Miller contributed to "Professional No-Limit Hold'Em," which I just finished. Interesting book. Unlike most "no limit" books, it focuses on cash games.

The basic idea behind the low-stack theory is that strong pre-flop hands demand lower stack-to-pot ratios to commit. It's somewhat analogous to the "don't give up a huge pot for one more bet" theory in limit.

Breaks down like this: you have kings, you raise preflop and your opponent calls. An ace hits, your opponent puts you all in. Call?

Well, of course, "depends."

Say you've got $1 in the pot preflop and your opponent pushes you in for $100. No way you make this call.

Now, say you've got $99 in the pot and your opponent pushes you in for $1. No way you lay that down. Even though you're likely behind, you're getting 100:1 on your money.

This book suggests that strong hands (kings, aces, queens, big slick) want a stack to pot ratio of <8-10, which means getting a good deal of your stack in preflop and being prepared to push the rest.

Speculative hands, on the other, uh, "hand" want high stack to pot ratios, which invites action and keeps it cheap when you miss.

The idea behind short stack play is that it's much easier to hit your target ratios with short stacks.

When playing against wild players, you want to provide the lowest possible folding equity, since that's where wild players make a lot of their money. If you know that your preflop action on kings or aces will commit you to the pot, then you're less likely to get bluffed out.

Still grokking it, but it makes sense. If you add to the equation that wild players tend to bully short stacks, it does seem like quite the little trapper camouflage.