The Short Stack Play Is Not A Fight Against The Blinds, by Ed Miller

Ed Miller explains in this interesting article which may render unprofitable short stack strategy. Here's a question I hear all the time: "How short a stack can be until it ceases to be profitable? At some point the blinds eat too fast and you can not wait for a good hand, right? The question is based on a false assumption that is the subject of today's article. Yes, there are stacks too short to be profitable to play them, but it has nothing to do with the blinds. It is for the rake. Depending on the structure of the rake, the house is taking too large a percentage of each pot you want to rent with that stack size. But imagine you are paying for time instead of rake, and the load is relatively small compared to the level of play. (For those who do not know, casinos charge a fee of, say, $ 7 per half hour instead of charging rake.) Now you can play any stack with profit, from 1BB on. The blinds will never be large enough to "eat you alive?. The simplest reason why it is impossible for you to be as short stack to the blinds "eat you alive? is the rule of bets on the table (table stakes rule).

If you have a 10BB stack, then, that 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 I lose against whom? Against the type I have in front that is also playing a 10BB stack effective when it comes in a boat with me? That makes no sense.

No longer stack essentially profitable. It comes down to the strategy you employ. The reason I thought that "the blinds will eat you alive? is extended is because we often assume that short stack players have to play very tight. After all, when playing a 10BB stack you'll see many showdowns. And if you depend on the showdown, better to have good cards, right? One point is certain. When playing a 10BB stack, you probably will not float many raises preflop on the button with 53s such as you did playing deep stack. Want hands with showdown value. But this does not necessarily have to be hands delicious. For example, imagine you're in the small blind with 10BB. Everyone pulls up to the cut off, where an aggressive player opens 3BB. You Ad 7c. Your hand is all-in. Sometimes cazarás to cut off hands like 96s and he will be thrown. Others will have something like A9s or KJo and pay you. When you look at all possible outcomes - sometimes win the pot immediately and others will pay you and you will win the showdown - the all-in-hand with this show be profitable in the long run.

A7o not a great hand. But it is strong enough given the size of the stacks, the likely range of hand cut off and any of the big blind. The short stack strategy is about finding what marginal hands to be played given these situations. Perhaps subtracted A7o Q7o profitable and it is not. What is the break-even point? If everyone has thrown to you in the small blind, then Q7o near 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 playing short stack means playing super tight. In my book Getting Started in Holdem, outline a strategy for playing a 20BB stack and I as a user-friendly strategy for beginners. I wanted a strategy that was simple enough that anyone could follow it literally, and that would at least break even in cash any standard table of 9 or 10 players. But my super tight strategy is not the optimal strategy for 20BB at a table of 9 or 10 players.

Only a strategy that is good. However, in a table of four players is a strategy 10BB horrible. The blinds, in fact, they'll eat you alive, but not because the stack is too short to win. It just sucks that the strategy within these parameters. If you have the right strategy, rather, could profitably play 20BB in a table of 10 players, as well as a table 8BB 4. The blind can not lose you. Only the rake can. Source: NotedPokerAuthority

...