Well, you opponents' stacks matter too. Having $140 doesn't really have any influence if your opponent has only $40 in his.
Here and
here are some articles by Ed Miller that you may find helpful:
The Biggest No-Limit Hold'em Myth
BY: ED MILLER
PUBLISHED: Wednesday Oct 24, 2007 12:00 AM
Big stacks can 'bully' the table, …
Live $1-$2 and $2-$5 no-limit hold'em cash games can, for many players, be some of the most lucrative games in the cardroom. Several years ago, I was a committed limit player (and even wrote a couple of books about it), but nowadays I'm sold on no-limit. It's great because, at least at the low levels, learning a winning strategy isn't too difficult. And furthermore, a wide array of approaches can win, as long as you play accurately and with discipline. My
Card Player columns will focus on teaching you how to beat this great game.
"What a bully!" the big blind said lightheartedly as he threw in his cards.
"That's just the way the big stack is supposed to play," mused his friend next to him.
They were talking about me. I had just stolen the blinds in a $2-$5 no-limit hold'em game. After a series of fortunate events, I had run my stack up from the maximum buy-in of $500 to around $1,300, enough to have everyone at the table comfortably covered.
The big blind and his friend had unwittingly repeated what I consider to be the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks can "bully" the table, and short stacks have to sit and take it. I hear this idea everywhere - from TV commentators, from table coaches, and even in a book or two. I once overheard someone counsel a friend not to buy into a $10-$25 game because he had only $2,000 that day to play with. (He had a lot more in his
bankroll.) "The big stacks will eat you alive. You gotta have at least five dimes to play that game. You might as well take your two dimes and burn it. If you can't buy in full, don't buy in at all. You gotta give yourself a fighting chance."
They're all wrong. Big stacks don't hold any inherent advantage over small stacks. Just because you cover everyone doesn't mean you have any special mathematical privilege to bully the table. And if you try to do so against astute opponents, you might find yourself the one busted by the end of the night.
Now, I'm talking about cash games here, not tournaments. In tournaments, the "bullying" concept has some merit, though it's hardly what some people would have you believe. In cash games, however, it's utter hogwash. A deep stack holds no inherent advantage whatsoever over shorter stacks - none.
Let's see why. Let's say you and I are playing heads-up $2-$5. We each have $3,000 in our pockets. You buy $3,000 worth of chips. I buy $300 and leave the rest in my pocket. Naturally, we're playing with the table-stakes rule, so once I've bet my entire $300 on a hand, we're all in and there's no further betting. That means that the most you can bet on any hand is $300, the same as me. Even though your stack is 10 times the size of mine, when we play a hand, all of your excess money sits harmlessly unused, just like the money in my pocket.
Strategically, it's completely irrelevant that you have a big stack and I have a small one. If you try to "bully" me by raising a lot with weak
hands, I can punish you by reraising more often with better hands. If you want to avoid steadily losing your big stack over time, you'll have to put on the brakes and play a more "normal" strategy.
"Sure," you might say, "that's obvious. If we both start with $3,000 and you buy in for $300, it doesn't matter on the first hand whether I buy in for $300 and keep the rest in my pocket or if I buy in for $3,000. Either way, we're playing for $300. But what happens over time? You're a lot more likely to bust out than I am."
That's true. If we both play equally well (which is not likely if you waste your money trying to bully me), I'm 10 times more likely to lose my $300 than you are to lose your $3,000. Fortunately, I have 10 $300 buy-ins, while you have only one $3,000 buy-in. If I rebuy for $300 every time I go broke and we play until one of us has all the money, we both have an equal shot. The fact that I've played the short stack throughout doesn't affect my chances one bit.
Indeed, if the rules would allow it, I could buy in for just the $5 big blind every time and still have totally equal chances. All you could do with your mighty stack is call my big blind and watch the boardcards helplessly.
So, what's the deal? Why does everyone talk about big stacks bullying and short stacks getting bullied? In cash games, it's primarily a psychological thing. Typically, someone gets a big stack by winning a few big hands in a row. Naturally, it can be a bit intimidating to watch one of your opponents drag a few monster pots and sit in front of a mini-Everest of chips. You start thinking that your chips might be the next addition to the mountain.
Don't think that! It's not true. Maybe your opponent is a great player, but chances are that he mostly just ran good for a few hands. You have nothing to be afraid of, and your opponent's big stack confers no advantage whatsoever. Don't buy in to the myth. If you have $200, it doesn't hurt you at all if your opponents have $2,000 or even $20,000. You're playing for $200, and when your opponents play against you, that's what they're playing for, also.
If you're the one with the big stack, you don't have a mathematical advantage, but you may have a psychological one. I've noticed that after I build a big stack in a cash game, some players start to play scared against me. Where they might have check-raised a good hand or tried a
bluff against me before, they'll play more cautiously now. You can take advantage of the timid play by - bullying. But always remember, you aren't bullying because you have a bigger stack; you're bullying because your opponents are afraid of you.
So, that's it, the biggest no-limit hold'em myth. Go ahead and buy in for whatever you desire. Those sharks with deep stacks aren't going to get the best of you. In fact, you may well be getting the best of the sharks, because while it's not true that big stacks have an inherent advantage over short stacks, the opposite sometimes is true! You actually could give yourself an edge merely by buying in short. I'll show you how it works in the next issue.
and:
The Virtues of Playing the Short Stack
BY: ED MILLER
PUBLISHED: Tuesday Nov 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Two major advantages
In the last issue, I tackled the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks can bully small stacks to gain an advantage. Not only is it not true, small stacks can actually gain an edge over big stacks! Before I tell you how, let's revisit the biggest myth.
It's very common to hear people talking about big stacks "bullying" small stacks, usually by playing loosely preflop and raising a lot. Unfortunately, in a cash game, this tactic doesn't actually offer any edge to the big stack, since the extra chips don't play. That is, if you have $100 and I have $1,000, we'll be all in after the first $100, and my remaining $900 plays no role whatsoever in the hand. I could put that extra $900 in my pocket, and it wouldn't help (or hurt) you at all.
But if you have $100 and everyone else at the table has $1,000, you actually have an advantage over your opponents. In fact, you have two major advantages.
Avoiding Mixed-Stack Play
Mixed-stack play is one of the most complex aspects of no-limit hold'em. Strategy can change dramatically due to different stack sizes. If you are playing $1-$2 blinds, with a given hand you might push all in with a $20 stack, just call with a $200 stack, and perhaps raise (but not all in) with a $1,000 stack. When your opponents in a hand have very different stack sizes (that is, you're playing against mixed stacks), your best play could be different against each of them due to their different stack sizes.
For instance, let's say that you have $500 in a $1-$2 game. A tight player under the gun goes all in for $20. A weak player with $400 calls next. You're on the button with the 2
2
. What should you do? I'd call, since I might flop a set and win a nice pot off the weak player. But if the weak player had folded instead, I'd fold, since I'd likely be either about even money (against overcards) or a big underdog (against a bigger pair), and I'd probably be taking the worst of it alone against the all-in player.
Unfortunately, even with the weak player in the pot, I'm still taking the worst of it against the all-in player. The weak player's call doesn't change the fact that I have to beat the tight player to win the $63 main pot. I'm calling despite the all-in player, because I think the chance of winning a big pot off the weak player is worth it. Because of the mixed stack sizes, I have no perfect play. If I want to win money off the deep stack, I have to cede
equity to the short stack.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the tight all-in player. Let's say that you have the Q
Q
. You just got called by not one, but two players as a big favorite. You have a great chance to triple up. And you got called by the second player
only because his stack was a lot deeper than yours. If he had had only $20, also, he would have folded. He called only because he and the weak player were much deeper than you.
Playing against mixed stacks complicates your decision-making and forces you to take compromises. Playing short allows you to face a uniform stack size (yours), and enables you to benefit when your opponents face mixed-stack situations.
Fold Equity Without Risk
Fold equity is the value you get from opponents who fold. The typical way to generate fold equity is to bet or raise. Your opponents will sometimes fold, and your chances to win the pot improve. This fold equity comes at a risk, however, since you could lose whatever amount you bet. When you're a short stack, though, sometimes you can get fold equity without having to risk anything.
Let's say that you're playing a $1-$2 game, you have a $20 stack, and you have the J
J
. Two players, each with a $500 stack, limp in to you, and you push all in. They both call. The flop comes A
9
6
. (Doesn't an ace always seem to come?) Your opponents both check. The turn is the 10
. One player bets $20, and the other folds. The river is the K
. Your opponent shows the Q
10
, and your jacks hold up.
Then, the other player starts to complain: "Why'd you have to bet? I had a king! I would have won." Because your opponent bet the turn for you, and your other opponent folded, you won a pot that you otherwise would have lost. That bet carried fold equity, not just for the bettor, but also for you. But unlike the bettor, you didn't have to risk anything to get the fold equity. It came automatically.
If everyone had started the hand with $20, you would have lost the pot. Because your opponents had extra money, however, you turned a loss into a win. That's the second advantage of having the short stack at the table; you can gain fold equity without risk.
"But," you might say, "having a short stack means I can't push anyone off a hand. Maybe I get fold equity for free sometimes, but I also can't generate fold equity when I want it because I don't have enough to bet." That's true. But it doesn't invalidate either advantage of being the short stack at the table. It's just a result of what I said at the beginning, that different stack sizes require different strategies. You have a very different set of options at your disposal with $20 in a $1-$2 game than with $200. All I'm saying is that if you're going to buy in for $20, you're generally better off if your opponents all have $200 than if they have $20. And likewise, if you're going to buy in for $200, you're generally better off if your opponents all have $2,000 than if they have $200.
The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack than everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you enjoy advantages when your opponents play much deeper stacks.
Next issue, I'll teach you how I use some of these ideas to beat real no-limit hold'em games.
