Big Stack or Small Stack?

[manku]

When playing PL, is it better to have more or fewer chips than the competition? I always assumed having more (ie. have everyone covered) is better.

The game in question is a very loose, quite aggressive home game. The buy in is $400 and blinds are 5-10. Mainly HE and Omaha8. Bear in mind that very few players will actually fold a second best hand in this game. Showdowns are the rule.

Players have the "option" of declaring additional funds without having to buy chips ie. I'll say I'm backing up with $500 more., so in reality I have $900 on table after initial buy in.

Comments?

Manku

[pudley4]

I can't answer your question regarding stack size because I have zero experience playing pot or no-limit games. However, I do have a question about allowing additional "declared funds" - do you have any way of representing who does and does not have additional funds in play? I can't imagine that allowing them without the money/chips/markers actually being visible could be anything but very very bad.

[manku]

Since it's a home game, things are fairly friendly. However, since people orally declare their backup, and it's usually a set amount (either unlimited or say $400), so far (over 30 sessions) we've never had a single dispute or problem.

Knock on wood...

Manku

[Pot-A]

I think it's better to end up with more chips.

[Jason Pohl]

Larger stack size = more options.

If you are a skilled player, you want to keep your ability to bet big AND you want to keep the intimidation factor afforded you by outstacking your competition.

--Jason