[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
it's an example of why it's bad to have a maniac acting behind when you're trying to flop a winner with a dominated hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a good point, but it is not the only aspect of this hand.

[ QUOTE ]

Stack sizes are irrelevant.

Note that while the outcome disadvantaged you, it equally helped big stack KK who had the best hand. Collectively, there was no disadvantage to big stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The stack sizes are relevant, and there is no reason to suppose the big stacks are helped and hurt by exactly the same amounts. When the stack sizes allow one big stack to force the other big stack out, this can increase the short stack's equity in the main pot. The competition between the big stacks is not zero-sum.

With the actual hands, the short stack was hurt by about 0.5 BB because I couldn't overcall in the main pot, since if ATs beats KK, it will probably beat QQ, too. However, over the range of hands I could have, the short stack was helped a lot, preferring about 30% of 49.5 BB over about 20% of 61.5 BB. The big stacks are hurt by about 2-3 BB when KK knocks out a hand from the range QQ-JJ, AK-AQ, AJs.