Friday, October 01, 2004
Short Stack Overview (1)
Where to start ? Well, seeing as I am focussing on tournament type games (including Sit and Goes) rather than cash games, let's start with playing a short stack. Whatever the format you play, a solid short-stack strategy is required.
First, a definition. I define short-stacked as being in a position where your pre-flop raise commits you to the pot. When you are short-stacked, you are deciding to commit to a hand and you are not going to fold. In practice, if you're raising sensible amounts, this means having 15 SBs (small blinds) in your stack, or less. Throughout this discussion I am referring to big-bet Hold-em.
Many people make their stand based on one factor only : the two cards they hold. "This is the best hand I've seen for an hour" they say as they throw the chips in with KJ after a raise and a reraise. To play a short stack you must consider four variables before making your decision. Your two cards (ok that's one), your stack size, your position and the action in front of you. You could say that the latter three variables determine how strong a hand you need ; that's no different from what I'm saying, which is that you combine the four variables to come up with a Yes/No decision - fold or commit.
Which factor is most important ? Take a guess. I would say the action in front of you. It is absolutely vital to get your chips in first whenever you can. A raise in front of you changes everything. When you make the first raise, you have a chance to win the blinds unopposed, as there is a good chance that no one has anything much to call you with. When it has been raised in front of you, there is usually no chance to take the pot unopposed, as you don't have enough chips to make your opponent fold, and one person has already told you that they like their hand. There are many situations where you can commit with virtually anything as the first raiser. In a raised pot, you must have a better hand than your opponent ! If the raiser can have any of the top 20% of hands, you need something in the top 10%. The most common, and worst, short-stack mistake is to put your chips in as a caller (or a small reraiser) with a moderate hand.
First, a definition. I define short-stacked as being in a position where your pre-flop raise commits you to the pot. When you are short-stacked, you are deciding to commit to a hand and you are not going to fold. In practice, if you're raising sensible amounts, this means having 15 SBs (small blinds) in your stack, or less. Throughout this discussion I am referring to big-bet Hold-em.
Many people make their stand based on one factor only : the two cards they hold. "This is the best hand I've seen for an hour" they say as they throw the chips in with KJ after a raise and a reraise. To play a short stack you must consider four variables before making your decision. Your two cards (ok that's one), your stack size, your position and the action in front of you. You could say that the latter three variables determine how strong a hand you need ; that's no different from what I'm saying, which is that you combine the four variables to come up with a Yes/No decision - fold or commit.
Which factor is most important ? Take a guess. I would say the action in front of you. It is absolutely vital to get your chips in first whenever you can. A raise in front of you changes everything. When you make the first raise, you have a chance to win the blinds unopposed, as there is a good chance that no one has anything much to call you with. When it has been raised in front of you, there is usually no chance to take the pot unopposed, as you don't have enough chips to make your opponent fold, and one person has already told you that they like their hand. There are many situations where you can commit with virtually anything as the first raiser. In a raised pot, you must have a better hand than your opponent ! If the raiser can have any of the top 20% of hands, you need something in the top 10%. The most common, and worst, short-stack mistake is to put your chips in as a caller (or a small reraiser) with a moderate hand.
# posted by Andy_Ward @ 2:12 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Andy,
I generally find, when short-stacked, any Ace in my hand is worth committing to.
If there has been a raise before, and assuming i've pigeon-holed the player correctly, I've got to take a view with a hand that could actually be in front already.
If the bigger stacks are attacking my blinds, then the above applies more so. I don't want to be ante'd away until my best hand resembles a Doyle Brunson special.
I generally find, when short-stacked, any Ace in my hand is worth committing to.
If there has been a raise before, and assuming i've pigeon-holed the player correctly, I've got to take a view with a hand that could actually be in front already.
If the bigger stacks are attacking my blinds, then the above applies more so. I don't want to be ante'd away until my best hand resembles a Doyle Brunson special.
# posted by 
: 12:12 PM
: 12:12 PM
If you are saying that Ace-small is OK to play after a raiser sometimes, I absolutely disagree. I'll come on to this in more detail later, but the trouble with this situation is that while you may well be in front, you are either a little bit in front (A3 v QJs is only about 55% favourite) or a long way behind. Against your opponent's range of hands you can be a clear underdog. I would usually only play a small Ace as a caller in the big blind if the raise has come from the small blind.
Thanks for commenting and I hope I can make this clearer in future posts !
Andy.
Thanks for commenting and I hope I can make this clearer in future posts !
Andy.
Last night at gutshot a situation came up that I believe shows the concept you discuss in action, but I'd be interested to know.
With 1k/2k blinds I have dwindled through characteristically mediocre play to 7700, when its folded to Jon Cooke two off the button, and he moves in for 8,500. Immediately behind him I pick up A-9 suited.
I feel that if you want to examine short stack play and hand requirements you should go into exact stacks and blinds in far more detail. "15sbs=short stack" is a little slapdash.
Precisely because the stacks are so short relative to the blinds, a single chip more or less can result in a different decision. Further, simply because you are short or because they cover you, the size of your opponents stack is not rendered irrelevant.
In the case above, my decision would have been different if I'd had 2,500 more or if he'd had me covered by a greater amount.
As it was, in my opinion it was a clear call. Do you disagree?
Eegards,
Richard
Regards,
Richard
With 1k/2k blinds I have dwindled through characteristically mediocre play to 7700, when its folded to Jon Cooke two off the button, and he moves in for 8,500. Immediately behind him I pick up A-9 suited.
I feel that if you want to examine short stack play and hand requirements you should go into exact stacks and blinds in far more detail. "15sbs=short stack" is a little slapdash.
Precisely because the stacks are so short relative to the blinds, a single chip more or less can result in a different decision. Further, simply because you are short or because they cover you, the size of your opponents stack is not rendered irrelevant.
In the case above, my decision would have been different if I'd had 2,500 more or if he'd had me covered by a greater amount.
As it was, in my opinion it was a clear call. Do you disagree?
Eegards,
Richard
Regards,
Richard
# posted by : 2:27 PM
: 2:27 PM
Hi Richard (is that Richard G ?)
Don't worry, I will go into much more detail about stack sizes soon. I'm just laying down the groundwork at the moment.
Let's look at this play in isolation for a second. For you to be a favourite in this coup, you have to be favoured against the range of hands that he can have. It all depends what that range is. Suppose he raises with any Ace, any pair or any two face cards (a reasonable estimate I hope). What do you think your chances are against this range of hands ? Don't look - guess.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I hope you didn't look :-). It's 51% (I have used my own simulation program to calculate this result). I think that most people would be guessing higher than that. It's the same point as I made above - although you're quite likely to be in front, you're either a small favourite or a big dog (remember that A9 v a smaller Ace often results in a split pot). If he won't raise with A2/QJ etc., the number drops further. If he will raise with K8 etc., it goes up.
So you have around 51% chance to win : plus some equity from the blinds, but minus a little because one of the blinds can wake up with a hand. Calling here may be only slightly profitable. But will we find a better spot ? Maybe not, as with less than 8 SBs you pretty much have to make a move this round.
I would say firstly that it is not a _clear_ call at all, it's a very marginal one. I can certainly say that I would be much happier if I could have made the first raise on either of the previous two hands (button and small blind) with any Queen.
I'm going to explain this in more detail as I go but thanks very much for the comment, it's an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make.
Andy.
Don't worry, I will go into much more detail about stack sizes soon. I'm just laying down the groundwork at the moment.
Let's look at this play in isolation for a second. For you to be a favourite in this coup, you have to be favoured against the range of hands that he can have. It all depends what that range is. Suppose he raises with any Ace, any pair or any two face cards (a reasonable estimate I hope). What do you think your chances are against this range of hands ? Don't look - guess.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I hope you didn't look :-). It's 51% (I have used my own simulation program to calculate this result). I think that most people would be guessing higher than that. It's the same point as I made above - although you're quite likely to be in front, you're either a small favourite or a big dog (remember that A9 v a smaller Ace often results in a split pot). If he won't raise with A2/QJ etc., the number drops further. If he will raise with K8 etc., it goes up.
So you have around 51% chance to win : plus some equity from the blinds, but minus a little because one of the blinds can wake up with a hand. Calling here may be only slightly profitable. But will we find a better spot ? Maybe not, as with less than 8 SBs you pretty much have to make a move this round.
I would say firstly that it is not a _clear_ call at all, it's a very marginal one. I can certainly say that I would be much happier if I could have made the first raise on either of the previous two hands (button and small blind) with any Queen.
I'm going to explain this in more detail as I go but thanks very much for the comment, it's an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make.
Andy.
Andy,
Who else would not only sign "Regards, Richard", but cock the signature up, than my good self?
I cant agree with your assumptions, although they do provide a reasonable basis for discussion. I'm not prepared to say what I'd open with in Jon's situation, partially because it would be subject to the stacks and tendencies of those to act behind me and partially because of obvious reasons related to future encounters. Suffice it to say that a lot of players with Jon's stack in Jon's position would require two cards with ink on them to move in.
What I am willing to discuss - everyone hold your breath and look heavenwards - is why I did what I did in that situation, and how the examples I gave would have changed it.
As it was - Jon opens in late pos with a short stack and blinds on offer that would substantially increase his stack. I could easily have him dominated. He needs a big hand to have me dominated.
If I had 2,500 more - I can now pass a round of blinds and still be able to move in for more than the 3.5xbb that owing to the many PL comps, people psychologically consider a "full raise". I consider this pretty stupid but it is a fact of life, and who knows, seeing as I guess more people hold this opinion than think it is stupid, perhaps I'm wrong as to its validity.
If he had me covered by more - the blinds add less %wise to his stack if he acquires them without confrontation. His move in risks more chips both in a vacuum and in a risk/reward situation. He is probably one of the top ten players in the comp and though not the type to advertise the fact is nonetheless fully aware of it. He must therefore have a hand to endanger his tournament life. Though not necessarily better than or dominant over mine, the figure are nonetheless not as good as they were in the actual scenario. Therefore my short stack should live to fight another day.
I have to my knowledge written this reasonably coherently, but I am pretty wasted at the moment and so dread coming online twelve hours from now and grimacing at the garbage I've posted. Fuck, its 7am and I need to go to sleep now so I can wake up with a headache in six hours.
Regards,
Richard (G)
Post a Comment
Who else would not only sign "Regards, Richard", but cock the signature up, than my good self?
I cant agree with your assumptions, although they do provide a reasonable basis for discussion. I'm not prepared to say what I'd open with in Jon's situation, partially because it would be subject to the stacks and tendencies of those to act behind me and partially because of obvious reasons related to future encounters. Suffice it to say that a lot of players with Jon's stack in Jon's position would require two cards with ink on them to move in.
What I am willing to discuss - everyone hold your breath and look heavenwards - is why I did what I did in that situation, and how the examples I gave would have changed it.
As it was - Jon opens in late pos with a short stack and blinds on offer that would substantially increase his stack. I could easily have him dominated. He needs a big hand to have me dominated.
If I had 2,500 more - I can now pass a round of blinds and still be able to move in for more than the 3.5xbb that owing to the many PL comps, people psychologically consider a "full raise". I consider this pretty stupid but it is a fact of life, and who knows, seeing as I guess more people hold this opinion than think it is stupid, perhaps I'm wrong as to its validity.
If he had me covered by more - the blinds add less %wise to his stack if he acquires them without confrontation. His move in risks more chips both in a vacuum and in a risk/reward situation. He is probably one of the top ten players in the comp and though not the type to advertise the fact is nonetheless fully aware of it. He must therefore have a hand to endanger his tournament life. Though not necessarily better than or dominant over mine, the figure are nonetheless not as good as they were in the actual scenario. Therefore my short stack should live to fight another day.
I have to my knowledge written this reasonably coherently, but I am pretty wasted at the moment and so dread coming online twelve hours from now and grimacing at the garbage I've posted. Fuck, its 7am and I need to go to sleep now so I can wake up with a headache in six hours.
Regards,
Richard (G)
# posted by : 6:57 AM
: 6:57 AM << Home
