Not sure if this is the right place for this question but I will give it a shot.

Is there a definitive way to prove that short stacking (particularly in big bet games like PLO and NL) provides an inherent strategic advantage (assuming the player knows how to effectively play a short stack)?

The reason for this question is as follows. The discussion came up at a recent, live, full ring, PLO game. I stated that having a short stack provides an advantage. Several people objected and one was willing to make a bet with me about this. I made the bet, but proving it is difficult. I gave him examples, explained the logic, etc. And all he kept saying was that he plays in the biggest games around, and all the better players buy in for the max (or want to have everyone covered). I explained to him that there are also reasons why one would want to have the table covered (especially the weaker players), but that doesn't preclude there also being an advantage to having a shorter stack. He won't budge because he does, in fact, play in very big games, and in those games the top players do buy in for large stacks. And he says, if there was an advantage to having a short stack, these top pros would not buy in big.

Ask him if he has made millions playing poker. Mark Vos made an absurd amount of money back in the day shortstacking the biggest games available online.

That said, there is obviously no provable inherent strategic advantage. Why? Because if all other players agree to play perfectly against the shortstacker instead of trying to make the most money possible, the shortstacker has no advantage.

The shortstacking edge originates from big stack players trying to maximize their own EV. Very easy example of a game where a 20BB shortstacker has no advantage: all other players agree to turn the game into a 20BB cap game, even though they sit on 100BB stacks.

what you are describing is collusion. Shortstacks DO have an inherent advantage in any game that comes from the fact that you realise your full equity once you are all in. This however presumes that all players are equally skilled. This concept is useless for live players, as most of them wont face a single competent player in most sessions, not to mention a table filled with them.

If other players actually play for themselves and aren't colluding (somehow this needs to be mentioned) with bigger stacks, the shorter stack has an advantage.

Does it maximize profit when you're at a table full of morons? Of course it doesn't.

I could also describe a game where 8 out of 9 players play a 20BB stack. Do all of them have an inherent advantage over the one 100BB stack?

FWIW, shortstacking would be absurdly profitable in live games if they allowed players to buy in for 20BB and had no rules against ratholing.

no, because all 9 are playing 20bb effective, isnt it kinda obvious? if 7 out of 9 are playing 20bb, they do have an advantage

It is obvious, but that’s not what “inherent” means unless you add some stipulations like that one.

But obviously the short stacks have less of an edge because there are less bigger stacks per short player and so they less fewer reshove considerations. One short stack with only big stacks has a pretty big edge.

Did someone say shortstack?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...05/?highlight=

tl;dr
1. Shortstack NLHE is mind-numbingly, soul-crushingly boring
2. If you play a shortstack strategy correctly, you will usually be getting your money in the middle with an equity advantage, and when you aren't it's just bad luck.
3. If you are the best or second-best player at the table at making decisions (and/or manipulating villains into making bad ones) on the big-money streets (turn and river), you want to cover everyone at the table. If you are not comfortable making decisions on those streets, the less you can buy in for the better

EDIT with all of that said I do agree with those quote by Kelvis:

+2