Small stack cash game

I attended a home game recently, which was supposed to be a small stakes game.  The problem with the $20 buy-in, was that the blinds were announced after we had all bought in.  $0.25/$.50.  With a $20 buy-in, this gave everyone a stack of only 40 big blinds which is a very short stack for a cash game.  I had only brought $40 (my usual two buy-ins), and was irritated with the blinds.  But because I wanted to play and have fun, I didn’t worry about it.  I ended up losing both buy-ins, but had a nice time.  It was days later before I figured out what was bothering me about the situation. 

The problem is one of a stack-to-pot ratio.  The more money in the pot, the more gamble is required.  This goes against my initial reaction to the blinds at the home game.  Because the blinds were so small, compared to my stack, and because I had only brought enough for two short-stack buy-ins, I played really tight, not gambling at all.  Normally, with 100 big blinds, I don’t mind gambling, because I have plenty of chips.  But as my stack grows small, I tighten up.  But then I remembered that poker has forced blinds.  Without any money in the pot, it would be wrong to play anything but pocket aces.  If you bet your money, but there was no money in the pot to win if no one called, then either you play pocket aces, or you win nothing when everyone folds, and you would always get called by only better hands.  Playing anything else may be fun, but it wouldn’t be the right play to make money.  Of course, no one would play that game, which is why there are forced big and small blinds, to stimulate action.  Even with that small amount of money in the pot, it is enough to cause people to gamble to win it.  On the flip side, if the blinds are so high that you only have one big blind, or if someone was to add a bunch of extra money to the pot, it would be right to play any two cards.  Folding would not be the correct play.

There leads to the following: The smaller the starting stack, the more gamble is required.  If there is no money in the pot, no one would play.  As the ratio of what is in the pot grows, the more hands need to be played, until the pot is so large that playing every hand is the only correct strategy.  This means that, with the pot so much higher than a 100 blind buy-in, I shouldn’t have been playing tight.  I needed to loosen up and play a lot of hands.  That is where the problem came in, because gambling with marginal hands brings a lot a variance.  Only having enough for two buy-ins made it impossible to play correctly and also have fun and play all night long.

I ended up playing tight, flopping ATT with AKo and losing to QTs.  His loose call (which was correct) didn’t give me any room to fold, because after the pre-flop betting the pot was already so big I was committed.  I lost the second buy-in from flopping a set and losing to a runner-runner straight.  Again, a crazy loose player got ‘lucky’.  I don’t feel bad, because I played well, and got unlucky, but it doesn’t change the fact that they were playing correctly, and I was not.  Hopefully, next time I am able to recognize the situation at the time and adjust my game, or at least know that I’m not playing optimally.