The short stack play is not a fight against the blinds

Ed Miller explains in this interesting article which can make an unprofitable strategy short stack.

Here's a question I hear all the time:

"How can a short stack until it ceases to be profitable? At some point the blinds will eat too fast and can not wait for a good hand, right? "

The question is based on a false assumption that is the subject of the article today. Yes, there are stacks too short to be profitable to play, but it has nothing to do with the blind. Is the rake. Depending on the structure of the rake, the house is taking too large a percentage of every pot that you want to rent for that size of stack.

But imagine you're paying for time instead of rake, and the burden is relatively small compared with the level of the game. (For those who do not know the casinos charge a fee of say $ 7 per half hour instead of charging rake.) Now you can play with any stack with profit, since 1BB onwards. The blind will never be so large as to "eat you alive."

The simplest reason why it is impossible for your stack to be as short as the blinds eat you alive "is the rule of bets on the table (table stakes rule). If you have a stack of 10BB, then, in what concerns you, all your opponents are also 10BB. The same rule applies to everyone. If I have to lose money by playing a 10BB stack, then you lose Against whom? Against the guy who got in front he is playing a 10BB stack of cash when entering a pot with me? That makes no sense.

No stack becomes essentially profitable. It all comes down to the strategy they employ.

The reason I thought that "the blinds eat you alive" is widespread is because often assume that short stack players have to play very tight. After all, when playing with a stack of 10BB'll see many showdowns. And if you depend on the showdown, better to have good cards, right?

One point is certain. When you play a 10BB stack, probably not going to float lot Preflop raises on the button with 53s as it did play deep stack. Want hands with showdown value. But this does not necessarily have to be very good hands.

For example, imagine you're in the small blind with 10BB. Everyone is pulled up to the cut off, where an aggressive player opened 3BB. You Ad 7c. Your hand is all-in. Sometimes cazarás andalusia hands cut off and 96s as it is rejected. Others will have something like A9s or KJo and you will pay. When you view all possible results - sometimes win the pot immediately and you will pay the showdown and win - the all-in-hand with this will prove to be profitable in the long run.

A7o is not a great hand. But it is strong enough given the size of the stacks, the range of probable and hands cut off any of the big blind.

The short stack strategy is about finding what marginal hands to be playing under these situations. Perhaps A7o subtracted Q7o is profitable and what is not. What is the break-even point?

If everyone was thrown to you in the small blind, then Q7o is close to the break-even point to raise all-in for 10BB (cf. Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman, The Mathematics of Poker, p. 136).

I must admit my share of the blame for spreading the myth that short stack play means playing super tight. In my book Getting Started in Holdem, outlined a strategy for playing a 20BB stack and thought as a user-friendly for beginners. I wanted a strategy that was simple enough for literally anyone could follow and that would at least break-even in cash any standard table of 9 or 10 players.

Super tight but my strategy is not the optimal strategy for 20BB in a table of 9 or 10 players. Only a strategy that is good.

However, a table of four players with 10BB is a horrible strategy. The blind, in fact, you will eat live, but not because the stack is too short to win. The strategy is simply stinks within these parameters.

If you have the right strategy, rather, could usefully play 20BB in a table of 10 players, as well 8BB in a table 4. The blind can not make you lose. Only you can rake.

Translation of article originally published in English in NotedPokerAuthority