|
|
. |
 |
 he Guardian Poker Column |
|
| |
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
| Victoria
Coren |
| Tues 16 Aug 2011 |
| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
Short, medium
and large – let's define our terms
For the last couple of weeks, I have given
examples of hands that were played or judged incorrectly because the player (or
commentator) was not paying full attention to the chip counts. If you're new to
the idea that stack sizes are more important than hand values, you may have
been waiting for some general definitions. Here they are!
A "short
stack" is, broadly, anything less than 10-12 big blinds. With that kind of
stack, you simply can't afford to call (or raise) and then fold. If you're
playing a hand, it's got to be all in. |
|
|
A "medium stack" is around 12-25 big
blinds, where each chip is still precious but opening the betting with an
all-in is a little too heavy. Here, you're looking to re-raise opponents all
in.
A "large stack" means, obviously, more chips than the above –
though this is relative to the sizes of other stacks on the table. If you're
chip leader you can afford to be a bully, setting others all in and picking up
chips when they quail under the pressure.
A table of half-decent
opponents will know all this. That doesn't mean it's easy for them to call your
all-in bet for 12 big blinds (or all-in reraise for 21 big blinds), even if
they suspect you of doing it with a weakish hand. They might call light, but
they can't call with nothing.
If you're the large stack, though, they
may be quick to defend themselves against bullying. Don't get reckless and
start doubling everyone up. Aggression, in poker, must always be qualified with
the word "selective".
Those are the basics when it comes to your own
stack. The next, vital stage is to play according to others' stack sizes. We'll
move onto that next week.
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
. |
|
|
Main Menu)
