In the last issue, I tackled the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks can bully small stacks to gain an advantage. Not only is it not true, small stacks can actually gain an edge over big stacks! Before I tell you how, let's revisit the biggest myth.
It's very common to hear people talking about big stacks "bullying" small stacks, usually by playing loosely preflop and raising a lot. Unfortunately, in a cash game, this tactic doesn't actually offer any edge to the big stack, since the extra chips don't play. That is, if you have $100 and I have $1,000, we'll be all in after the first $100, and my remaining $900 plays no role whatsoever in the hand. I could put that extra $900 in my pocket, and it wouldn't help (or hurt) you at all.
But if you have $100 and everyone else at the table has $1,000, you actually have an advantage over your opponents. In fact, you have two major advantages.
Avoiding Mixed-Stack Play
Mixed-stack play is one of the most complex aspects of no-limit hold'em. Strategy can change dramatically due to different stack sizes. If you are playing $1-$2 blinds, with a given hand you might push all in with a $20 stack, just call with a $200 stack, and perhaps raise (but not all in) with a $1,000 stack. When your opponents in a hand have very different stack sizes (that is, you're playing against mixed stacks), your best play could be different against each of them due to their different stack sizes.
For instance, let's say that you have $500 in a $1-$2 game. A tight player under the gun goes all in for $20. A weak player with $400 calls next. You're on the button with the 2
2
. What should you do? I'd call, since I might flop a set and win a nice pot off the weak player. But if the weak player had folded instead, I'd fold, since I'd likely be either about even money (against overcards) or a big underdog (against a bigger pair), and I'd probably be taking the worst of it alone against the all-in player.
Unfortunately, even with the weak player in the pot, I'm still taking the worst of it against the all-in player. The weak player's call doesn't change the fact that I have to beat the tight player to win the $63 main pot. I'm calling despite the all-in player, because I think the chance of winning a big pot off the weak player is worth it. Because of the mixed stack sizes, I have no perfect play. If I want to win money off the deep stack, I have to cede equity to the short stack.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the tight all-in player. Let's say that you have the Q
Q
. You just got called by not one, but two players as a big favorite. You have a great chance to triple up. And you got called by the second player
only because his stack was a lot deeper than yours. If he had had only $20, also, he would have folded. He called only because he and the weak player were much deeper than you.
Playing against mixed stacks complicates your decision-making and forces you to take compromises. Playing short allows you to face a uniform stack size (yours), and enables you to benefit when your opponents face mixed-stack situations.
Fold Equity Without Risk
Fold equity is the value you get from opponents who fold. The typical way to generate fold equity is to bet or raise. Your opponents will sometimes fold, and your chances to win the pot improve. This fold equity comes at a risk, however, since you could lose whatever amount you bet. When you're a short stack, though, sometimes you can get fold equity without having to risk anything.
Let's say that you're playing a $1-$2 game, you have a $20 stack, and you have the J
J
. Two players, each with a $500 stack, limp in to you, and you push all in. They both call. The flop comes A
9
6
. (Doesn't an ace always seem to come?) Your opponents both check. The turn is the 10
. One player bets $20, and the other folds. The river is the K
. Your opponent shows the Q
10
, and your jacks hold up.
Then, the other player starts to complain: "Why'd you have to bet? I had a king! I would have won." Because your opponent bet the turn for you, and your other opponent folded, you won a pot that you otherwise would have lost. That bet carried fold equity, not just for the bettor, but also for you. But unlike the bettor, you didn't have to risk anything to get the fold equity. It came automatically.
If everyone had started the hand with $20, you would have lost the pot. Because your opponents had extra money, however, you turned a loss into a win. That's the second advantage of having the short stack at the table; you can gain fold equity without risk.
"But," you might say, "having a short stack means I can't push anyone off a hand. Maybe I get fold equity for free sometimes, but I also can't generate fold equity when I want it because I don't have enough to bet." That's true. But it doesn't invalidate either advantage of being the short stack at the table. It's just a result of what I said at the beginning, that different stack sizes require different strategies. You have a very different set of options at your disposal with $20 in a $1-$2 game than with $200. All I'm saying is that if you're going to buy in for $20, you're generally better off if your opponents all have $200 than if they have $20. And likewise, if you're going to buy in for $200, you're generally better off if your opponents all have $2,000 than if they have $200.
The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack than everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you enjoy advantages when your opponents play much deeper stacks.
Next issue, I'll teach you how I use some of these ideas to beat real no-limit hold'em games.
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.
