Questionable Ethics?

[Maddenboy]

First off, the money should have stayed in.

1) if the dealer believes that Villian can take it back, what happened when the original action passed UTG? Dealer should have said "your action Villain." Did dealer skip villain, or did he offer villian the opportunity to act? If he skipped him, doesn't that suggest that the action was valid in the dealer's (puny) mind?

2) if dealer says V can take it back, what about the action behind V. The people who folded, presumably to a raise, have been affected by his "action," (they may not have folded but/for the raise) so in most places the action stands.

3) I would never, ever take the dealer's word as final. You should have called the floorman.

[gcoutu]

hmmmmmm...i am normally a very calm nice person, but unless the villian is say 6'5" 250 I would have a hard time not taking him outside for a "word." I agree with the above posting about the action before him assuming a raise. I would have called the floor and upon losing the hand I would have calm asked for a word outside, sir.

Also, I would not push with Q9 even against any random hand. Ax or PP would be good enough to make a move like that, but not Q9.

[Cohiba Al]

Only the UTG can straddle, and some rooms allow multiple chain-straddling. Straddles are blind raises that allow the UTG the option of re-raising himself when the action comes to back around.

Anyone can blind raise from any position. Once they push in the chips and announce the blind raise verbally any dealer and any floor person should prevent them from taking it back, especially after any action has occurred since this "blind-raise" has affected people's decisions.

[tewall]

Q9 is indeed about a 56% favorite against a random hand, so why shouldn't he raise?

[tewall]

I'm questioning the advice not to play short-stacked.

According to Sklansky, it is advantageous to get all-in. The main reason is you will win a fair amount of pots you would have had to fold had you not been all-in. Given that it's good to be all-in, being short-stacked makes that more likely to happen, so should not put you at a disadvantage. In fact, the reason for minimum buy-ins is to prevent a player from being able to take advantage of this.

There may be other reasons not to play short-stacked, but being mathematically at a disadvantage I don't think is one of them.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
I also play the $100 and $200 PP games quite a bit and it is just too easy to bully other players when I build up my stack to 400,500,600 or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, what is that, like a couple million buy-ins? You must be good! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Scooterdoo]

Funny... yes, my stack is still growing, and growing... watch out Bill Gates!

[Scooterdoo]

I'm sure he's referring to the fact that a) on many hands if you're pushing others will fold; and b) you get to see all 5 cards for hands like AK.

It seems to me that it is a huge advantage to have a large stack in a NL cash game versus your opponents, it allows you to be much more flexible, to bully shorter stacks (assuming they do not have unlimited ability to rebuy and forcing them to bet a significant part of their stack puts them in a bind) AND most importantly, it allows you to take maximum advantage of your strong hands. For example, if you only have $100 at a table (where you could have had $300) and you get the nuts and have callers you can only win $100 from each player. If you had $300 you can now win triple. Of course the converse is also true, you limit the amount you can lose on any hand -- but why play scared? If you're not confident, move down in limits and buy-in for the max at the lower limits.

I can tell you from experience that when I have more chips than others at the table a) my bets get respected much more; b) on a related point I win much more often when bluffing at the pot; c) I have much more flexibility in how I play; d) my stack grows on average much more quickly than when I'm short-stacked.

I have never heard anyone suggest that you should buy-in for below average when you have the choice and bankroll (and skill and confidence) to buy-in for more. I would be curious what others believe.

[tewall]

If the goal is to make as much money as possible, having as large a bankroll as possible in a game where you have an edge is unarguably the best strategy. However, from a percentage standpoint, I see no reason why a short stack shouldn't win as much as a large one. In fact, because of the increased probability of getting all in, I would think it could be higher.

Thus if all you had was $2,000 I think you could do better by splitting that up into 10 segments of $200 and play in the same game that you are a favorite in 10 times rather than play the entier $2,000 at once.

The orginal point I was making was in response to a poster urging the original poster to have a larger buy-in because the smaller buy-in would cause him to be at a disadvantage. This is what I'm disagreeing with, not that playing with a large stack is a good thing. If you are a favorate against a game with a large stack, you should be a favorate with a small stack.

[Scooterdoo]

I hear what you are saying and I haven't given it enough thought to debate the point, but in my experience I believe you will do better (all things being equal) with a large stack in a game, then by sitting down with a smaller stack. Think about it this way, certainly you will lose less if you play poorly or get into bad situations on any particular hand, but if you are a better player than average at the table or if you just start getting good cards you will win more faster. You also have the ability to bully other players and, in my opinion, people are hesitant to put all their chips in the middle and be forced to buy back in or walk away. For this reason alone your ability to force people to either put all their chips in, or a significant portion of their chips in to call your bets makes it an advantage. One last point, I find that when you are short-stacked versus an opponent they are more likely to come over the top of you or try to bluff you out by forcing you to commit your stack to a hand. The opposite is also true, when you have a stack advantage versus an opponent they are more likely to NOT bluff or will check to you because they believe their bet will not make a difference and they are worried that you will come over the top of them. Anyway, I would love to hear some statistical arguments for smaller stacks, but I just think there is too much of an advantage to sitting at a table with a large stack -- again, based on experience (perhaps not statistically correct).