Live $1-$2 and $2-$5 no-limit hold'em cash games can, for many players, be some of the most lucrative games in the cardroom. Several years ago, I was a committed limit player (and even wrote a couple of books about it), but nowadays I'm sold on no-limit. It's great because, at least at the low levels, learning a winning strategy isn't too difficult. And furthermore, a wide array of approaches can win, as long as you play accurately and with discipline. My
Card Player columns will focus on teaching you how to beat this great game.
"What a bully!" the big blind said lightheartedly as he threw in his cards.
"That's just the way the big stack is supposed to play," mused his friend next to him.
They were talking about me. I had just stolen the blinds in a $2-$5 no-limit hold'em game. After a series of fortunate events, I had run my stack up from the maximum buy-in of $500 to around $1,300, enough to have everyone at the table comfortably covered.
The big blind and his friend had unwittingly repeated what I consider to be the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks can "bully" the table, and short stacks have to sit and take it. I hear this idea everywhere - from TV commentators, from table coaches, and even in a book or two. I once overheard someone counsel a friend not to buy into a $10-$25 game because he had only $2,000 that day to play with. (He had a lot more in his bankroll.) "The big stacks will eat you alive. You gotta have at least five dimes to play that game. You might as well take your two dimes and burn it. If you can't buy in full, don't buy in at all. You gotta give yourself a fighting chance."
They're all wrong. Big stacks don't hold any inherent advantage over small stacks. Just because you cover everyone doesn't mean you have any special mathematical privilege to bully the table. And if you try to do so against astute opponents, you might find yourself the one busted by the end of the night.
Now, I'm talking about cash games here, not tournaments. In tournaments, the "bullying" concept has some merit, though it's hardly what some people would have you believe. In cash games, however, it's utter hogwash. A deep stack holds no inherent advantage whatsoever over shorter stacks - none.
Let's see why. Let's say you and I are playing heads-up $2-$5. We each have $3,000 in our pockets. You buy $3,000 worth of chips. I buy $300 and leave the rest in my pocket. Naturally, we're playing with the table-stakes rule, so once I've bet my entire $300 on a hand, we're all in and there's no further betting. That means that the most you can bet on any hand is $300, the same as me. Even though your stack is 10 times the size of mine, when we play a hand, all of your excess money sits harmlessly unused, just like the money in my pocket.
Strategically, it's completely irrelevant that you have a big stack and I have a small one. If you try to "bully" me by raising a lot with weak hands, I can punish you by reraising more often with better hands. If you want to avoid steadily losing your big stack over time, you'll have to put on the brakes and play a more "normal" strategy.
"Sure," you might say, "that's obvious. If we both start with $3,000 and you buy in for $300, it doesn't matter on the first hand whether I buy in for $300 and keep the rest in my pocket or if I buy in for $3,000. Either way, we're playing for $300. But what happens over time? You're a lot more likely to bust out than I am."
That's true. If we both play equally well (which is not likely if you waste your money trying to bully me), I'm 10 times more likely to lose my $300 than you are to lose your $3,000. Fortunately, I have 10 $300 buy-ins, while you have only one $3,000 buy-in. If I rebuy for $300 every time I go broke and we play until one of us has all the money, we both have an equal shot. The fact that I've played the short stack throughout doesn't affect my chances one bit.
Indeed, if the rules would allow it, I could buy in for just the $5 big blind every time and still have totally equal chances. All you could do with your mighty stack is call my big blind and watch the boardcards helplessly.
So, what's the deal? Why does everyone talk about big stacks bullying and short stacks getting bullied? In cash games, it's primarily a psychological thing. Typically, someone gets a big stack by winning a few big hands in a row. Naturally, it can be a bit intimidating to watch one of your opponents drag a few monster pots and sit in front of a mini-Everest of chips. You start thinking that your chips might be the next addition to the mountain.
Don't think that! It's not true. Maybe your opponent is a great player, but chances are that he mostly just ran good for a few hands. You have nothing to be afraid of, and your opponent's big stack confers no advantage whatsoever. Don't buy in to the myth. If you have $200, it doesn't hurt you at all if your opponents have $2,000 or even $20,000. You're playing for $200, and when your opponents play against you, that's what they're playing for, also.
If you're the one with the big stack, you don't have a mathematical advantage, but you may have a psychological one. I've noticed that after I build a big stack in a cash game, some players start to play scared against me. Where they might have check-raised a good hand or tried a bluff against me before, they'll play more cautiously now. You can take advantage of the timid play by - bullying. But always remember, you aren't bullying because you have a bigger stack; you're bullying because your opponents are afraid of you.
So, that's it, the biggest no-limit hold'em myth. Go ahead and buy in for whatever you desire. Those sharks with deep stacks aren't going to get the best of you. In fact, you may well be getting the best of the sharks, because while it's not true that big stacks have an inherent advantage over short stacks, the opposite sometimes is true! You actually could give yourself an edge merely by buying in short. I'll show you how it works in the next issue.
Ed will personally answer your questions at his online poker advice column, www.notedpokerauthority.com. He has authored four books on poker, most recently Professional No-Limit Hold'em: Volume 1.
