Buying in short in cash games

[JungleCat03]

I've had a discussion with a few people about this lately.

Some good players feel it is advantageous to buy in short in cash games.

Main reasons for this seem to be

You face fewer marginal decisions.

Larger stacks play worse against you.


Some cons of this approach.

You don't necessarily get full value when you have a good hand against someone outchipping you

Your betting options are limited by the size of your stack.


I can see how buying in short in omaha hi might be advantageous.


I don't play much NL cash, but i definitely feel buying in short in PL om/8 is disadvantageous as being able to recognise and get full value when you are 3/4 or scooping an opponent who will call you is v important and you miss a lot of value when you have a shorter stack.
 
Also, manipulating the pot size is very important and you have many more options available to you with a deeper stack.


These are just some scattered thoughts and  I wondered what the better cash game players' views on buying in short were.

[thetank]

Larger stacks play worse against you.

How so?

[JungleCat03]

Well I think this means they are more prepared to give you action on your big hands than when you have a meatier stack, and are often more priced in to call when you reraise them.

These comments are mainly from NL cash players. I'm paraphrasing their words as I'm not really qualified to talk about NL cash as I don't really play it!

[The Baron]

In NLHE cash games the vast majority of my winning plays are from mistakes (usually bad calls) by my opponent. Out of all these mistakes the biggest earners by far are when I "stack" somebody. That's where my figures become winning figures.

For NLHE I would always buy in with the maximum.

[thetank]

I'd have thought that playing short means they can't really play a lot of the hands they did before, as they'll have less implied odds to stack them.

Less opportunities to make +EV bets, narrower +EV in some hands they still play. Is this really offset by the occasions someone only gives you action because you're short?

I don't really know, not a cash player. It'll be interesting if some of the cash heavyweights actually think that short is best though.

[JungleCat03]

In NLHE cash games the vast majority of my winning plays are from mistakes (usually bad calls) by my opponent. Out of all these mistakes the biggest earners by far are when I "stack" somebody. That's where my figures become winning figures.

For NLHE I would always buy in with the maximum.

I said was interested in the better cash players' views baron! (jopke)

Yeah, i would agree with you there. Surely your edge is bigger as a good player when you are pretty deep in a cash game. I know Ben Grundy is an example of an excellent cash player who uses buying in short to his advantage though. I was suprised that quite a few good cash players said buying in short can be used as an effective weapon.

[The Baron]

In NLHE cash games the vast majority of my winning plays are from mistakes (usually bad calls) by my opponent. Out of all these mistakes the biggest earners by far are when I "stack" somebody. That's where my figures become winning figures.

For NLHE I would always buy in with the maximum.

I said was interested in the better cash players' views baron! (jopke)

Yeah, i would agree with you there. Surely your edge is bigger as a good player when you are pretty deep in a cash game. I know Ben Grundy is an example of an excellent cash player who uses buying in short to his advantage though. I was suprised that quite a few good cash players said buying in short can be used as an effective weapon.

Never said I was good, just lucky enough to be slightly up from time to time.

I'm sure it's a case of "to each his/her own".

[Jonboy]

To answer it properly you have to turn the problem on its head. Personally I always buy in for the maximum, and top up accordingly, but you should be looking at the difference  playing AGAINST a short stack makes.

I haven't got time to do it full justice tonight, but I will try and add something tomorrow, in short;

1.) your implied odds are shot to pieces. E.G. if they only buy in for 20BB and raise 5BB, hands such as small pairs, suited connectors etc. lose the value they have against opponents with a 'full' stack.

2.) You often can't overcharge them for draws, they frequently have so little left that pushing on the flop is a viable play with any flush draw, because even if called the amount already in the pot makes it breakeven play or better.

3.) By re-raising you are effectively commiting to an all-in if it is heads up. So effectively you are playing more of a 'tournament/STT' style against them (No offence Tank ... you are the pushbot king)

4.) Bluffing is not a great option, they have invested so much they will frequently call with anything, and you don't have the potential threat of future bets on the next street you have against deep stacks.

5.) They often benefit from 'sandwhich' plays, whereby someone raises (UTG), maybe someone calls(MID), and then they push (MID/LATE), leaving you on the button with AQs/AK (a hand you would take as +ve heads up against their range) but can't call because of the potential re-raise from the other two players.

I agree that a short stack in omaha is a no brainer, but in NLHE cash it removes a lot of difficult decisions, simplifys the game and reduces the amount of mistakes a player can make. This includes removing the skill of post flop play, ensuring they can't be outplayed further down the line. Furthermore, by frequently being all-in pre-flop they get to see all five boaed cards, so whereas a deep stack with AK may concede to JJ on a rag flop, the short stack can always spike that river ace.

Bluescouse showed in his infamous blog how he used this to good effect, buying in with minimum buyins to the highest cash games on the crypto network. He would (and has) admitted the players were far better than him, but playing this way nullified a lot of the edge these players would have against him ... to the point he racked up a £175,000 bankroll ... before the variance kicked in!? Ironically like many short stacked players, I think he played worst when he had won money and was sat on a big stack.

There is another side to this, one I am frequently guilty of myself, and that is a willingness for big stacks to gamble with a short stack because it is 'only $X'. By playing a fairly tight range, short stacks can frequently find callers when they have by far the best of it ... if they hit and run they would probably do OK, but in my experience they typically hang around until they get felted.

Regards

Jon.

[JungleCat03]

To answer it properly you have to turn the problem on its head. Personally I always buy in for the maximum, and top up accordingly, but you should be looking at the difference  playing AGAINST a short stack makes.

I haven't got time to do it full justice tonight, but I will try and add something tomorrow, in short;

1.) your implied odds are shot to pieces. E.G. if they only buy in for 20BB and raise 5BB, hands such as small pairs, suited connectors etc. lose the value they have against opponents with a 'full' stack.

2.) You often can't overcharge them for draws, they frequently have so little left that pushing on the flop is a viable play with any flush draw, because even if called the amount already in the pot makes it breakeven play or better.

3.) By re-raising you are effectively commiting to an all-in if it is heads up. So effectively you are playing more of a 'tournament/STT' style against them (No offence Tank ... you are the pushbot king)

4.) Bluffing is not a great option, they have invested so much they will frequently call with anything, and you don't have the potential threat of future bets on the next street you have against deep stacks.

5.) They often benefit from 'sandwhich' plays, whereby someone raises (UTG), maybe someone calls(MID), and then they push (MID/LATE), leaving you on the button with AQs/AK (a hand you would take as +ve heads up against their range) but can't call because of the potential re-raise from the other two players.

I agree that a short stack in omaha is a no brainer, but in NLHE cash it removes a lot of difficult decisions, simplifys the game and reduces the amount of mistakes a player can make. This includes removing the skill of post flop play, ensuring they can't be outplayed further down the line. Furthermore, by frequently being all-in pre-flop they get to see all five boaed cards, so whereas a deep stack with AK may concede to JJ on a rag flop, the short stack can always spike that river ace.

Bluescouse showed in his infamous blog how he used this to good effect, buying in with minimum buyins to the highest cash games on the crypto network. He would (and has) admitted the players were far better than him, but playing this way nullified a lot of the edge these players would have against him ... to the point he racked up a £175,000 bankroll ... before the variance kicked in!? Ironically like many short stacked players, I think he played worst when he had won money and was sat on a big stack.

There is another side to this, one I am frequently guilty of myself, and that is a willingness for big stacks to gamble with a short stack because it is 'only $X'. By playing a fairly tight range, short stacks can frequently find callers when they have by far the best of it ... if they hit and run they would probably do OK, but in my experience they typically hang around until they get felted.

Regards

Jon.

 

Would you summarise a lot of this as saying losing players/ small medium winners can benefit from operating a short stack by removing a lot of plays from the repertoire of the better players with bigger stacks?

Perhaps most crucially the play on the turn and river, where a better player could assert his edge against a similarly deep stack, is rendered far less meaningful as a shorter stack will already have committed himself either preflop or on the flop.

If so, then it seems that the best players in the game are still better off operating a big stack so when the opportunity arises to use this against similar stacks, they can, but that their edge is dulled by the presence of shorter stacks played by the weaker players in the game.

Any more thoughts from yourself jonboy or anyone else would be very interesting.