Is having a big stack an advantage in a capped buy-in game?

[Rick Nebiolo]

matt,

great analysis but you went way beyond vince's question [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
This fact, I think, is why these limited buy-in games are great for the good player, who's played for a while and built up a stack: variable stack sizes offer more opportunities for knowlege and skill to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Louie

This is a great point - you still have it (you asked elsewhere [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

Also keep in mind the restricted buy in prevents the matt flynn's, turnipmonsters, louie landale and even the vince lepore's of the world from taking an empty seat and putting enough money on the table to be an instant threat. This can keep a great game great for a long while, but if you want to be part of a great game you have to pay your dues by starting it and getting deep.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
.......This is a huge (inherent) advantage or am I missing something.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing more than something but I'm too tired to elaborate [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]:

~ Rick

[jullep]

In a 3-way pot with two big stack and one smal, the big stacks can show more strenth by betting more then ai the smal stack. I dont think this can be called only intimidation and ofcourse in this situation also the smal stack has some advantages. My point is that it is not a symmetric event and claiming noone has an advantage is not that easy.

[vegas]

"The amount of money in front of the players has a profound influence on the betting. The deeper the money, the greater the implication that a player has a strong hand when he raises. His raise also exerts greater leverage, b/c the amount that may be put at risk in further betting must be considered."

With that being said, if a small stack compare to yours do not play tight or too tight and don't stand up to you, you can run over him. And if there are some players who have a good size stack but you have them covered you can get them off their hands when fighting for the fish.

So, yes I believe it is an advantage when playing any form of no-limit and maybe even more so with a capped buy-in game where you know new players will be coming in with small stacks.

[Rococo]

Putting aside any edge in intimidation, if the big stack is a strong player, the tactical advantage is significant if even one other player is deep. [I appreciate that I am bucking the hypothetical, but this is the case more often than not.] If you are holding JJ and a deep opponent has AK, you want to be able to extract the maximum in those situations where the flop comes JAA.

[Vince Lepore]

Now listen to me pretty boy. Hypothetically speaking if you were to play Joe Moron heads up and he had an infinite bankroll and moved in everytime and your bankroll was that of a very wealthy human, say Bill Gates, you will go broke. No matter what the blinds, as long as the are > 0, nor how long you last, many lifetimes. There is a law that goes hand and had with this idea. I believe it is the law of large numbers but not being mathematical I'm not quite sure. What I am sure of is that the big stack (depending how big) has an advantage built in to it in NLH. And the capped buy in exacerbates that advantage.

Vince

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetically speaking if you were to play Joe Moron heads up and he had an infinite bankroll and moved in everytime and your bankroll was that of a very wealthy human, say Bill Gates, you will go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same reasoning that leads to the Martingale roulette strategy: make successive -EV bets at higher and higher stakes until you win. It's a bad strategy for roulette, and it's bad strategy for NLHE too.

No one here is advocating bringing your whole poker bankroll to the NLHE table. If you don't mind the chance of losing a few buyins, then you should be delighted to play against someone who will stack off with the worst of it (as discussed in the Esfandiari thread).

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Now listen to me pretty boy. Hypothetically speaking if you were to play Joe Moron heads up and he had an infinite bankroll and moved in everytime and your bankroll was that of a very wealthy human, say Bill Gates, you will go broke. No matter what the blinds, as long as the are > 0, nor how long you last, many lifetimes.
Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

vince if you mean to say infinite stack vs. finite stack over infinite hands you are correct: the finite stack must eventually lose. only lesson there is if you cannot replace your bankroll don't put it all in play on a single bet.

otoh, with infinite bankroll vs. finite bankroll -assuming reasonable blinds and buyins relative to the finite bankroll - the finite bankroll would typically grow indefinitely.

matt

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty or restricted buy in is when I'm deep and a few weak players are deep players like turnipmonster, Ulysses, Matt Flyn, and others who post here can't jump in and cover [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].


[/ QUOTE ]

Hero and I are going over this thread and my lack of an appropriate period in this is driving us crazy. Because I'm an anal retentive nit I'm going to add the period:

"The beauty or restricted buy in is when I'm deep and a few weak players are deep. Players like turnipmonster, Ulysses, Matt Flyn, and others who post here can't jump in and cover [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].