Today's topic sprouts from the seed planted from my previously mentioned play at the Seneca Falls casino. My relatively weak bet post-flop was a bad play, I should have gone all-in. I know that, your feedback shows my readers know that, but I still don't think going all-in would have changed the outcome. The cash I had in play wasn't significant enough to make my opponent fold. The bad play was a function bad financing.
Coming to a cash game as a short stack is, as a rule, not a good idea. By doing this you are putting your fate a little less in your hands and more at the mercy of the poker gods. There is a law of poker that states that a player with infinite finances will always win the money off of a player with a finite bankroll given enough time. This stays true regardless of the players' skill levels, but if the cash impaired player is the more skilled, it will likely take more time. This is true because of dumb luck. The law can be scaled back on a kind of sliding scale. I started with less than half of my opponent's chip stack, which meant I required more luck to win, even if I was the better player.
As a side note, coming to the table on the cheap is also a strategy. Nearly all the on-line cash tables I frequent have a player or two who are playing short-stack with the intention of going all-in before the turn hits. When they double, triple, or quad up, they often cash out returning to their short stack status. I find these players are unsure how to play their hands past the flop, but as long as they have at least slightly above average luck they make money. After all, you can't be bluffed off a hand once you're all-in. I imagine the profits last only for the short-run for these short-stackers, as most of it probably goes to the rake.