I received an email from a friend of mine who saw the draft of my recent article, A Short-Stack Story. John (not his real name) asked me, "How can you glorify short-stackers? "They're brainless sycophants. They're the dirty underbelly of poker winners. They should be sent to Hell." Now, John, don't hold back with your opinion.
John's not alone, though. "Is there any 'terror' that is going through people's bodies when some little talentless leech shoves all-in for 20 big blinds? Did the game get its reputation as the Cadillac of poker when people with no talent for the game are shoving all-in off a chart?" That's the opinion of Dusty "Leatherass" Schmidt, as written in his blog.
Let's look at the other side of the story. "I'm playing by the rules," Dave, an online short-stacker (not his real name, either), told me. "My goal is to win money skillfully. Frankly, I'm not as good a player as the ultra high-stakes players, but I need to support myself and my family. I don't cheat, I don't collude. I obey the rules of the sites I play on. I play the game using the skills that I have. What's wrong with that?"
I don't think anyone would argue that the skills needed to short-stack are different from the skills needed in a deep-stacked no-limit hold 'em game. In a short-stack game, most of the action occurs before the flop. Your goal is to get your money in when you likely hold the best hand. It's usually not a game of nut hands; there just isn't enough room in the betting to define hands.
On the other hand, deep-stack no-limit hold 'em is all about nut hands. To use an extreme example, suppose you are playing in a $1-$2 blind no-limit hold 'em game, and you have $10,000 in front of you. Pre-flop you're just as happy to get your money in with aces, of course. Suppose you have Ad-Ah in early position, make a raise to $20, and get called by the button who also has $10,000. The flop is 8s-6f-2d. You make a continuation bet of $30 and your opponent moves all-in for a total of $9,980. There's really no difference in your actual hand versus 7h-2d-both hands are bluff catchers at this point; that's all they can beat. But if we change the stacks to $100 each, and your opponent's all-in raise to a total of $80, you'll call, of course.
John and Dusty Schmidt are correct: It takes more skills to be a winner in deep-stack no-limit hold 'em games. Schmidt, though, is incorrect about another statement he posted to his blog. "...[W]hile short stackers may be good for short term bottom line, they threaten the integrity of poker." Not hardly.
The biggest threat to the integrity of poker-with the possible exception of the threat posed by government-is by cheaters and colluders. If poker is to prosper, it's essential that the game be perceived as fair. Over the past few years we've seen cheating and collusion scandals by sites and players.
Schmidt would argue that Dave should improve his skills. "I actually subscribe to the training site where Leatherass posts his videos," Dave told me. "I do work on my game. I've tried to play deep, but I haven't had any success. Maybe it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, or perhaps I've just been unlucky. But to say I don't try to improve my game is laughable."
There is one certainty as we enter 2010: This debate will continue for years to come.
Russell Fox is the co-author of "Mastering No-Limit Hold'em," "Why You Lose at Poker," and "Winning Strategies for No-Limit Hold'em." He's a federally licensed tax preparer specializing in gambling, with a blog at taxabletalk.com. E-mail Russ at rcfox@claytontax.com
