Short stack play can be very profitable. Especially so because the typical short stack player on most sites plays like a retard - going all in pre-flop with a wide range of hands, many of which are very questionable. I'm always amazed when I see a guy buy in for $10 at a $50 table and get busted, then repeat, then repeat again. They'll drop a full buy-in eventually just by playing like a moron against people who obviously know exactly what's going on. This gives short stackers a terrible image, and makes it easy for a good short stack player to do well.

I will say though that I dislike this approach for my own reasons. (Jeffrey - no need to defend yourself following this; I'm just stating my own opinion here, not attacking you.) For one, I don't like what it does to the table. One or two people buying in short makes the game less profitable for the rest of us, whether they are good players or bad (although at least the bad ones give their money up easily.) This is doubly true in 6max, which is all I play. If I'm at a table with one empty seat and two short stacks, which is not all that unusual, that's about 1/3 of the money that should be at the table gone. A lot less I can win. Frustrating. For another, i don't like how it cheapens the game. As others have said, it reduces poker to pre-flop and maybe some flop play, and if the table is even remotely aggressive, the short stack will be pot committed on most hands they play. This to me is not fun poker. I don't like to play others doing this on purpose, and I don't like to do it myself. Then again, I consider myself a very good post-flop player so naturally I'm going to want to play to my strengths. To each his own. If I had my way, though, I'd set minimum buy-in for all no limit tables at half the max - no more $10 at a $50 table, you need $25 minimum to sit.