Hot NL topic in "Poker Theory" (X-post - sorta)

[Marlow]

This post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2571962&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14) is really hot in the "Poker Theory" forum.

I'm confused as to why this is even an argument. The importance of stack size has been pretty well documented elsewhere.

Here's the jist of the original post:

[ QUOTE ]
In "Getting Started in Hold 'Em," Ed Miller writes (in a centered gray box for emphasis -- that is, this is a key point):

"Big stacks hold no intrinsic advantage over small stacks in cash no limit hold 'em games."

Does this mean that if I buy into a game for $200 and everyone else has a million dollars, then I shouldn't care? After all, they effectively only have $200 each, from my perspective. But this means that when cardrooms put a cap on the amount you can buy in for, they are not actually offering anybody any protection. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than perhaps psychological) for them to restrict the buy in.

Furthermore, I recall someone quoting Doyle Brunson as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "No limit games without a maximum buy in are the only true no limit games. Everything else is just spread limit." But in light of the previous considerations, this seems to be just nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a no-brainer!!?? Certainly in my travels, stack size has been an extremely important factor. Incredibly, there's a lot of back-and-forth on this forum topic.

Am I totally misinformed, or is this self-proclaimed book-writing "expert" crazy?

Marlow
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[mythrilfox]

I think the discrepancy here is small and big stacks relative to the other players in the game vs. small and big stacks relative to the BLINDS of the game. Clearly how big your stack is relative to the blinds makes a tremendous difference, but, as Ed points out, it is irrelevant if someone has more chips than you, regardless of the blinds.

[cero_z]

Hi Marlow,

Ed is right. To expound on his statement, there are advantages and disadvantages to having a shorter stack than everyone else, and to having everyone covered. A skilled player will therefore not be at a disadvantage in either of these positions.

The "protection" that capped buy-in games offer is that they encourage the stakes to remain at a level that reflects the blind structure. So, you generally won't see a lot of $1000 bets in a 2/5 game, but if 8 of the 9 players at the table have $25,000 behind, the game changes. What is this worth? Maybe a lot to the recreational gambler who wants to play in a game of a certain size. Also, when one player gets ahead several times the max buy-in, he won't be vulnerable to losing his whole stack against new players. Again, this is not inherently advantageous; it depends upon the relative skills of the players.

[Marlow]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the discrepancy here is small and big stacks relative to the other players in the game vs. small and big stacks relative to the BLINDS of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I was reacting to. Stack size relative to the blinds. In the old days before Party changed their blind/buyin structure, the games played differently. People with small stacks are going to get called down and played with more often. So if you take bluff out of your arsenal, you are just waiting around for premium cards or killer flops.

[turnipmonster]

why anyone would think you would want play vs. a bunch of other 200 stacks instead of 1k stacks is beyond me.

[kagame]

i find it amusing that a primarily limit holdem author is defending a short stack approach.

the edge a great deep stacked player gives up playing short is phenomenal, its an entirely different game. the overlay a realy NL player would give up playing short has to be astronomical, even if theres no "inherent" weakness in a short stack.

[turnipmonster]

uh, I am agreeing with ed that you would rather be a 200 stack in a game with 1k stacks than a 200 stack in a game of other 200 stacks, blinds being equal.

[Marlow]

I don't understand why you think this. Could you explain...

[kagame]

yeah i can understand you think youll get a ton of action if you have a big pair or AK

i was commenting on ed's shortstacked position and how hes essentially unqualified to speak on deep NL

[mythrilfox]

Because they will not play according to the blinds, they will play according to each other's stacks. So you can just sit there and wait for a good hand to snap off their bets and double up. Psychologically they don't much care if they double up a $200 player.

[AZK]

wow there are a lot of dumb people on this forum. Can I have those 15 minutes back I spent reading through that thread?

[turnipmonster]

so do we agree in a 2-5 blinds game, we'll make more money if everyone has 1k (edit: including us) stacks than if everyone has 200 stacks (assuming we're playing with a +EV)?

if this is true, then the game with 1k stacks has a much better profit potential for us. as a good player, we will win more than we will lose and thus increase our effective stack size. here's a simple example:

say I sit down to play a 2-5 game where everyone has 200 stacks, and so do we. the first hand I bust some dude, and now I have 400 dollars. he rebuys for 200 more, and guess what, we all still effectively have 200 stacks.

compare this to a game where I have a 200 stack, and everyone else has 1k. same deal, I double up first hand and have 400 bucks except this time, now everyone (to me) effectively has 400 stacks also.

--turnipmonster

[turnipmonster]

I think ed is a really smart guy who understands poker really well and am very interested in anything he has to say on the subject, deep stacked NL or otherwise. that's just my opinion though. I have no idea if he's qualified or not, and don't care.

[Marlow]

After posting 1202 times here, one would think that you would have a better grasp of what goes into a community forum. If you prefer to feel superior, I suggest that you write a blog instead.

Marlow
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[punter11235]

Hello,

I think many people confuse two questions regarding depth of the stack :
a)who is in better position in game with diffrent stack sizes, say ranging from 200$ to 1000$, 200$ guy or 1000$ guy ASSUMING that players have similair skill?
b)do you give up some EV by buying in short where you are actually better player than the rest?

Question b) is trivial if you are better you want to raise up the stakes, by buying in for maximum you do just that. But this is not interesting, its just like asking : what is more EV+ playing 500$NL with bunch of suckers or playing 1000$NL which the same bunch of suckers.

Question a) is what really matters. And I think the answer is very clear. Short stack have advantage when there are few people with deep stacks. These people when considering their decision have to worry about being raised for all they money and have to worry about shortstack guy going allin vs them (so they cant charge him more). Short stack havent got such a problems so it must be advantegous.

I really dont understand why this topic is so hot, the answer seems to be obvious.
Best wishes!

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
i find it amusing that a primarily limit holdem author is defending a short stack approach.

the edge a great deep stacked player gives up playing short is phenomenal, its an entirely different game. the overlay a realy NL player would give up playing short has to be astronomical, even if theres no "inherent" weakness in a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thougth this discussion was about possible advantage in having 3-10x buy-in at the table. we wasnt really talking about short stacked (But in one sense youre short stacked with one buy-in at the table if there are several 5x buy-in players there).

[AZK]

I wasn't criticizing you, unless you were the one who thought big stacks could bully short stacks in that thread...everyone's replies sort of blended together except for the few intelligent ones....I was just upset because people were told over and over with countless examples they were wrong and they still chose to argue against players that either a) do this for a living, b) are published or c) both, thus wasting all of our time. I know what goes into a community forum, that's why I normally stay in this forum, and don't waste my time in others.