What's so special about big stacks?

I've always heard that big stacks can loosen up and play more aggressively, but never understood why. What is so special about big stacks? Why are players slightly more fearful of the bigger stacks? Sure, big stacks can raise other players all in, but I don't see them do that very often.

Is there a mathematical explanation as to why the big stacks have greater likelihood of growing than the smaller stacks?

Big stacks can loosen up and play more aggressively against the short stacks because

a) if the short stacks are playing tight and they're in push/fold mode, big stack can put a lot of pressure on them to make a big decision for the tournament.

b) there is no fear of busting if you do run into a hand against the short stack. this is because of your stack size and be, you still have a lot of equity against short stack shove ranges if you call if you're call range is very wide.

Players are slightly more fearful because just because there is the threat of busting out of a tournament when playing against them. Even with premium hands like AKs, QQ+. Now, I don't think you should fear getting your money in with these hands, but there's always the chance big stack will hit and bust you. Again, large stacks don't worry about that.

Large stacks don't necessarily have to raise you all in to apply pressure. They can make standard 3x bets against a player on a 10BB stack and that's enough. Flatting is costing 30% of the stack, min raising commits you to the pot and you're calling any shove, and if you shove the big stack could easily call you. So, you're in a bit of a predicament of what to do unless you have a strong hand. This is even more true if you're near a the money bubble and you're a player who wants to at least cash in, now you're even more likely to fold a ton of your hands just to secure a money spot.

I don't think there is a mathematical explanation of big stacks having a greater likelihood of growing than small stacks. Big stacks can call a preflop raises with larger range of hands to try and hit flops hard. For example, lets say MP with 35BBs raised it 3x BB with A10o, it's folded to the BTN with 100BBs who calls with Q6s to try and hit a good flop. They can do this because it's not costing them a large percent of their stack and if they miss they can fold and if they hit, they're getting paid off. Or even if they do miss, they can apply pressure and steal the pot. Short stacks can't do this because a call with weak hands like Q6s is costing too much of their stack to call and try to hit a flop. So, big stacks can take more risk with mediocre hands to try and build big pots while short stacks can't.

Is there a mathematical explanation as to why the big stacks have greater likelihood of growing than the smaller stacks?

Click to expand...

I think the big stacks can repeatedly take smaller edges without busting, so each hand dealt is effectively worth more than the same dealt to short stacks that have to be tighter.

There is also the risk of ruin effect. If both short stacks and big stacks can occasionally take 60% edges, the big stack is more likely to stick around and continue taking +EV edges. So while both players have the same EV over the same time interval, the big stack is more likely to be able to play for longer.

it's simple, to play loose is a bit risky but you have the adventage of being unpredictable entering at flop, the logic tells that playing loose at least you should win one of 10 hands the big difference against a tight player is you could take easily big pots.
imagine a tight player that raise 3x whit AK against a big stack that pays whit 68 if flop shows something like A Q 10 tight player then tight player raises a big stack fold. but the same hands but the flop shows 6 8 K tight player will raise and then big stack could easyli raise or make him shove. you could tell me that is luck but this happens often than you can expect.

Yes, much of what is written is true for the big stacks. But the thing is, when I have a big stack I'm less likely to get on the final table (. On the contrary, when I'm in the beginning of the tournament to sink much and I have 4-5 BB I suddenly begin to grow and win the tournament, well, or at the final table. Maybe I am one unique? who write these results

The big stacks can pressure the small stacks an for example with garbage they can win a lot of chips by simple bet, c bet, or 3 bet light, they can win chips pofitable win marinal hands

You can bully anyone else on the table but still be careful because some other players will just wait for you.

You can see the flop more often even with marginal hands.

In a MTT id much rather have an average stack than a big stack , In most of the MTT i play around the halfway mark you see the "bigstacks" playing more aggressive against the short stacks , And there not the big stacks for long As the become over confidant !! I always like to ambush my opponents in a MTT ,

You can afford coin flips. Very powerful advantage around bubbles.

Vadim Kudimov said:

Yes, much of what is written is true for the big stacks. But the thing is, when I have a big stack I'm less likely to get on the final table (. On the contrary, when I'm in the beginning of the tournament to sink much and I have 4-5 BB I suddenly begin to grow and win the tournament, well, or at the final table. Maybe I am one unique? who write these results

Click to expand...

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Because the big stack has room for maneuvering like bluffs while shorts has none.

The big stack can use his chips at pressuring his opponents thru bets.

A large stack this reliable friend.

Its true. The big stacks can bully a bit, even get a good player off his hand.

Wickedestjr said:

I've always heard that big stacks can loosen up and play more aggressively, but never understood why. What is so special about big stacks? Why are players slightly more fearful of the bigger stacks? Sure, big stacks can raise other players all in, but I don't see them do that very often.

Is there a mathematical explanation as to why the big stacks have greater likelihood of growing than the smaller stacks?

Click to expand...

Depends if your question is specifically about tournaments pr cash games. In cash games, playing with deep stacks, 200bb+ reverse implied odds start to matter a lot, while you play against a similar stack size. In tournaments its because you have less chances of busting than shorter stacks

Joe McKeehen played impressive big stack poker at this year's wsop.

If youre a chip leader on the table you can dictate the game cuz especcially on bubble other players wont risk all their chips and you can steal many blinds cuz no one will call and risk their stack if they dnt have very good hand

There's two problems with smaller stacks.

1) You can't afford to loose any chips since it hastens the clock. Once you get to about 13 BB you're feeling the pressure, so you kind of have to pick a hand and shove it.

2) Even if you have 20-30 BB, if someone else has 60+ BB they can bust you, but you can't decimate them.

Big stacks are really effective towards the smaller stacks, because you can bet into them for 2-3x BB and that's a large portion of their stack. Often they'll be looking at something like 10 8 off and trying to decide if they want to play it all. If you steal 2-3 x of their blinds, then when they get a nice hand, well they just get back to where they started, but blinds are probably higher.

Don't drink the cool aid, size does matter 1

massagegirl said:

Don't drink the cool aid, size does matter 1

Click to expand...

as soon as I get home [on mobile], this is becoming my new signature.