Concept of the Month: DalTXColtsFan's 2024 short-stacking primer
Why an updated primer about the short stack strategy?
The short stack strategy is criminally underrated and underpromoted as a way for prospective live low-stakes no-limit-hold’em cash players to get their feet wet and build up a bankroll for eventual full- and deep-stack play with more manageable risk while learning the game.
I don’t understand why there’s so much resistance to it. I can only guess it’s because so few books are written about it. Most books only teach how to play a full or deep stack with maybe a few pages dedicated to short stacking. Maybe people see the “good” players always buy in full or deep and try emulate them, not understanding that it takes years of experience and extremely deep pockets to be able to make turn and river decisions for hundreds of dollars. Maybe people simply “feel like wimps” when they buy in for tiny stacks when everyone else at the table has deep stacks. I don’t know.
But the short stack strategy WORKS. And it’s not just me saying this – David Sklansky and Ed Miller among others agree with me, even in 2024.
What is the short stack strategy?
In short, the short stack strategy is simply that you buy in to a no-limit cash game for the minimum, ideally when the minimum is 40bb or less. The idea is that you negate the advantage that more experienced and better-rolled players have over you on the big-money streets (the turn and river) by sticking to premium hands that have an equity advantage and getting your small stack in the middle between preflop and the flop.
When does the short stack strategy actually work?
The more of the following conditions you find at your table, the more likely the short stack strategy is to be effective:
• There are multiple villains at the table who are unlikely to fold to a raise after limping into a pot
• Early-position open raises are consistently getting called at least twice
• Pot-sized flop bets are consistently getting called by hands that are not ahead of TPTK
• Few if any other players at the table have less than 100bb in front of them
For the record, I very rarely find a 1/2, 1/3 or 2/5 table where these conditions are not present, and on weekends, casinos are usually FULL of tables like this.
A rare condition is to find a table where there is at least one villain raising 20% or more of his hands. As we will discuss later, the shortstack strategy works even better when this condition is present along with at least 2 of the others.
What starting hands should you play?
We will discuss what to do if there is a raise ahead of you and/or a 3-bet behind you later. For now, assume that if nobody has raised yet (regardless of how many have limped) these are the hands you will play:
• From UTG, UTG+1 and UTG+2, play only AA-JJ and AK
• From MP and HJ, add TT and AQ
• From the CO and BTN, add 99, 88, AJ, AT and KQ
• From the blinds, as a beginning shortstack player, play only AA-TT and AQ+. The reason for this is simply position. From the blinds you’re going to be playing the hand out of position, often to multiple villains. What a disadvantage that is cannot be overstated. Once you get more comfortable playing out of position, loosen up to what you would play from the CO and BTN.
A good standard raise size is 5bb plus 1bb per limper. As you get more comfortable playing the short stack strategy you can raise more when you’re confident the villains will CALL more. As we’ll discuss later, your goal is to make the pot big enough on the flop that you can put the rest of your stack in without having to make an unreasonable overbet. And it’s much better to make the pot too big than to make it too small.
I would also note that other shortstackers play wider ranges than these from every position, for example they will raise AQ or TT from UTG (I’ve seen one poster say he even raises 77 from early position). My personal advice is to stick to the best of the best while out of position until you have a lot of experience, because TT and AQ can put you into difficult spots postflop, and when you’re out of position, the difficulty is magnified. Early on in your shortstacking career you’re going to have enough challenges with just the preemies, i.e. when you raise JJ and get a Q-high board or when you raise AK and completely whiff the flop. Get comfortable in those spots first, then loosen up.
Won’t the villains catch on that we’re only playing premium hands?
I have yet to find a table where anybody adjusted their play to mine. I’ve folded for 90 minutes, raised to 5bb UTG, had someone say, “WHOAH! That’s a BIG raise! He means business!”, someone else says, “He must have something serious” and then I get 4 callers.
I have a friend who BUILT HIS ENTIRE BANKROLL one small stack at a time. He’d go to a casino in Shreveport, buy in for $80, double it up, cash out, go to another casino, lather, rinse, repeat. He did that every weekend for a year and built up a bankroll of over $10,000 to fuel his full- and deep-stack play. Nobody ever caught on to what he was doing. Nobody ever gave him dirty looks or verbal abuse for hitting and running. As a matter of fact, other villains at the table were trying to teach him how to play.
A side note about effort in poker
In many fields, talent is a prerequisite. Painting, drawing, music, mathematics, athletics – these are examples of fields where someone blessed with natural talent has an almost insurmountable head start over someone with no natural talent. Of course, between two people with similar natural talent, the harder worker is invariably going to be more successful, but one’s natural talent level is a HUGE determining factor in success in the field.
There are SOME natural talents that help one’s poker game. I would argue that the top 2 are emotional stability (keeping your cool in adverse situations so that you’re always making the right decision no matter how many bad beats you’ve taken or how big of jerks the other players at the table are being) and the ability to recall past hands (it can be a huge help when you’re in a situation and you can instantly recall how you’ve handled similar situations in the past).
But frankly, in poker, the difference that natural talent makes is almost negligible. Almost 100% of the time, if person A works harder at their game than person B, person A ends up being a more successful poker player than person B regardless of how much natural poker talent either person has.
So no matter how you decide to play poker - short stack, full stack, deep stack, Omaha, fixed limit hold’em or Go Fish (the last one was a joke) - you need to ask YOURSELF “How bad do you want it”. The harder you work the more money you’re likely to make, it’s as simple as that.
Some of you are thinking to yourselves, “Oh, I’m sure that doesn’t apply to *me* - I’ll just read a few books and head to the casino and be ready to go.” If you’re thinking that, I hope to see you at my table someday. If you’re thinking, “Hmm, he’s probably right, and I *do* want to eventually make money at poker, so I’d better start working harder than the other players,” I applaud you, and hope to see you among the elite few who eventually make more than they lose!
Isn’t it boring to only play 8% or 10% of your hands?
This plays right into the side note above. If all you want to do is sit down, turn your brain off and fold until you get a premium hand, that’s your prerogative. But if you want to put forth the effort to become a better poker player (more specifically, if you want to work harder than the guy sitting next to you), you will pay attention to every single hand that’s being played at the table.
First things first, you will pay attention to your table for the simple reason that you want to make sure you’re at a table where the short stack strategy will work. You’re constantly watching for the conditions listed earlier.
Second, you’re preparing for the future when you start buying in full. With a short stack, if you have, for example, 22 or 76 suited on the button after a raise and 2 callers, you have to fold. You just don’t have the implied odds to chase the monster with those speculative hands. But you can think to yourself, “What would I do if I were full stacked or deep stacked here?” You would call, and then when you see the flop, you would make a decision about what action you would have taken based on the reads on the players you’ve built up and the odds the pot is laying you. When you’re not sure what you would do, you can make a note of it and post a thread on the forum for discussion.
I’m also assuming that in preparation for your full- or deep-stack NL endeavor you’re reading books. My personal favorites are Sklansky’s No-Limit Hold’Em Theory and Practice, Harrington on Cash Games Vol 1 and 2, Ed Miller’s The Course and the new book “Help Them Give You Their Money” by Sklansky and Malmuth. I personally find it entertaining and enlightening to look at a hand in play and compare what advice each different author would give. The authors I’ve mentioned are usually very good about clearly defining the conditions under which their advice is valid (for example they would never advise balancing your range against villains who are clearly paying zero attention to it), so this can be very useful.
Lastly, while you’re watching hands you can practice putting villains on ranges based on their history at the table and their actions, refine their ranges based on their actions on each street, and when a rare hand goes to showdown, see if you were right.
The friend I mentioned earlier who short-stacked for a year did exactly that the whole time he spent building up his bankroll. At the end of a year he had a HUGE mental database to start from when he made the move from short-stacking to full-stacking.
Back to the question, I trust that it is obvious that if you’re paying attention to every hand that’s being played at the table while waiting for your premium hands, boredom will be the least of your worries.
What is a reasonable overbet?
You will hear many poker coaches say, “Overbetting is bad.” Any time any so-called poker “expert” makes such a blanket statement without justification, call it into question. WHY is the coach telling you that overbetting is bad?
The reason is, USUALLY when you overbet the pot, you’re only going to be called by better hands. BUT THERE ARE TABLES WHERE THIS IS NOT TRUE. You have to pay attention. Some players don’t think about pot odds at all. For example, there will be $30 in the pot, someone will overbet shove $40, and a player with a flush draw will think, “It’ll only cost me $40 to see if I make my flush. Let’s dance.” End of story. Another example is someone has K9, the flop is 982 or something similar, and someone overbets $40 into a $30 pot. A lot of small-stakes players are thinking, “He has nothing – he’s just trying to push me around” and call just to have the satisfaction of knowing they couldn’t be bluffed off a hand. Whether or not an overbet will be called by a worse hand depends on many factors include table conditions, villain tendencies, board texture, the number of villains in the hand and the size of the pot.
A ”reasonable overbet” is any overbet that has a decent chance of being called by worse hands.
Why did you suddenly change subjects to overbets?
Because we’re about to talk about flop play with a short stack. To go into a bit more detail, the ideal outcome of the short stack strategy is that you make a big raise before the flop with a premium hand, and hope it gets called in enough places to create a reasonable overbet situation on the flop.
Example 1: You have 40bb. You raise preflop to 8bb after 3 limpers. They all call. There are now 32bb in the pot and you have 32bb behind. On all but the least favorable flops you’re putting the rest of your stack in on the flop. This is about the best situation you can hope for when playing with a short stack.
Example 2: You have 40bb. You raise preflop to 8bb after 2 limpers. They both call. There are now 24bb in the pot and you have 32bb behind. On all but the least favorable flops you’re putting the rest of your stack in on the flop. This is not quite the ideal situation – you prefer to not have to overbet the flop. But you’re not overbetting it by much, and at most tables, there will be a good chance of getting called by worse. (As a corollary, if you’re at a table where an 8bb overbet isn’t consistently getting called by hands that are behind TPTK, rack up and go to a different table.)
Example 3: You have 40bb. You raise preflop to 8bb after 1 limper. The limper calls. There are now 16bb in the pot and you have 32bb behind. Very rarely is this a reasonable overbet. You are most likely going to need to abandon the short stack strategy and play 2 more streets of poker.
How do you play the flop when you flop at least TPTK?
Note: Until we indicate otherwise, assume we’re talking about flop decisions when either we’re first to act or we’ve been checked to on the flop. You will also notice that few discussions take into account the number of villains in the pot. It would be absurd to think that the correct decision against 1 villain is the same correct decision against 4, but to try to keep this primer as simple as possible, proceed on the assumption that IF WE HAVEN’T FACED ANY AGGRESSION, the right decision is the right decision regardless of the number of villains in the pot. We will most likely discuss spots where this is not accurate in future primers.
Under all but the most pessimistic conditions, if you flop at least TPTK and your remaining stack is small enough relative to the pot to make a reasonable overbet, you’re shoving. HOPEFULLY by the time you’ve folded over and over and have finally been dealt a hand you can play, you have enough reads to have a sense that there’s a decent chance your reasonable overbet will be called by worse.
If you can’t make a reasonable overbet, you really have no choice but to abandon the shortstack strategy and play at least 2 more streets of poker.
In all seriousness though, if you literally always put the rest of your stack in the pot for a reasonable overbet any time you flop TPTK or better you will rarely be making a bet an equity disadvantage, and the few times you do, it’s just bad luck, and that’s poker!
What poker homework can I do to prepare for more difficult decisions?
Flopping TPTK or better when you have a short stack is an “easy” position to be in. There are less trivial decisions you will encounter which we will discuss. You have to “learn to play poker” to figure out what the right decision is in these spots.
DiamondDog has an epic series on the forum called “The Mathenoobics of Poker”. Those of you who have decided you want to work harder than everybody else will read this series of articles.
The most important pieces of information from that series relative to the short stack strategy specifically:
1. The pot has A dollars in it. You go all in for B dollars. What percentage of the time do the villains need to all fold for you to break even? (Note – it’s a rare bird that you’ll ever have a significant amount of fold equity at a table where it’s profitable to shortstack, but it’s helpful to know the odds nonetheless).
2. The pot has A dollars in it. You go all in for B dollars. What percentage of the time do you have to have the best hand at the river to break even if 1 villain calls you? If 2 villains call you?
3. You put the villain on a limp-calling range, let’s say for example you think he’ll limp call with any ace, any 2 suited cards, any 2 connected cards at least 65 or 64, pocket pair and 2 broadways. How many combinations of cards is that?
4. Now give yourself a specific starting hand, for example QQ, and a random flop, i.e. K89tt or K93r. How many combinations of cards are in the range of hands he will call you with that you are ahead of?
5. How many combinations of cards are in the range he’ll call you with that you’re behind?
6. How many combinations will he fold?
7. What is your equity against the range he will call you with? (Note – obviously it’s better to use a tool like PokerStove to calculate this. And note that in PokerStove you can look at the effect that the number of villains in the pot has on your overall equity.)
These are not hypothetical questions:
• You have 30bb, you raise AKo to 7bb and get 1 caller, the flop comes J44r. What are the answers?
• What if the flop is J97tt? NOW what are the answers?
• You have 25bb, you raise QQ to 8bb and get 2 callers. The flop comes K93r. What are the answers?
• What if the flop is J93r? NOW what are the answers?
• What if you’re been sitting at the table for 2+ hours and it looks like people aren’t willing to call with pocket pairs? How does that affect your combo counts and equity?
You can literally sit down with a pencil and paper and make up DOZENS of these situations and have all of that information in your head before you ever even go sit at the table at the casino.
If YOU are willing to put in all of this work while others at the table aren’t, you are at a HUGE advantage.
Lastly, I cannot overstate the extent to which playing with a short stack simplifies your decisions. Once you make a decision on the flop, YOU’RE DONE!!!! The other 2 deep stacks in the hand with you don’t have that luxury – they have to worry about each other! They have to account for what cards could come on the turn, what their opponent could do on the turn, what could come on the river, how much of their stack are they trying to put in the pot etc. These can be very difficult decisions when you’re either inexperienced or underrolled (or BOTH!). Playing the short stack strategy, you will typically make 2 decisions per hand, and there will USUALLY be a CLEAR correct decision.
What do you do when there’s an overcard to your pair or overpair on the board?
If you do all of the homework I suggest above, you will find that in many if not most cases, the overcard to your pair does not stop it from being mathematically correct to put the rest of your stack in. You will obviously be behind when called more often than when you have TPTK or better, but it will USUALLY still be the correct play. The bigger you can make the pot on the flop, the less equity you need for your shove to be profitable. Obviously, you need to slow down the more villains are in the pot because of the increased probability that someone has the overcard you fear, especially if it’s an ace. In future primers we’ll look at how to calculate the probability that someone has the overcard you fear.
How do you play the flop when you flop two overcards?
I would argue that this is the worst situation to encounter when playing the short-stack strategy. At most tables where the short-stack strategy is profitable, you’re going to be behind when called more frequently when you flop overcards and shove than in any other situation. But:
• you’ll find that you rarely have less than 20% equity against your opponents’ calling range.
• When you *are* ahead, anyone with unpaired undercards has 6 outs to pull ahead of your ace- or king-high, and you don’t want to give them a free card.
• If you always shove when you have TPTK or an overpair and always check or fold when you don’t, even Hellen Keller will pick up on that and take shots at you.
• When you shove AK and get “caught” by someone with 22, someone might actually be paying attention, and when you later shove with an overpair, it’ll be harder for them to fold their 66 or whatever they have
• If they’ve SEEN you shove an overpair and get called by a pocket pair, you might actually have some rare fold equity.
• On a paired board, ace-high is actually reasonably likely to be the best hand.
• On a WET board, you’re more likely to be called by straight draws and/or flush draws you’re ahead of.
• Draws – even backdoor draws – strengthen overcards.
As a beginner to the shortstack strategy, I would not fault you if you wanted to play cautiously when you flop overcards. At passive tables, you may actually be able to get to showdown for free, and if anyone bets into you, they probably have you beat. But I would encourage you to do as much of the homework described earlier as possible, because you will be surprised how often you can make flop shoves with nothing but overcards that are actually profitable because the pot is so big relative to your remaining stack. Any time you have less than 20% total equity (including fold equity) with overcards it’s just bad luck, and that’s poker.
I would also not fault you if you wanted to shove whenever your remaining stack was, say, no more than 2/3 of the pot and not overbet the flop with overcards until you’re more experienced.
I’ve seen other posters say you can make a smaller flop bet – just enough to overcharge 6-out draws, i.e. about a quarter of the pot – when you flop overcards. I’m not a huge fan of this idea for these reasons:
• even Helen Keller will pick up on it if you always shove a pair and always make a small bet with overcards
• It is hard to play profitably when you put a significant percentage of your stack in the pot and then fold. Against passive opponents who would never raise you without a monster hand, you’d have to be prepared to fold to a raise.
• At tables where the shortstack strategy actually WORKS, you don’t have a great deal of fold equity even when you overbet – you’ll be behind when called even MORE often with a quarter-pot flop bet.
• What do you do if you don’t improve on the turn when they just call your flop bet?
With all of that said, if quarterpotting the flop with overcards is a mistake, it’s not a gigantic mistake, so it’s not the end of the world to give it a try a few times to gain learning experiences.
I will repeat, do the homework mentioned earlier, and when you’re not sure what to do during a session, make a note of the situation and post the hand on the forum for discussion.
What do you do after you double up?
First things first, it is very important to emphasize that there is absolutely no shame in hitting and running. It is not unethical. You have the right to get up from the table whenever you want. Your conscience may eat at you a little bit, but wait until the next time you double up, end up putting it all in the middle and getting sucked out on. Trust me, you’ll never feel bad about getting up again.
With that said, hitting/running and RATHOLING are two different things. Some casinos have strict rules against ratholing. At some casinos, if you double up at a $1/$3 table, ask for a table change, and try to buy in to the new table for the original $100 you could get in big trouble. Some casinos make you take all of your chips with you no matter WHAT table you go to, so you couldn’t even, for example, buy into a $1/$2 game for $100 after doubling up at a $1/$3. So make sure you know the rules!
We will talk about bankroll considerations later. Consistently getting up after you double up allows you to gradually build a bankroll for eventual deep-stacked play. Some people, if they are lucky enough to double up quickly, don’t want to get up because “they just got to the casino” and don’t want to just turn right around and leave. Again, your choice. You could go do something else, you could play a different game (i.e. if you double up at a $1/$2 table you could possibly cash out and then buy in for $100 at a 1/3 table depending on casino rules).
If you do decide to stay at the table after doubling- or tripling-up, it can be a good opportunity to “practice” making decisions for larger amounts of money. Just understand that you will be at a disadvantage to those more experienced than you. Just tell yourself, “I just doubled up. I could get up right now, but I’m going to stay and learn, and if I end up losing everything in front of me, I’ll just chalk it up to a poker lesson and move on.” Make sure you BELIEVE it though – sitting down with $100, tripling it up, getting all-in pre with aces and getting sucked out on is a TOUGH experience the first time it happens to you.
Bankroll considerations
I cannot overstate what a gigantic role bankroll plays in live NL. I’ve seen posters recommend 30 to 50 full-stack buyins. That’s $6,000-$10,000 for $1/$2 and $9,000-$15,000 for $1/$3. Most people look at those numbers and think, “That’s utterly ridiculous. You do NOT need to have $15,000 in a separate bank account just to play a game where you buy in for $300.”
To give you an idea that it might not be as ridiculous as you think, suppose a casino in Vegas suddenly started paying 45 to 1 instead of 35 to 1 on a roulette wheel. Would you take out your life’s savings and bet it on one roll? I hope not. How much WOULD you bet on each roll? $10? $20? $100? Decide that for yourself. And then remember, when you play that specific roulette game you’re making the correct DECISION every time they spin the wheel. In poker you will occasionally make mistakes. How ridiculous does 50 buyins sound now?
I don’t want to belabor this point, but suppose you buy into a $1/$3, bet big preflop, the flop and the turn, the river puts 3 to a suit on the board and the villain donks all in. That could be anywhere from a $300 to a $500 decision. Will you be able to estimate the probability the villain is naked-ace bluffing? Will you be able to pull the trigger and call if you believe he probably is? If your read is that he’s a rock who will only donk all in with the nuts will you have the discipline to kiss the 80bb-120bb that you put in the pot on the first 3 streets goodbye and move on to the next hand without losing a second of sleep? NOW how ridiculous does that $15,000 bankroll sound?
But those discussions are for another article.
To play the shortstack strategy, I’d recommend a bankroll of 30 shortstack buyins. That should be plenty as long as you have consistent access to profitable tables. You will suffer your share of bad beats. Everybody does. You will suffer your share of coolers. Everybody does. You will be on both sides of those – your KK will flop a set against someone’s AA too. You will have AA when a tight player has KK too. But if you’re studying the game, staying patient, paying attention to the table and making the best decisions you can, you are very unlikely to ever go broke with a 30 shortstack-buyin bankroll.
Should you limp along with speculative hands?
When you’re on a short stack, you’re in late position, several villains have limped around and you have a speculative hand like a suited ace, two suited broadways, suited connector or pocket pair, it’s tempting to limp along and see what the flop brings. If you have at least 30bb in your stack, you have plenty of implied odds to see a flop with one of those hands for 1bb.
If you limp along, be prepared to fold to a raise, even a small one. You cannot put 10-20% of your stack in the pot with a speculative hand preflop and expect to be a long-term winner.
The other thing to understand is that in this situation, you’re not playing the short-stack strategy. You could very well find yourself having to make decisions on the flop AND the turn and possibly the river as well. If you’ve studied and practiced deeper-stacked four-street poker, go for it, if not, just be prepared for unfamiliar territory. If you feel uncomfortable in a hand, write it down and post it on the forum later.
Should you try to limp-reraise?
If you’re at a table where late-position raises after multiple limpers are always getting called by all of the limpers but early-position raises are hardly ever getting called, it can be tempting to try a limp-reraise.
Again, be wary of any poker coach who would simply tell you “never limp-reraise”. The coach needs to JUSTIFY that.
A limp-reraise is a risky play. The best-case scenario is the person to your left raises and gets 3 or 4 callers and you go all in. Usually 1 or 2 people behind you will call and you’ll get your whole stack in at an equity advantage. The worst-case scenario is you get several limpers behind you. Now you’re playing a multiway pot out of position and you’ll have to play 2 or 3 streets postflop. Good luck with that.
If you’re at a table where early-position raises are getting multiple callers, I’d go ahead and raise. You’ll usually EASILY be able to put your stack in on the flop. There’s just nothing to gain from “getting fancy” in that case.
If you’re at a table where early-position raises AREN’T consistently getting multiple callers, there’s just not a very high chance you’re going to get to squeeze multiple callers behind you, so there’s not a lot gain in THAT case either.
About the only condition under which trying a limp-reraise makes any sense at all is if early-position raisers are getting multiple callers AND there are at least 2 if not 3 villains who are raising a LOT of their hands. In that case, you’re still taking a RISK when you limp your preemie in early position – it could still get limped around behind you which is a disaster when a raise would have gotten you 2 or 3 callers and an easy flop shove. BUT – at least in this circumstance there’s a decent chance you’ll get to shove over a raiser and a couple callers.
One strategy I’ve seen recommended is if you’re going to try the limp-reraise, try it with the bottom of your opening range, like try it with AK, AQ or TT. I don’t particularly hate that idea as long as you’re willing to get your whole stack in the middle preflop given the opportunity. Even if preflop does get limped around, those are 3 hands that create difficult decisions on the flop, so you more easily abandon ship if you get a flop you don’t like.
What do you do after you win a “small” hand?
You sit with, say, 33bb, raise to 6bb and get 3 callers, shove the flop and everybody folds. You now have about 50bb in front of you.
50-70bb is the worst stack size to have, frankly – you don’t have enough implied odds to call preflop raises with speculative hands, and it will be more difficult to create a reasonable overbet situation on the flop (i.e. in the above example, if you raise to 6bb and get 3 callers, there are 24bb in the pot and you have 44bb behind. If you’re in late position after, for example, 3 limpers, you can TRY a huge raise to something like 10bb – at some tables, this will actually work and everybody will call – now there are about 40bb in the pot and you have about 40bb behind. Even if only 2 of them call it’s 30bb in the pot with 40bb behind.)
Usually, you pretty much just have to play three-street poker – raise hands before the flop that are likely to have an equity advantage, and if the flop is favorable, size your flop and turn bets to get your stack in.
Going into detail about how to play three-street poker is out of scope for this article but I wanted to at least mention it because it is NOT an uncommon situation for a shorstacker to find himself in.
What if you face aggression on the flop?
If you flop TPTK or better, and you’re shortstacked, I would plan on pretty much always putting the rest of your stack in on the flop. If you read DiamondDog’s series and did the combo-counting exercises you will have a pretty good sense for just how sensationally unlucky you have to be to flop TPTK and not have the best hand. The first time you raise AK, get a couple callers, the flop comes K83, a villain donks, you shove and the villain flips over 88 you’re going to feel pretty stupid. The next time you could raise QQ, flop T73, get donked into and watch the villain flip over 33. You’ll wonder why you even played the hand. Don’t. You played both hands perfectly and hit some bad luck. Play long enough and you’ll see villains donk KQ on the K83 or JT on the T73. You will also see someone call your preflop raise of QQ with JJ thinking they’re being so sneaky and then donk the T73 flop thinking they trapped you. You will not be a long term winner if you assume every donk is two pair or better.
I would not fault you, especially in the beginning, for abandoning ship any time you’re donked into and you don’t have at least top pair. Villains at tables where the shortstack strategy actually works tend to be the type that will CALL with just about anything, but will only put money in the pot AGGRESSIVELY with a really good hand. But again, watch your table – have you seen any donks? Did they go to showdown? What were they? This just isn’t a situation anyone can teach you. You have to learn from study and experience.
What if you’re 3-bet pre or facing a raise?
With QQ-AA and AK, as a shortstacker, your mentality should be to size your raises, 3-bets or 4-bets to get your whole stack in the middle preflop given the chance. If you have one of those 4 hands and anyone has one of the hands that has you crushed, it’s just bad luck, and that’s poker.
With hands like JJ, TT and AQ facing a raise, it’s a tougher decision. If old man coffee raises, as a short stacker it’s not the end of the world to just abandon ship with one of those hands. If it’s a villain who’s raising 20% of his hands, there’s plenty of his raising range you’re ahead of or at least flipping against, so you can go ahead and 3-bet. The “problem”, though, is if he 4-bets you, you have to be prepared to put the rest of your stack in knowing you’re probably going to be behind or flipping at best (as I've said several times, you will not be a long-term winner if you get into the habit of putting a huge chunk of your stack in the pot and then folding). But for most villains, their 4-bet range is such a small percentage of their raising range that with a short stack it’s still profitable in the long run. Often he will just flat your 3-bet and then you have a trivial flop shove.
If you raise TT, JJ or AQ and get 3-bet, again, it’s a tougher decision. Does a 3-bet from that villain mean exactly TT+ and KQ+? If so, frankly, you probably need to abandon ship. Even if he’ll also 3-bet hands like 77+, KT+ or even QJ, your equity against that entire range usually isn’t that great.
I cannot emphasize enough: DECIDE HOW YOU’RE GOING TO RESPOND TO A 3-BET ***BEFORE*** YOU RAISE and DECIDE HOW YOU’RE GOING TO REACT TO A 4-BET ***BEFORE*** YOU 3-BET. Know or at least estimate the tendencies of EACH PLAYER STILL IN THE HAND.
I also can’t overstate the importance of stoving. You have TT and the 3-better’s range is exactly KQ+ and TT+. What is your equity against that range? How much is in the pot? How much equity do you need to have if your shove is called for your shove to be profitable? What if, as discussed above, he will also 3-bet 77+, KT+, QJ? These are not hypothetical questions. The more of these situations you pencil-and-paper before you play, the bigger an advantage you’ll have over everyone else at the table.
Conclusion
Starting off your no-limit-hold’em career by playing the shortstack strategy has inarguable advantages. You can start with a smaller bankroll. Your rookie mistakes will cost less. You will be able to build up a database of player tendencies and hand histories in your hand at minimal risk to you. You will get experience dealing with the other guy having AA when you have KK, or getting sucked out on when YOU have AA and HE has KK. You will see plenty of hands where you’re not sure what the right play is and be able to post them.
And, perhaps most importantly, you will be able to build up a bankroll to start your full- or deep-stack NL career.
Good luck, and let me know what you think in the comments!
The games are soft enough that it should be easy enough to learn how to play a real stack without burning time/EV on this intermediate step.
Nice post. Even if many readers never deliberately play the short stack strategy it's useful to think about what a core value strategy looks like.
And sometimes you will play against short stackers so it's good to know the difference between a disciplined short stacker and a fish who wants to lose more slowly
Great post. A few more like this one from 2+2 veterans and COTW/M could be resurrected....
I don't agree with some of this. If you intend to limp/shove a mid pp or big ace, the guide says follow through with it. However, there are times when it is a fold or a call if there is a 3! or if a raise looks really strong based on the player and sizing. Some OMCs you see limping AK etc. and they raise big, then you need to fold.
You are limited in playing speculative hands. If there are limped pots, you can sometime play them. You can play small pps more often than Axs.
However, I don't agree with only opening extremely strong hands. You can play for example KQ as normal, and you have less reverse implied odds than if deeper.
Great post. A few more like this one from 2+2 veterans and COTW/M could be resurrected....
Good idea.
I think a couple of points need to be emphasized more.
First, you have to be patient. You can go a couple of hours without playing a single hand with this strategy. The vast majority of people come to the poker room to play cards, not fold. If you're the type that limps in with 75o on the button because "It is just $3 and I haven't played this down," you will fail.
Second, you really do need to get up when aren't short stacked any more. Many rooms have a 1 hour waiting period. This strategy works better when the are many rooms in close vicinity of each other. The Strip in Las Vegas is the ideal situation where you can literally walk from room to room in a few minutes. You win, you get up and move. In today's world where there is Bravo or Poker Atlas, I'd be on a lot of waiting lists where you just jump in when needed. If you are stuck in an area where you are a long way from the next room, you need to find a place to sit and wait. The casino has lots of ways to tempt you to spend money and they are experts at it. Waiting in your car may be the best option a lot of the time.
Third, you have to be driving the action. Your edge is going to be getting people to fold because you're going to be all in on the flop. Calling is going to be extremely rare.
Fourth, this is a high variance approach. You're doing essentially flips a lot of times when the money goes in. Yes, the coin can flip tails 10 times in a row.
Finally, your earnings are going to be capped. When you do flop that monster and the villain has a good but second best hand that he'd put in 100 bb, you're only going to collect 30 bb.
I have some disagreements with the OP on some of the advice, but I'll leave that to another post.
@venice10 hit the nail on the head with his first point. You have to be patient. That is why I think that becoming proficient in Short Stack Play is a great exercise for anyone aspiring to become a winning player.
I think that discipline is the most important of all the non technical skills. Having to play a condensed range means that yes you will most likely go through extended periods of time folding hand after hand. Putting in the off the table work suggested in the OP will increase your skill regardless of the size of the effective stack in play.
I remember when it was suggested that I alternate sessions doing two exercises. One was to either bet or raise, never call (except when BB) and the next session was to play short stack. It was like working out the same set of muscles but with different exercises.
I think the cons of a short stack strategy should be spelled out, because they are important.
1) if you dont have the convenience of multiple nearby casinos, you generally cant stay short stacked without taking big breaks or leaving. This means you likely WILL play deeper stacked.
2) every minute you sit at the poker table not playing deeper stacked is time you likely arent learning much of anything about poker. I mean, thinking about what you WOULD do if you were deeper is all well and good but you dont see the results of your play. You might as well be watching a youtube stream. The performance of a shortstack strategy is so brain dead that it basically amounts to taking on a menial labor job for minimum wage. Which leads me to…
3) theres a better and less painful way to build a bankroll. At a job. Im serious, id rather take a job bagging groceries than do what OP is suggesting. Which leads me to…
4) poker is meant to be something fun, this is absolutely not fun for most people (if it sounds fun to you, go for it) . Im not recommending losing your shirt (no idea why the whales do it), but playing poker and not having fun seems MUCH worse than playing poker and losing a little bit.
Also as an aside, who wants it more is not all that matters. I definitely dont want it more than most of the players I beat, this is not even a top 5 priority of mine. I believe discipline is absolutely mandatory in poker, which is not at all the same as wanting it more. Being able to consistently do the same rote thing (not just following preflop strategy, but all the way down to being able to walk in and out of a casino without putting money down on all the stupid table games) is a matter of discipline, not want. But also natural skill absolutely plays a factor.
Thanks for posting Colts!
I play a modified shortstack strategy myself. I sit in my 1/3 NL game on a constantly topped up $200 stack, which is 66bbs but plays fairly short due to typical 5x+ preflop raises / often multiple callers / occasional $6 straddles / more raised pots than limped ones / etc. (i.e. not much room for splashing around preflop, especially OOP).
I don't play as tight as the strategy posted in the OP, with my EP range being 77+/AQo+/ATs+/KQs (although that is still likely the tightest in the room). I expand that range as I get closer to the Button (dependent on various table conditions), and on the Button (and sometimes CO) I'm looking to sneak into a limped pot with about 42% of hands (so 75o very playable for me here, and even on a much smaller 30bb stack getting 30++:1 IO I think you should be attempting the same thing).
I utilize a very limp/reraisey strategy (0% raising range in LJ- and needing very specific conditions to be met before considering raising the HJ). I do so in order to setup trivial commitment spots (admittedly on a 30bb stack a reasonable raise accomplishes this), avoid stoopid spots of very multiway at handcuffing SPR while offering everyone great IO (admittedly no chance of offering great IO at 30bb), and meanwhile I'm comfortable playing multiway high SPR pots if my LRR fails (admittedly a situation a 30bb shortstacker uncomfortable with high SPR pots might want to avoid).
In spite of hearing the opposite (which has been echoed above), or perhaps me not truly understanding what it means, I've found my method (while admittedly not a true shortstacker method) to be extremely low variance. Since tweaking my original method and moving to my Super Nit method in 2017, I've booked just a single $700+ loss in my 1/3 NL game (noting I booked 9 $700+ losses using my previous method in a ~similar amount of hours). My giraffe since implementing my Super Nit method is also as smooth a line as it has ever been with no real demonstrative hips/valleys. Soon after starting my Super Nit method I went into my tied-for-first biggest ever downswing of $2866, but I've only had 2 other times where I've had stretches where I've lost over $1000 (of $1127 and $1095) over 358 sessions / 2772 hours. In a live 1/3 NL game, for realz! I dunno, I think that is about as low variance as you can get (lol sample size and all).
Our winrate being capped is an interesting discussion. My winrate over 3308 hours of my prior method was $21.83/hr. Technically, that's slightly better than my $20.53/hr I've booked over 2772 hours of my Super Nit method. However, the previous conditions were much easier, with the increase in rake alone being a devastating difference (with my previous results mostly in a $5+$1 game whereas my Super Nit method started in a $7+$1 game which is now a $9+$1+$1 game). So I think I can easily argue my personal results are better using my Super Nit method (and, honestly, the higher raked game you play then the far fewer hands you should be splashing around with). *But*... that's for me. I've just never been too comfortable (or as comfortable) with deeper stack poker. I mean, I doubt I'm -EV in a deepstack game, but I also doubt I'm nearly as +EV as when I'm shorter, so sitting shorter isn't necessarily capping *my* winrate (if it is at all). But again: that's for *me*. Play to *your* strengths and play away from *your* weaknesses, and you'll probably do fine... for *you*.
Finally, I'll take a shot at the question of what to do when winning a big pot and no longer being short (especially when casino hopping / quitting and getting back on the table in a reasonable amount of time isn't an option, which it isn't for me). This is a question I often had myself for shortstackers back when I was using my previous method (and buying in / topping up to the maximum, which admittedly back then was only 100bbs = $300).
First, and probably rather surprisingly, this isn't something I would overly stress over cuz it actually doesn't happen a lot. Lately (thanks to nursing an injury) I've been keeping my sessions to a rather short ~4 hours (whereas before I was averaging almost ~8 hour sessions). For a great percentage of my ~4 hour sessions, a good deal of hours are simply spent nursing that topped up stack of $200 and waiting for something good to happen. Although obviously not impossible, it is very rare that you'll actually double up early in your session
Ok, so now I do win a big pot and I'm now sitting on a big stack. Well, first thing first: I simply cannot be sitting OOP to a solid difficult laggy deep player. If I don't already have the seat change button I'll ask for one and I'll then play tighter than usual until I can get away from this opponent (sitting across the table from them being my preference).
I'll also more strongly start evaluating this table versus other tables. Is this now a much deeper table that has some difficult players on it (all of which I'm fine with when short but not so much when deep)? Is there perhaps a bit too much action that I'm uncomfortable with this deep? Then a table change is probably in order. A good method is to look for tables that have a lot of shortstacks on them (with any deep stacks being non-difficult players), where I'll effectively be playing my wheelhouse shortstack game again.
But if I can't find a good seat at this table and all the other tables look just as bad, it might be time to consider calling it an early night. If it is early in the session, I'll gut it out as best I can and hope room conditions improve (after all, I am just a rec player and this is my poker outing). And again, a lot of the time we won't even find ourselves sitting on a non-shortstack until later in the session anyways. So if it is late in my session (say maybe I only have one hour left in my planned outing), I'll simply consider leaving a bit earlier than I had originally planned if room conditions aren't great. Note that I never used to do this as I was always the guy who stayed to 9:30pm and then left to make the 10:00pm curfew with the wife. But that "quitting better than my opponents" part in Tommy Angelo's The Elements of Poker finally kicked in a bit for me over these last few years.
Anyhoo, as pretty much a shortstacker myself (the first step is admitting it!), those are some of my takes.
GcluelessshortstasckingnoobG
I think a shortstack strategy is perfect for Mr GG or anyone like him who enjoys it, and has no dreams of moving up in stakes. (My issue personally is the former.)
5000 hours in (so 2 and a half years of playing poker as a full time job to hit this number) and we are at $20/hr (lets say $30/hr if the rake werent so insane). A perfectly respectable winrate, but not the type of thing people come into this forum dreaming of. Its the poker equivalent of a dead end job.
2) every minute you sit at the poker table not playing deeper stacked is time you likely arent learning much of anything about poker. I mean, thinking about what you WOULD do if you were deeper is all well and good but you dont see the results of your play. You might as well be watching a youtube stream.
You can pay attention to the game while waiting for a hand to play. Not only can you learn a lot about what to do (and especially what not to do), but you can pick up specific reads on specific players that can serve you well when you are playing deeper with them.
I will point out that in a world that has Flopzilla in it, recommending Poker Stove (no longer supported by its creator) and paper and pencil for equity calculations is seriously suboptimal. Spend the $35 for Flopzilla; you'll never look back.
Thank you for the responses everyone. Work is killing me right now but I will be back for further discussion.
One advantage of playing short stack is that you can cold 3! shove. How light you can do this depends a lot on how frequently the raiser is raising. Also, people will flat call with AK/QQ, etc. These shoves are usually called, so you need a strong hand, but not like always JJ+/AK. I am speaking of 1/2 and 1/3. At 2/5, there are more raised pot, so this and limp/shoving work better in way, but people are less likely to call you light.
I don't agree at all about only playing a few top hands. You can often raise or call a raise with suited broadway. You are going to connect with a lot of flops, and can sometimes shove with a draw.
Obviously, you are buying in short and can maybe limit potential losses that way. You can only play short stacked for the beginning of a session, because you will often build a bigger stack.
I don't even do this with my 66bb stack (which is why I only have the premium suited broadways in my EP range). At a 30bb stack, this seems extremely meh (as they are often dominated in raise situations).
ETA: Although I agree that the LP range in the OP in a limped pot does seem too tight (so long as we're not horrendous postflop).
GcluelesshortstackingnoobG
You can pay attention to the game while waiting for a hand to play. Not only can you learn a lot about what to do (and especially what not to do), but you can pick up specific reads on specific players that can serve you well when you are playing deeper with them.
I think this is grasping at straws for finding any way that playing shortstack poker is instructive. Watching the fish battle each other sounds about as instructive as watching rampage’s youtube page.
It's probably not the way to make the most money if you have a big edge. However, there are advantages to being able to push preflop, push with top pair or a draw on the turn, etc. You can't win as big pots, but also can't lose them. You obviously have an advantage if you get allin 3-way and there is a side pot.
I have played more tournaments and limit and am not so comfortable deep stacked, and have experimented with buying in short.
Sklansky's book also recommends buying in short, and says it gives you advantages. Obviously, his book is controversial.
Most of the people playing short stacked are fish. If you play it well, there are advantages as well as disadvantages.
There is some good information in this guide, but I generally don't care for it.
deuceblocker: Thank you for pointing out that you can often, if not usually, cold 3! shove with a short stack. That was a glaring miss in my OP. I did say that with a short stack, if you're going to 3! you have to be prepared to put the rest of your stack in because a 3! is usually going to be a significant percentage of your stack, but if, for example, we're sitting with 30bb, there's a raise to 3bb and 3 callers before the action gets to us and we have a preemie we want to 3!, all 30 of our bbs are going into the middle then and there. MAYBE if there was ONLY the 3bb raise behind us, I could get behind a 3! to 12bb or even 15bb, but as I said in the OP, I would make that 3! already having committed to calling a 4!
A couple posters mentioned that my suggested ranges are too tight. I actually AGREE they are too tight. My post was aimed at beginners. Hands like ATs and KQo, as well as 88 or 99, can not only put you in difficult spots postflop, but preflop. I don't recommend that beginners try to navigate those situations, not even with a short stack. A beginner is going to have enough of a hard time deciding what to do when they raise AQo and get 3-bet. A beginner is going to have enough challenges navigating postflop spots like raising QQ and getting a flop of KT2r or raising AK and getting a flop of QJ7tt. To a beginner I would say, start ultra-tight and start gradually expanding your range as you get more and more comfortable.
gobbledygeek: You know I've been a big fan of yours so I'm pleased you took so much time to respond to my post, thank you! I'm curious though, you say you open 77+ in EP - surely with 77, 88 and 99 you find yourself checkfolding a LOT of flops, don't you? And how do you handle when you raise one of those 3 hands in EP and get 3-bet? Surely you're flipping at best and often crushed in that situation, no? Lastly, ATs - AJ, AQ, AK, TT, JJ, QQ, KK and AA all have ATs CRUSHED before the flop - I haven't done the math recently but if you raise ATs from UTG or UTG+1 there's, what, about an 80% or 75% chance that somebody HAS one of the hands that dominate you, and they're rarely going to fold it? Is this not a concern?
I'm curious though, you say you open 77+ in EP - surely with 77, 88 and 99 you find yourself checkfolding a LOT of flops, don't you? And how do you handle when you raise one of those 3 hands in EP and get 3-bet? Surely you're flipping at best and often crushed in that situation, no? Lastly, ATs - AJ, AQ, AK, TT, JJ, QQ, KK and AA all have ATs CRUSHED before the flop - I haven't done the math recently but if you raise ATs from UTG or UTG+1 there's, what, about an 80% or 75% chance that somebod
To clarify: I actually don't raise any hands in the ~HJ-; I simply limp/overlimp my entire playble range when OOP. If I face a raise, I then decide which play is best. Middling pairs I'll typically evaluate whether I think they are an ok setmining spot, and ditto for hands like ATs and ~nutmining. If I think it is a poor spot, I'll mostly fold. Although once in a blue moon in the right spot (such as an aggrotard raiser with a bunch of dead money callers) I might 3bet (like I was planning to do with the top of my range).
GcluelessNLnoobG
To clarify: I actually don't raise any hands in the ~HJ-; I simply limp/overlimp my entire playble range when OOP. If I face a raise, I then decide which play is best. Middling pairs I'll typically evaluate whether I think they are an ok setmining spot, and ditto for hands like ATs and ~nutmining. If I think it is a poor spot, I'll mostly fold. Although once in a blue moon in the right spot (such as an aggrotard raiser with a bunch of dead money callers) I might 3bet (like I was planning to
Thanks for clarifying. 12 years ago "conventional wisdom" was that if you're going to setmine you should be putting no more than 5% of your stack in the middle when you're out of position and more like 7% if you're in position. Do you pay attention to these kinds of "percentages of your stack" when considering a setmine? Sitting with 66bb, I could see setmining against a 3bb raise, but if I were facing a 5bb raise I'd want a guaranteed 4-way or more pot.
Thanks for clarifying. 12 years ago "conventional wisdom" was that if you're going to setmine you should be putting no more than 5% of your stack in the middle when you're out of position and more like 7% if you're in position. Do you pay attention to these kinds of "percentages of your stack" when considering a setmine? Sitting with 66bb, I could see setmining against a 3bb raise, but if I were facing a 5bb raise I'd want a guaranteed 4-way or more pot.
For me, setmining almost always requires ~ok stacks + position + multiway before me; I'll make an audible in the moment as to what stacks are acceptable enough (say maybe even as low as ~15:1 if there have been enough callers, especially some horrible ones, and in position). Anyone calling a raise OOP HU to setmine due to 20+:1 stacks ain't making money unless their opponent is horrendous.
GcluelesssetminingnoobG
9+1+1 rake in a 1-3 game? ��
It’s not always a script we have to follow. We can limp in with AQo intending to limp jam and then abort when someone cold 4bets. Conversely if there is a total maniac on our left we might limp raise all in with ATs if he raises and gets a bunch of callers
Each situation is unique, you’re allowed to have a plan and change it when more information becomes available.
I'm guessing you're playing in the U.S.? From what I've read in the communities / cardrooms threads, the U.S. seems to be a ~decade behind everywhere else when it comes to rake increases. But it'll come soon enough.
FWIW, this isn't just a derail. IMO, one of the best ways to combat high rake is to play very few hands. And playing very tightly / very few hands does align itself reasonably well with a shortstack strategy. As does a LRR method (which takes down a lot of pots preflop which are unraked).
Gcluelessrakeisbadm'kaynoobG
I'm guessing you're playing in the U.S.? From what I've read in the communities / cardrooms threads, the U.S. seems to be a ~decade behind everywhere else when it comes to rake increases. But it'll come soon enough.
FWIW, this isn't just a derail. IMO, one of the best ways to combat high rake is to play very few hands. And playing very tightly / very few hands does align itself reasonably well with a shortstack strategy. As does a LRR method (which takes down a lot of pots preflop which are
Another way is to play deep enough that you’re way over the rake cap when you’re all in.
Shortstacking is a valid strategy and it is definitely worth knowing how to do it correctly even if you never intend to, but avoiding high rake is not one of the benefits.
