Monday October 10, 2005

big stacks

Another idea I disagree with in Mastering No-Limit Hold'em. This one is related to the buy-in size issue I've written about before. Its starts on page 56 in a section entitled "Relative Stack Sizes". It starts out talking about how in capped games one has to win money to have a big stack. It goes on to say that

In a game where you can buy in for any amount [...] you can execute a bullying strategy by buying in for more then anybody else at the table. Suppose that everybody else at the table has between $100 anbd $600 at the table and you buy-in for $2000. You can play a loose-aggressive style and make life very difficult for your opponents. Contrast that game with a new $100 fixed buy-in game. In this game stack size on the first hand is irrelevant: everyone will have $100 in front of them.

One of the authors recently sat in a $100 fixed buy-in no-limit hold'em game that ran all night. The other eight players all had stack of at least $800. [...] Needless to say, the strategy for that particular situation was quite different that for a new fixed buy-in game.

A lot of people either hear that the big stack has a advantage or read what Doyle has to say about covering the table and just assume that being deep is a big advantage without really thinking about where that advantage comes from. The first basic idea to understand is that the deepest stack is only as deep as the second deepest stack. If the table is 9 $100 stack and 1 $2000 stack then if they all went all-in the pot pushed would only be $1000 (10 times $100). So the early part of this quote seems to be in contradiction with the last sentence of the first paragraph and the situation in the second paragraph. I suspect that much of the misunderstanding in this area has to do with the advantage that the big stack have at the end of a tournament. In the tournament case the change in chip values allow the deeper stacks to bully the medium stack forcing them to make survival decisions. But that same situation doesn't exist in ring games.

But its actually worse then that. First its important to realize that its as important how others perceive your deep stack and it is to use the deep stack. Some short stacks see it as a chance to gamble with somebody who obviously has more money then sense. Others see it as a threat that they will have to leave the game early. Understanding how the various players perceive you is important to using your stack whatever its size. A downside to having a deep stack is that you have to be concerned about the other deep stacks. In a game where you can play a hand aggressively (AK preflop, top pair top kick post flop) against a short stack you might have to either play passive or fold against a deep stack. So in games where you have a deep stack with another deep stack that has position on you its possible you would not be able to bully the short stacks _as much_ as if you had a shorter stack.

As the authors say

You ignore your oppnents' stack sizes at your own peril.

I wish instead of perpetuating the myth that a big stack can just bully a table they would have pointed out the pros and cons of a deep stack. That would have helped the reader better adjust to table conditions and win more money. ( Oct 10 2005, 09:59:27 PM PDT ) Permalink Comments [0]