Shortstacking superstar

I’ve previously outlined a very basic strategy for winning money in no-limit hold ’em cash games by playing with a short stack. Since then, short-stacking has become an increasingly divisive issue in the poker world, with some players advocating a short-stacked approach, but many more shrieking about short-stacked players ruining the game. The complaints have been so common and passionate that some sites, such as PokerStars, have gone as far as introducing new tables with a higher minimum buy-in to appease the angry mob. My colleague Alex Martin even wrote a heated column for this very magazine in which he advocated the ‘eradication’ of short-stackers. What I’m about to say will upset some of you, including, perhaps, Mr Martin.

To put it simply, people who complai n about short-stacking are idiots. Idiots! They only take issue with this strategy because they are losi ng money to short-stackers and are either unwilling or unable to adjust their game to suit the conditions in which they are playing.

Very few opponents are easier to beat than a short-stacker. It only takes a few simple adjustments to expose al l the weaknesses in this style of play – the strategy only works because people don’t make those adjustments.

In this quiz I’ ll look at some hands from both perspectives, and demonstrate how to effectively defend against short-stacked play.

SCENARIO 1 – A LITTLE OR A LOT?

Q You’re about to sit down at a $1/$2no-limit hold’em table online. You notice that your opponents all have stacks of between $40 and $50. What should you do?

A) BUY IN FOR THE MINIMUM, $40
B) BUY IN FOR $60, TO COVER EVERYBODY
C) BUY IN FOR THE MAXIMUM, $200
D) LEAVE THE TABLE IN DISGUST

ANALYSIS

Short-stacked play relies on two factors in order to be effective. Firstly, that your deep-stacked opponents will tend to continue betting and raising even after you’re all-in, eliminating players from the pot and thereby increase your percentage equity in it.

Secondly, that your deep-stacked opponents will tend to enter the pot with weak hands (such as small pairs and suited connectors) that are not getting the correct implied odds to play against your short stack. Your opponents may also call your bets and raises too loosely, believing that they are ‘pot-committed’, or simply through frustration. At this table, there are no deep- stacked players, so the benefits of short-stacking go completely out the window. If you want to play a short- stacked strategy, your choice of answer should be ‘leave the table in disgust’. Your edge is not there and it would be pointless to sit down with the minimum buy-in.

At the same time, it should be obvious that there is no real benefit to being deep-stacked either. As long as you have enough money on the table to cover all of your opponents, there is no advantage to buying in for the maximum $200 rather than $60. In fact, there is a significant disadvantage, because if you buy-in for $200 and then another person joins the table and does the same, you are creating the kind of situation in which your short-stacked opponents can profit.

A The players at the table are probably weak, because a shrewd short-stack player would have left the table already. Buying in for just enough to cover everybody is the smart play, so opt for $60.

SCENARIO 2 – ALL-IN OR FOLD?

Q You’ve been sitti ng at a $1/$2no-limit hold’em table online for a couple of hours when a regular short-stacker sits down with $40. Ever ybody else at the table has at least $175 in chips. You have detailed notes on the short-stacker, and you know that he enters 10% of pots, always with a raise. When he puts in a re-raise before the flop, he has a much narrower range of hands, because he does this only 3% of the time. You are under the gun and raise to $6 holding A?-8?. It’s a loose raise, but the table has been mostly tight and you feel like you can outplay your opponents after the flop. Ever ybody folds to the short-stacker, who moves all-in for $40. The blinds also fold and it’s back on you. The pot is $49, and it’s $34 to call. What should you do?

A) FOLD
B) CALL

ANALYSIS

The pot is laying you odds of 49/34, or 1.44/1. A lot of players would see the apparently good odds and call quickly. However, against a tight short-stacker, this would be a mistake. Your opponent only re-raises before the flop with the top 3% of hands. Using an odds calculator like PokerStove, we can see that against that range of hands we are only 30.1% to win. To call profitably, we actually need at least 2.32/1 odds. We’re not getting that, so we should fold. In the box below right you’ll find a table which shows when to call a short-stack’s all-in raise based on their approximate range of hands and the pot odds you’re getting. They are rough guidelines, based on the assumptions that your action will close the betting, and that if your opponent is raising with x% of hands, his range is the top x% of hands.

A Raising before the flop was a mistake. The combination of bad position, a weak hand and a potential lack of implied odds due to the short-stack’s presence adds up to an unprofitable situation. You should have mucked this hand, and cannot call now.

SCENARIO 3 – SHOVING A SHORT-STACK

Q We’re sti l l at the same table, butthis ti me you’re the shor t-stack, with $40 i n chips. One of your deep-stacked opponents raises from under the gun to $6. Two people fold, and the action is on you. You have K?– Q?. What should you do?

A) FOLD
B) CALL
C) RAISE ALL-IN, TO $40

ANALYSIS

Of the three options presented here, calling is clearly the worst play. It allows players to enter the pot behind you, when your hand actually performs best in a heads-up pot. It’s also plain weak – calling off 15% of your stack, with a plan to fold if you miss, is not smart, aggressive play. Raising all-in is the aggressive play, but is it smart? It depends on your opponent. A typical player who is aware of position will not raise under the gun with a worse hand than King-Queen offsuit. In that case, you may simply be isolating your opponent with the worst hand! However, if your opponent is a loose raiser from this position, then the all-in move could certainly be justified.

A Unless your opponent really is a loose raiser, and you have evidence to back up that judgement, you should probably fold.

SUMMARY

The huge selection of games online has created a climate whereby people can specialise in a particular niche of poker, yet many people still play no-limit hold’em cash games with a full stack of 100 big blinds. These one-dimensional players tend to start floundering when the characteristics of their chosen game change, which is why they complain when a short- stacker upsets the balance.

Short-stacking is not unethical. It’s permitted by the rules of almost every poker game on the planet, and in the right conditions it can give you a big advantage. If it is not part of your game, you are not a complete poker player.

At the same time, to be a truly successful and skilled player, you must know how to deal with short-stacks and adjust your play to exploit the strategy’s weaknesses. Don’t become a one-dimensional whinger. If you can’t beat short-stackers, you only have yourself to blame.