[quote:79a260dc48="thejim"]Title: Is it ok to buy in short?
A couple of years ago, one of the most heated threads here was about buying in short when playing cash NLHE. At the time, most of the heat was due not to the topic, but the firm stances people took. Specifically, a couple people had a problem with one poster insisting that it was NEVER right to buy in short. They didn’t think that he could accurately assert that with such certainty. I agreed at the time that you should always buy in for the maximum. Heck, I had read a bunch of books. I had played innumerable hours. I knew he was right. But, something about the counterpoint felt right, too. Obviously, saying ‘always’ or ‘never’ is often an exaggeration, but especially so when talking about poker. So, since that thread died down, I have often thought about the topic, and perked up when others were discussing it.
The first time I remember thinking that a shortstack strategy could be a good one was when Rolf Slotboom presented it in his PLO book. He was a player I knew about through his columns in Cardplayer. I had corresponded with him a little through r.g.p. I respected his analysis and assertions. Playing shortstacked ran contrary to tradition, especially in the games he played in. But, it was profitable, and his reasoning made sense. It boils down to being able to repeatedly get your money in with the odds in your favor.
When Ed Miller started writing about the benefits of being shortstacked in his recent Cardplayer series, I was open to it. But, it kept bothering me that he would state or imply that buying in short was an obvious advantage in NLHE cash games. I’m sure he had reasons, but he didn’t share them. There was no analysis, and with my previous bias, I wanted some.
So, I decided that enough was enough. It was time to find out for sure whether or not I should be exercising my right to buy in for the minimum in my trips to the local poker rooms.
The best explanation that I found was attributed to Andy Latto in the rec.gambling archives, although I didn’t actually find what he said, just references to it. His argument is shortened down to “magic glasses.” Basically, the idea is to pretend that you are buying in short to a cash game (let’s say $50 in a $1/$2 game). But, you are to imagine also that you are wearing glasses that make it so that you don’t see more than $50 in any of the other stacks. Initially, if you’re used to playing with deep stacks, it may not be obvious what difference that makes. But, one of the things that should be obvious is that it’s never a good idea to fold when you’re all-in. And, suddenly, you see people doing that.
I immediately liked this explanation, as it makes the idea so accessible. When thought about in this way, it makes it clear that everyone at the table is effectively playing only as many chips as you have when they play against you. You can say you’re denying them implied odds. You can state it however you want to, but you should be able to see how it benefits you mathematically without even looking at the math. You’re gaining equity when people are playing above you.
There are a few caveats. First, the bigger the other stacks and the looser the play, the more you benefit. In the extreme (buying in with $20 when everyone else is playing with a couple grand, for example), you can see how the other players wouldn’t even be concerned about you. Second, you must be able to play a TAG, preflop game. This game isn’t necessarily fun. You’re waiting for premium hands, and raising and/or shoving. But, there is no doubt from the math geeks that you’re going to make a better return if you play a good shortstack strategy.
Additionally, you can see times where it absolutely makes sense. Maybe you are properly rolled for a game, but short on cash when a game pops up. PLO often makes more sense than NLHE. Maybe you’re multi-tabling online, and not able to pay attention to each table as much as you might be if you were only playing one table.
Not surprisingly, there is a flipside to the argument. If you play well when deep-stacked, you could be costing yourself money when you buy-in short. This is why, instinctually, many good players (yes, I put myself in this category) reject the idea of playing shortstacked. You are effectively denying yourself implied odds now. Most “good” players enjoy playing after the flop, and in cash games with deep stacks, that’s where they make the majority of their profit. While you may get more return for each dollar bet playing shortstacked, you often are costing yourself gross profit.
One other aspect to consider is the psychological side of it. Knowing yourself is important across the board in discussions about poker, but it’s worth bringing up here again. There aren’t any “magic glasses.” You must be able to deal with bad beats, because they’re even more common with this strategy. You have to get used to having one tool instead of a toolbox.
In summation, not surprisingly, there ARE advantages to buying in short, especially under certain conditions. I hope that you’ll add this option to your list of things to consider the next time, and every time, you sit down for a cash session.[/quote:79a260dc48]
Good article. Bookmarked.
