. The big blind calls. The pot is $126. You have $433 left in your stack.
On the turn the big blind checks. With your big pair you bet the size of the pot, $126. The big blind calls. The pot is $378. You have $307 left in your stack.
On the river the big blind comes out betting $307, exactly what is left in your stack.

There you are with your big pair. What do you do now? You have to make a tough decision. All you can do is call or fold. You're opponent isn't worried. He knows he can't be re-raised. If you had 200 big blinds on the table at the start of the hand your opponent would have to fear a re-raise before making that river bet. You don't have that information working for you. With just 99 big blinds on the table at the start of the hand, you had no protection on the end.

Now, same spot with 40 big blinds:

You post in the cutoff then fold to a raise. $195 left in your stack.
Next hand you open raise with a big pair to $20. The big blind calls. The pot is $42. You have $175 left in your stack.
You have an overpair on the flop. The big blind checks. You bet the size of the pot, $42. The big blind calls. The pot is $126. You have $133 left in your stack.
On the turn the big blind checks. With your overpair you move all in for $133 into a $126 pot.

There you have it. No tough decisions to make. Now, all your opponent can do is call or fold.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Most small blind no limit games have a 100 big blind max buy in. I don't like this. You can get yourself into some real tough spots with around 100 big blinds on the table. If I can't put at least 200 big blinds on the table then I'm only gonna put about 40. There's a reason for it.

Example: You put 100 big blinds on the table in a 2-5 no limit game. You post in the cutoff then muck the hand to a raise. $495 left in your stack. Next hand you pick up a big pair. You open raise to $20. Only the big blind calls.

The pot is $42 and you have $475 left in your stack.
You have an overpair on the flop. The big blind checks. You bet the size of the pot, $42. The big blind calls. The pot is $126. You have $433 left in your stack.
On the turn the big blind checks. With your big pair you bet the size of the pot, $126. The big blind calls. The pot is $378. You have $307 left in your stack.
On the river the big blind comes out betting $307, exactly what is left in your stack.

There you are with your big pair. What do you do now? You have to make a tough decision. All you can do is call or fold. You're opponent isn't worried. He knows he can't be re-raised. If you had 200 big blinds on the table at the start of the hand your opponent would have to fear a re-raise before making that river bet. You don't have that information working for you. With just 99 big blinds on the table at the start of the hand, you had no protection on the end.

Now, same spot with 40 big blinds:

You post in the cutoff then fold to a raise. $195 left in your stack.
Next hand you open raise with a big pair to $20. The big blind calls. The pot is $42. You have $175 left in your stack.
You have an overpair on the flop. The big blind checks. You bet the size of the pot, $42. The big blind calls. The pot is $126. You have $133 left in your stack.
On the turn the big blind checks. With your overpair you move all in for $133 into a $126 pot.

There you have it. No tough decisions to make. Now, all your opponent can do is call or fold.

Why not bet multiples of the pot on earlier streets to encourage the big blind to fold?

There are some players who have mastered 40BB cash game strategy, but for the vast, vast majority of winning players playing with a larger stack is the most beneficial. I've only seen one player who regularly buys in short, has a huge sample size and a very high winrate. The advantage for him is far lower variance, but the guy is a specialist.

Of course you have to play very different at 100BB vs 40 or 200, and TBH, I far prefer 200BB play if it's within my bankroll limits.