Advantages of sitting "short stacked" in a game

[Zybomb]

short stacked is in quotations in this case for a reason.

Now it has already been discussed the differences in play when sitting short stacked (without parenthesis here). Your decisions are easier for the most part, as much of your action is preflop and then on the flop. If you do reach the turn, you're often all in or committed to be all in.

In this instance Im going to talk about games that allow a max buy in of more than the standard 100 BB's, hence the quotations. For example the 5/5 NL game I regularly play at allows a max buy in of $1000. There has only been a select few times that I have bought in for that max, each time when there was an unusually large amount of $$ on the table.

Generally I'll buy in between 500-750 for the most part, depending on the average stack usually. Naturally if everyone at the table is over 1k in chips, Im buying in for the full amount (and wondering how I got sat with all these sharks )

By doing this, it does something I like, and that is helps me to avoid big pots. Sure as Im accumulating chips, my total may soar to 1k and 2k and eliminate this... but for the time being I like it.

Let's say I have KK for example and an opponent before me makes a raise to $40 (which is fairly standard for this game, the raises average $30-$40 typically). I reraise to $140 (typical reraise a little over 3x the bet) and this opponent calls.

The flop comes Q 8 5 with two spades let's say, my opponent checks, and I fire out $200.

With 500 or 600 in my stack, my options are simple. I've put in $340. For another 160 or 260 Im not folding an overpair if my opponent raises. With 1k in front of me, I still have 660 left in my stack, and folding becomes an obvious option now.

Of course this could be a good thing (assuming that it will at least GIVE you the option of folding if you're beat here), yet at the same time, a player who knows your are capable of making a laydown, may play back at you with a weaker hand, knowing you'll chose to pass on your overpair, since *obviously* he has a good idea of what you have and wouldn't raise unless he could beat it. (or simply be overvaluing a hand like AQ and raising for value )

From a strictly EV stance, assume your kings will hold up roughly 4 out of 5 times (I realize its less when you take Ax hands into account, so maybe AA is a better example).

With $500

Preflop: Raise of $40, reraise to $140.

Flop: $200 bet. $160 left. Not folding to a raise, and opponent knows this.

Win $140 4 times ($560)

Lose $500 1 time ($500)

Net: $ +60

With $700

Preflop: Raise of $40 reraise to $140

Flop: $200 bet. $360 left. Likely not folding to a raise, but it is an option at least at this point

Win $140 4 times ($560)

Lose $ 340 1 time (if you fold) or $750 (1 time if you call)

Net: $ +220 or $-190... the latter being more likely

With $1000

Preflop: Raise of $40 reraise to $140

Flop: $200 bet. $660 left.

This scenario gives you a real opportunity to fold to a raise here, thus Im going to give 2 seperate scenarios

Scenario #1: Assuming you CALL a raise

Win $140 4 times ($560)

Lose $1000 1 time ($1000)

Net: -$440

Scenario #2: Assuming you FOLD to a raise

Win $140 3 times ($420)

Lose $340 2 times ($680)

Net: -$260

Im changing this to 3 wins and 2 losses, because if you will fold to a raise and your opponent puts you on being able to make a laydown in this spot, Im going to assume one other time out of the 4 that you come out ahead, you will be pushed off your hand by a weaker hand.

Naturally only 1 out of 8 times will your opponent be ahead on the flop, but its hard to factor in the times when he outdraws you, so Im just leaving it as 1 in 5 (the chances after all 5 cards), so while this is skewed a bit because of this discrepency, it's an example.

Comments?

[Aequitas58]

Although I like your logic, I think it is flawed. Sitting with less than the max buy-in based on your representations above makes me wonder a two questions, right off the bat:

1. OTHER HANDS. You may have easier decisions when it comes to Aces or Kings, but what happens when you get in cheap with a small pocket pair, and you hit a set against Lagtard with either a strong flush draw or a two pair-made hand? From an implied odds perspective, you may be missing some bets when you should be stacking people and raking gi-gan-tor pots.

2. MULTIWAY ACTION. Your examples above deal with HU action. With other players in the hand, the calculations become more complex, but there are other ways to win the hand... Isolation plays, Squeeze plays, etc... but these are more difficult b/c of your shorter stack.

Another way to think about it:

If short(er) stack play was as good as you suggest, pros would do it.
Pros don't do it, or advocate it.
Your logic isn't as good as you suggest.

[Zybomb]

Two quick bold comments

[Talking Poker]

Fuzzy math here.

Quick reply: I'm with Aeq.

[Aequitas58]

My first example doesn't assume that we stack a player when we hit our set, it merely suggests a situation with somewhat of a likely probability with two sickishly deep stacks.