Advantages of biggest stack

[PrayingMantis]

What are the advantages of having the biggest stack at a NL game, except of being able to win every other player's full stack?

I mean:

For example, let's assume 9 players, blinds 1-2 (or whatever), other stacks are 50, 80, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450. Does it make any difference for any strategical/tactical/psychological/EV matters if you have 450 or 500, 600, 1000 or any X>450?

[edge]

If you get stacked by the 450 and you have 1350, you still cover him. If the buy-in isn't capped and you can top up whenever you want, there's no difference between the largest and the second-largest stacks.

[RYL]

You can be more loose and agressive. On top that, you have a greater psychological advantage. There are people who are afraid of the big stack and, at the same time, there are people who give the big stack more action. Identify those type of different people and you'll find out why NL is MUCH better than limit IMO.

[stankybank]

you get to play more hands for value and try to bust/outplay your opponents. Also, whenever you're in a pot with others, they fear you more because they can go broke whereas you can't. Lots of psychological factors involved.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
you get to play more hands for value and try to bust/outplay your opponents. Also, whenever you're in a pot with others, they fear you more because they can go broke whereas you can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anybody fear me because of going broke, unless they have all their bankroll on the table? This is not a tournament (I understand that having a big stack can "intimidate" weak opposition, as they don't clearly see the difference between tournament and a cash game, but I'm not interested in this aspect).

Anyway, I don't think you understood my question. Maybe others didn't understand as well, so I'll put it differently.

Also, It's possible that this question applies more (or only) to capped buy-in. Probably it is. Anyway: what kind of considerations will you have while having the biggest stack at the table (at a capped buy-in), and having the 2nd stack covered by a significant amount?

Or a variation on this quesion: in what circumstances does it worth to take slightly -$EV spots in order to build your stack to be the biggest (considering there are some advantages in having such a stack)?

I know these themes are often and normally discussed in a tourament context, but I'm not talking about tournaments. I'm talking about cash games, where "going broke" considerations usualy do not apply.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
in what circumstances does it worth to take slightly -$EV spots in order to build your stack to be the biggest

[/ QUOTE ]

Big fish, big stack.

[captZEEbo1]

I personally tend to get scared if I'm sitting with 300 bb's or more (when I normally play 100) when I am involved in any hands with another good player who also has around 300 bb's. I'm not really used to the strategy adjustments. He'd have odds to call pot bets on flop with as little as a backdoor flush, because implied odds are through the roof. If I'm playing at limits I'm not super comfortable with, I usually just leave if I have 300 bb's and there are multiple good opponents with that big of a stack.

[imported_bingobazza]

[ QUOTE ]
Or a variation on this quesion: in what circumstances does it worth to take slightly -$EV spots in order to build your stack to be the biggest (considering there are some advantages in having such a stack)?



[/ QUOTE ]

MAYBE its worth it if you think you can run over the table, especially if other players are not adequately bankrolled and you are. But personally, I love playing against big loose stacks who try to do this.
Bingo