Taking money off the NL table at Party Poker

[canis582]

I was playing a little 100NL on party tonight and some guy ran his $50 up to $100, dissapeared from the table for a few seconds and reappeared with $50. Why do they let people do that? Is there a trick?

what do you mean is there a trick?

[canis582]

If you leave a table on UB and try to come back to it within 20 mins it won't let you sit down with less than what you had when you got up.

[BluffTHIS!]

Party has no rule keeping players from coming back after leaving for one hand with less than they left with. Although some players seem to find this frustrating because they can't win all the money back from that particular player they lost to them, especially if that player is very looose, you should really be glad they play like that. It means that once you build up a stack they are no threat and can't bluff effectively. Also they can't take off bigger stacks accumulated by other fish making it more likely that you will be the one to get it.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing a little 100NL on party tonight and some guy ran his $50 up to $100, dissapeared from the table for a few seconds and reappeared with $50. Why do they let people do that? Is there a trick?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are about a million tables out there. Do you want to insist that your fish move to one of the other 999,999 because his big stack is making him uncomfortable?

I want the fish to be happy while I take their money. It's good for business.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . especially if that player is very looose, you should really be glad they play like that . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to disagree. Playing shortstacked is a huge advantage to the fish and you should be very disappointed when this happens. You are robbed of your ability to extract full value from their numerous mistakes and that is where your profit is coming from. But those are the rules as they stand. In the long term it's probably a good thing since it helps prevent the fish from losing so quickly they quit the game, but make no mistake - this is a big advantage for a weak player.

[BluffTHIS!]

It isn't really an advantage for a bad player, only a good player to be shortstacked. The bad player has to continually be lucky with that short stack to overcome playing bad, and occasionally taking winnings off the table won't overcome it in the long run. And even from the perspective of you recouping from his getting lucky on you occasionally, you only have to beat him once to get back what he took, since he won't play with a bigger stack and take even more off you by bad play. Also, when you lose to bad play, you shouldn't have the attitude that you want to get even from that specific player, but from the game as a whole, otherwise you might be led by emotion to give up your edge and play badly against him when he actually has a legitimate hand.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't really an advantage for a bad player, only a good player to be shortstacked. The bad player has to continually be lucky with that short stack to overcome playing bad, and occasionally taking winnings off the table won't overcome it in the long run. And even from the perspective of you recouping from his getting lucky on you occasionally, you only have to beat him once to get back what he took, since he won't play with a bigger stack and take even more off you by bad play. Also, when you lose to bad play, you shouldn't have the attitude that you want to get even from that specific player, but from the game as a whole, otherwise you might be led by emotion to give up your edge and play badly against him when he actually has a legitimate hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you're saying about emotion and not trying to get it back, etc - that's really irrelevant to what I'm trying to point out. You're incorrect about short stacks not helping bad players. A good player is hurt by short stacks. A bad player is helped by it. Good players playing short stacks are denied full value for their big hands and can have too few chips to make effective advanced moves against larger foes. Bad players with short stacks have a safety net for their frequent mistakes, often get to draw for free because they're all-in and deny the good players implied odds against them.

[BluffTHIS!]

I don't believe that a good player is hurt by a short stack, just that he cannot maximize his edge nor learn how to properly play a larger stack. You can search the poker theory forum for more on this as there have been a couple threads in the past few months discussing the short stack strategy in Ed Miller's book.

However regarding the bad player, you are correct in that by playing a short stack they cannot lose as much as with a larger one and this does act as a safety net somewhat, but only to the degree of limiting their losses. Since they are playing bad, and thus in a negative expectation manner, then all their leaving when they hit and coming back with less amounts to is a money management scheme, similar to those used by people playing casino games. It still won't help them keep from losing in the long run, it just prolongs their play before the negative expectation overcomes any positive short term variance they might be lucky enough to experience.

When you say that their short stacks prevents your making advanced moves on them or getting implied odds to draw out, then all that means is that the good player should adjust properly and play appropriately against them and just count on showing down the best hand to get their money, which should then be assured in the long run. It is only the failure of the good player to adjust that makes the good player play bad against them and really adds to their safety net.

[2easy]

pretty much agree with most of what you said.

the tricky part about it is when the short stack gets in with 2 big stacks. this can often tend to obscure things between the two big stacks, and can sometimes make for some very interesting abberitions.