Capped buy-in NL... what to do with a stack? (crosspost from M-HS)

[dtbog]

A post I just made got me thinking about something I've been noticing for a long time in capped buy-in NL games, and that is the fear of going broke exhibited by most players when they've accumulated a decent stack.

Is there any merit to this?

Personally, I see no reason to avoid confrontations with the other big stacks -- and I find that kicking the aggression up a notch against scared big-stacks often allows me to chip away at their stack and establish myself as the aggressor.

On the flip side, less aggressive players make the argument that their big stack is only a true weapon against a small stack, and consequently avoid confrontations with players who have significant amounts of chips in front of them. "Why take a chance at giving up this superior position at the table," they say, "to tangle with a big stack?"

This seems like weak, scared poker to me. I'd rather take a $500 stack than a $100 stack, and you can't do that if you're avoiding all of the $500 stacks, now can you? Of course, this is player-dependent... and I think this is a situation where careful observation of the playing styles of the one or two other big stacks at your table can pay some serious dividends.

Any opinions? Sorry for the rambling.

From the other point of view, though -- are you less inclined to make gamble-y moves against other big stacks? Does the risk of losing your strong chip position outweigh a slight edge in some cases, turning a call into a fold? Or is this the same weak/scared poker that I mention above?

I'm used to capped games, but I'm trying to get better with a deep stack. Any comments at all are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-DB

[dtbog]

First and final bump.

No one?

-DB

[Bremen]

Well from what I've read deep stacked strategy tends to be more conservative from short stacks. IE the deeper the stacks the tighter you need to play. I have always assumed this is why most NL games are capped now. The shorter stacks force more action which is what the WPT wannabe's want.

Based on that I have always played far more conservatively against a big stack.

[greg nice]

um.. deeper stacks allow for LOOSER action. you have tons more implied odds and calls are not nearly as great a percentage of your entire stack. in a 50bb game like party a preflop raise means youre calling off 10% of your stack preflop.

but the big errors are always postflop. on deep stacks your errors are magnified and you lose a lot more when you dont know what youre doing. the reason why you see so much action on capped buyin short stacks online is because people suck at poker. but its hard to tell just how much they suck because of short stacks.

[GoSox]

IMHO, I find that the bigger stacks are either better players buying in higher, or better players that worked there way up there. The worse players tend to buy in lower, or lose there way down there. I buyin with enough to cover the players with smaller stacks, but not enough that i'll play scared against the bigger stacks. I find this has worked much better for me than when I used to just buy in for the max.