No-Limit Poker Pests

Short stacks

"Pests" is an apt description of how most of us no-limit hold'em cash-game devotees regard short-stack players. How else to describe someone who takes a huge amount of bread out of your mouth so that he can get a small portion in his own? How else to describe a person so lacking in poker talent that the way he wins is to compete only on a playing field that is skewed in his favor? How else to describe a hit-and-run character who suffers from the poker affliction known in Texas poker circles as "hummingbird heart"?

I have seen quite a bit in print lately singing the advantages of playing a short stack. The columns claim that a player with a short stack has an edge in a game in which most of the other players have deep money. I agree that this player has an edge, because he is able to take advantage of the fact that players with deep money often take advantage of good position to play long shots like small suited connectors. The long shot certainly does not want to be all in, having the wrong hand type, plus the advantage of good position is nullified. These hands do not even see the flop if Mr. Short Stack has a holding with which he would like to be all in. The short-stack player wins his nubbin and the deep-money players are deprived of any chance to double up. So, the claim of short-stack advantage is not bogus - as far as it goes. But let me tell you some other facts about short-stack play.

1. A short stack's advantage in a no-limit game comes from playing a strategy that is different from most of the other players in the game. (That is why I spoke of a skewed playing field.) If the game is composed mostly of other short stacks, the advantage dwindles down to being either microscopic or nonexistent.

2. Are you thinking about becoming a professional poker player someday? I do not know a single pro player who favors short-stack play. The reason is that to be a poker pro, you have to do a lot more than just show a profit. You have to make money over and above the nut of making a living. And living like a garret rat to maintain a low nut will not make you feel that you have chosen the right vocational path. The profit made by a short-stack specialist will not sustain a way of life that someone other than a masochist would enjoy.

3. Do you have any interest in playing in a private game? If so, don't think you can be a guest for very long if you habitually buy in for a little dab and hit the door as soon as you have any real money in front of you.

4. You need to be able to play a deep stack to become an accomplished poker player. The good reads and big plays come after you have had the time to acquire information about an opponent's hand, so the opportunity for utilizing skill usually occurs when a short stack would already be all in.

5. To be a successful gambler, you must be willing and able to take advantage of discipline disintegration by losers. I would like to quote from a recent Card Player column by my ring-wise friend Steve Zolotow: "As the game goes on, the winners will always have deep stacks, and very often, the losers will rebuy for as much as they can in an attempt to win a big pot from one of the winners. If you are extremely uncomfortable playing a deep stack, you are forced to quit after winning a few pots. This means you end up leaving some very good games, with steaming losers. It is much better to become comfortable playing a deep stack." Most short-stack players, having booked a small win, prefer to quit rather than risk giving it back. Plus, the only strategy they know reasonably well is short-stack strategy.

I strongly believe that most of my good teaching advice is wasted if my poker student is unwilling to play with some decent money in front of him. Consequently, when someone who favors short-stack play shows an interest in taking lessons from me, I explain that he needs to change his attitude before I will work with him. So far, I have not had anyone stubborn enough to stick to his short-stack strategy. If I do come across such an obstinate person, I am more than willing to ship him over to someone else for lessons.

The columns on playing a short stack have been pretty accurate and well-written. Furthermore, many poker players have had misconceptions on this subject, thinking the people with the big stacks have an advantage over the short stacks. Since the writings fulfill a legitimate need, I would be out of place to criticize such writing.

Perhaps I should not be quite so critical of poker players who take advantage of a favorable gambling situation. Even though I regard short stacks as a poker pestilence, I will admit to being a bit testy in this column. I just wanted you to see what a lot of real no-limit players think of having short stacks in their game.

Having said all of the above, I would like to spew my venom where it really belongs - toward the cardrooms, both live and virtual, that foster the disruption of their no-limit poker games by allowing people to buy in for ridiculously low amounts.

I prefer to buy in for a hundred times the big blind when playing in a no-limit hold'em cash game. While I admit that is not for everybody, there is no reason that any poker establishment should let people into a no-limit game for less than 40 times the big blind. You severely harm the character of play, reducing the fun and profit potential of most of the players in the game, when you allow players to enter a game by buying in for only 20 times the big blind. (You can guess what I think of places that spread a game with $5-$10 blinds and a $100 maximum buy-in. There is no way that my language would clear the censor.) These poker rooms that cater to short-stack players at the expense of the bulk of their clientele should put up big blinking neon signs that read, "We adore short stacks," so that we real poker players can take our business on down the road. Ridiculously low minimum buy-ins are bad for poker.