my articles - my blog - video - poker work - charity - downloads - links - subscribe
The Short Stack Quiz
Back in the May 2007 issue of InsidePoker, I described a very basic strategy for winning money in No Limit Hold’em cash games by playing with a short stack. Since then, short-stacking has become an increasingly divisive issue in the poker world, with some players advocating a short-stacked approach, and many more complaining about short-stacked players ruining the games.
The complaints have been so common and so passionate that some sites, such as PokerStars, went as far as introducing new tables with a higher minimum buy-in, to appease the angry mob. My colleague Alex Martin wrote a heated column for this very magazine in which he advocated the ‘eradication’ of short-stackers.
What I’m about to say will upset some of you, including perhaps Mr. Martin (maybe he will challenge me to a heads-up match for our bankrolls). People who complain about short-stacking are idiots. Idiots! The only reason people complain about short-stackers is because they are losing money to short-stackers. The reason they are losing money is that they are either unwilling or unable to adjust their game to suit the conditions in which they are playing.
Very few opponents are easier to beat than a short-stack. A person who followed the strategy I outlined in my article back in May could easily be defeated if his opponents made just a few simple adjustments. But the strategy works because most opponents don’t make those adjustments.
In this quiz I’ll look at some hands from both perspectives, and I’ll tell you how to defend against short-stacked play effectively.
Scenario 1 – A Little or A Lot?
You’re about to sit down at a $1/$2 No Limit Hold’em table online.
Question 1
You notice that your opponents all have stacks of between $40 and $50. What should you do?
- Buy in for the minimum, $40
- Buy in for $60, to cover everybody
- Buy in for the maximum, $200
- Leave the table in disgust
Answer
Short-stacked play counts on two things to be true in order to be effective. They are:
- Your deep-stacked opponents will tend to continue betting and raising even after you’re all-in, eliminating players from the pot and therefore increasing your percentage equity in it.
- Your deep-stacked opponents will tend to enter the pot with weak hands (such as small pairs and suited connectors) that are not getting the correct implied odds to play against your short stack. Your opponents may also call your bets and raises too loosely, believing that they are ‘pot committed’, or through frustration.
At the same time, it should be obvious that there is no real benefit to being deep-stacked either. Indeed, as long as you have enough money on the table to cover all of your opponents, there is no advantage to buying in for the maximum $200, compared to $60. In fact, there is a significant disadvantage, because if you buy-in for $200 and then another person joins the table and does the same, you are creating the kind of situation in which your short-stacked opponents can profit.
The players at the table are probably weak, because a shrewd short-stack player would have left the table already. Buying in for just enough to cover everybody is the smart play.
Scenario 2 – All-In or Fold?
You’ve been sitting at a $1/$2 No Limit Hold’em table online for a couple of hours when a regular short-stacker sits down with $40. Everybody else at the table has at least $175 in chips. You have detailed notes on the short-stacker, and you know that he enters 10% of pots, always with a raise. When he puts in a reraise before the flop, he has a much narrower range of hands, because he does this only 3% of the time.
Question 2.1
You are under the gun and raise to $6 holding As-8s. It’s a loose raise, but the table has been mostly tight and you feel like you can outplay your opponents after the flop. Everybody folds to the short-stacker, who moves all-in for $40. The blinds also fold and it’s back on you. The pot is $49, and it’s $34 to call. Should you...?
- Fold
- Call
Answer
The pot is laying you odds of 49:34, or 1.44:1. A lot of players would see the apparently good odds, and call quickly. However, against a tight short-stacker, this is a mistake.
Your opponent only reraises before the flop with the top 3% of hands. Using a calculator like PokerStove, we can see that against that range of hands, we are only 30.1% to win. To call profitably, we actually need at least 2.32:1 odds. We’re not getting that, so we should fold.
In the box opposite you’ll find a handy table which can tell you when to call a short-stack’s all-in raise based on their approximate range of hands and the pot odds you’re getting. They are rough guidelines, based on the assumptions that your action will close the betting, and that if your opponent is raising with x% of hands, his range is the top x% of hands. I hope they’re helpful.
Incidentally, raising before the flop was a mistake. The downsides of having bad position, a weak hand, and a potential lack of implied odds due to the short-stack’s presence all combine to equal an unprofitable situation and you should have folded.
Box Out – When to Call a Short Stack
Hands with an ‘s’ are suited, hands without are offsuit.
Opponent’s Raising Range |
Minimum Hands Needed to Call Getting: |
|||
Even Money |
1.5:1 |
2:1 |
2.5:1 |
|
1% |
KK |
KK, AKs |
QQ, AKs |
QQ, AK |
3% |
99, AKs |
88, ATs, KTs,QJs, AQ |
66, A5s, K9s, Q9s, J9s, T9s, A9, KT, QT |
44, Q4s, J7s, T7s, 97s, 87s, A3, K7, Q8, J8, T9 |
5% |
99, AJs, KQs, AK |
77, A9s, KTs, QTs, AT, KQ |
55, A2s, K5s, Q7s, J8s, T8s, 98s, A5, K9, Q9, J9, T9 |
22, 73s, 63s, 52s, 43s, J4, T5, 96, 85, 75, 65 |
7.5% |
88, ATs, KTs, QJs, AQ |
66, A5s, K9s, Q9s, J9s, A9, KT, QT |
22, J2s, T3s, 95s, 85s, 74s, 64s, 54s, K2, Q5, J7, T7, 97, 87 |
Any two cards |
10% |
88, A9s, KTs, QTs, AJ, KQ |
55, K5s, Q7s, J8s, T8s, 98s, A7, K9, Q9, JT |
22, 32s, T3, 95, 85, 75, 64, 54 |
Any two cards |
15% |
77, A7s, K9s, QTs, JTs, AT, KT, QJ |
44, K2s, Q3s, J5s, T6s, 96s, 86s, 76s, A2, K5, Q8, J8, T8, 98 |
Any two cards |
Any two cards |
Question 2.2
At the same table, but this time, you’re the short stack, with $40 in chips. One of your deep-stacked opponents raises from under the gun, to $6. Two people fold, and the action is on you. You have Ks-Qh. Should you...?
- Fold
- Call
- Raise all-in, to $40
Answer
Of the three options presented here, calling is clearly the worst play. It allows players to enter the pot behind you, when your hand actually performs best in a heads-up pot. It’s also plain weak – calling off 15% of your stack planning to fold if you miss is not smart, aggressive play.
Raising all-in is the aggressive play, but is it smart? It depends on your opponent. A typical player who is aware of position will not raise under the gun with a worse hand than KQ offsuit. In that case, you may simply be isolating on your opponent with the worst hand! However, if your opponent is a loose raiser from this position, then the all-in move could certainly be justified.
Unless your opponent really is a loose raiser, and you have evidence to back up that judgement, you should probably fold.
Summary
The huge selection of games on the internet has created a climate where people can specialise in a particular niche of poker. For some, it’s turbo SNGs; for others, it’s heads up Pot Limit Omaha – and for many, it is No Limit Hold’em cash games, playing with a full stack of 100 big blinds. These one-dimensional players might not stand a chance if the characteristics of their chosen game were to change, which is why they complain when a short-stacker upsets the balance of their table.
Short-stacking is not unethical. It’s permitted by the rules of almost every poker game on the planet, and in the right conditions it can give you a big advantage. If it is not part of your game, then you are not a complete poker player.
At the same time, to be a truly successful and skilled player, you must know how to deal with short-stacks and adjust your play to exploit the style’s weaknesses.
Don’t become a one-dimensional whinger. If you can’t beat short-stackers, then the only person you have to blame is yourself.
