Quote Originally Posted by dsaxton
"you're risking a lower amount of your money to win a greater amount than you would playing as a big stack."

This doesn't really make any sense. If I have $20, end up all-in with A-A, how am I risking less than if I bet the same amount with a full stack?
If you're going to be a big stack at a NL$25 table, or a short stack at a NL$100 table, assuming you can play well enough to maintain a strong winrate, you'll make more at the higher stakes.

The only place this really saves you from making decisions is on the river.

Do you guys really see 10xBB+ raises preflop that you're routinely calling with less than a push-worthy hand? Are you playing pots that remain so multiway that 10-15xBB isn't enough to bet 2/3+ of the pot? Do you really think that if you start playing as a short stack and you do well, you end up still having a short stack? I've left a table with well over the max buy-in MANY times doing this. That's not from one hand. That's from playing well throughout a session. I expect with a big stack I'd have seen at most $50 more profit in these sessions. Further, I doubt I've have come close in NL$25. Do you disagree? How many times have you had $150+ at a NL$25 table? Or $600 at an NL$100 table? I'm not saying you make more than a big stack at the same stakes. I'm saying you CAN make more (if you play it right) than you would at low stakes.

Is this a money making, genius idea that will turn anyone into a better player? No, but if you're a player that can play on par with the opposition at a given level (perhaps slightly above par...since I don't deny that in some ways they have an advantage on you; though I'd point out that you can use it against them as well), then you MAY be able to make more playing short stack at higher stakes.

Finally, I'm no longer going to defend short stack play in this post. Someone specifically asked me for input on a specific strategy of playing. I answered. It had previously (and now has in this thread) been fully addressed that there are trade offs and a lot of people disagree with short stack play. It's not for everyone, but those of us who do it get the point. You don't like it, and you have some reasons. You won't change your mind. I'm not asking you to. No one is. But can we please allow discussion without chiming in to EVERY post with the same generic "Short stack play is bad because of ABC" chant? Hell, I'll write a sticky on the dangers/trade-offs of it to go along with the upcoming strategy post I'm going to make. Just please, DROP IT.