Thoughts on stack sizes vs player skill, etc...

[bholdr]

In a recent thread we had a... um... vigrous discussion about the relitive advantages and disadvantages of stack sizes in NL play. I think it's a topic worth discussing further, as i may have some gaps in my small stack vs big stack play, from either direction.

My initial post in the thread basicly said: "i try to avoid playing against big stacks"

to which a few posters replied with opinions like "no way, man! those big stacks are a great oppurtunity to double through/profit"

I thought my understanding of the subject was pretty thorough, as i am a fairly successful NL player, though i tend to play more limit these days because i make more there. Some posters raised good points. some just flamed me. i think they misunderstood that my post was both a genralization and specific to MY game, so i'm not too pissed. but i will say that the flaming here is really chasing off a lot of really good posters.

***

ok, here are my thoughts on the issue of NL stack sizes, for the purposes of this discussion, lets say a 'big stack' means three to five buyins or more:

A: all things being equal, the bigger stack has an advantage in NL. no doubt about this one right?

B: it follows that, when selecting tables to play at, lacking other information, a skilled player would want to avoid tables where there is a big stack sitting in.

C: however, if the player with the big stack is known to be less skilled, that just means there's more money on the table to win, and it may be profitable to look for those games (vs finding fish with regular stacks).

D: also, one would assume that, generally speaking and lacking other information, a big stack means a more skillful player than on avarage, which, to me, is another reason to avoid the big stacks.

The preceeding opinions are formed based on my experiences at NL100 and 200$ buy ins at paradise, party and stars, where i play NL when i'm not playing limit. I also sometimes multitable NL 50, and sometimes even 25 (sayyy, if i've had a drink or two, or want to fool around with my strategy etc) so if people want to discuss those levels, that's fine, too.

***

The following are some thoughts other posters had and my reactions to them:

1:[ QUOTE ]
when i see someone sitting with like 4-8 buyins that screams "come double up over and over."

[/ QUOTE ]

my thought: 'only if you know they're a fish'


2:[ QUOTE ]
If someone has a 400 stack on a NL25 table, you can sit, play tight, take 50 off him and stand up. Easy money.

[/ QUOTE ]

my thought: 'how exactly is this easier than taking 25$ off of two fish? why would you stand up?'


3:[ QUOTE ]
a bad player with a big stack has a big disadvantage while a bad player with a small stack has only a small disadvantage.

Look at it this way: Phil Ivey is sitting at a table with $25. Would you rather sit at that table with $100 or with $25 or with $10. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

my thoughts: 'i'll take 100. if i only had 10, i may as well write him a check. also, a bad player with a big stack is likely a LAG (right?) and with a big stack, LAG play is closer to optimum than with a small stack, giving a bad LAG with a big stack LESS of a disadvantage than one with a small stack... or is there a big error in my thinking here?'


4: [ QUOTE ]
I'm sure a lot of the Party regulars will tell you that a significant portion of their wins come from big stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

my thought: 'hm. really? i wanna know about this...'

and: 'are we talking NL25? ok then... but chasing big stacks at NL100+ CAN'T be +EV, right? a player that has a big stack and knows how to use it can just roll and roll.'


5 [ QUOTE ]
When I see a big stack like that to me it screams "I'm a huge idiot who has gotten lucky by sucking out on people"

Most expert players don't go on mad rushes like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

my thought: 'speak for yourself (just kidding- if i get a stack that's 3-4x the buy in, the only thing that stops me from taking it to 10x or more is my boredom with playing the hours in a row needed to do so. i'd have to say that experts accumulate big stacks far more often than fish- right? there was a thread here a couple months ago about the biggest NL stack that posters had accumulated in terms of number of buyins. mine was/is still 14. some of the REAL experts had numbers like 20+. and come to think of it, i made about 6 buyins at that game by breaking another big stack)'

***

so i'd like to hear thoughts on these points, as well as general strategy modification considerations involved in play vs a big stack, both skilled and fishy big stacks. i will not respond to flamers except with a general 'kiss my ass'.

[tbach24]

My personal policy is that when I double up, if there is another big stack, I am leaving the table, unless it is a total fish fest or I am on a rush, or the big stack is bad.

In reguards to your post I think that you are right in saying that an unknown player with a giant stack is probably going to be good. However, as was mentioned, he is probably going to be LAG as well. I see no personal preference to sitting with him vs. a really bad player. Just let him push you around a bit and then double up. Simple IMO. However, I think you can make just as much sitting at a very bad table. In response to the Phil Ivey question, I think I'd rather have 25, just because 25$ is play money to him and it would be easy to double up. I would also think that if you had a stack of 100 and the big stack had you covered it would be better because of implied odds.

Hope I was helpful (and not too contradictory).

[bholdr]

ok c'mon...

ok i've been playing some NL 50 and chasing some big stacks tonight and it's been good. but, i've been hitting my draws, too.

interesting...

[Sephus]

you didnt need to start a new thread.

(on party) most players with big stacks are not very good. someone sitting with a big stack is really not much more likely to be good than the average party player. in fact, someone sitting with like 8-10 buyins may actually be more likely to be a fish than someone sitting with 5.

[ QUOTE ]
A: all things being equal, the bigger stack has an advantage in NL. no doubt about this one right?

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily.

if someone has $400 and the rest of the table has $50, the $400 stack gives him zero advantage. if i double up off him and we're $350 to $100 to $50 for everyone else, his stack gives him zero advantage on any hands where the stacks are those ratios. if i double up off him again and it's $250 to $200 to $50s, his stack gives him zero advantage over me.

and the whole "i have to double up a few times and he only has to get me once" is a non-argument. when he gets you once he gets your buyin + any winnings. when you get him a few times you get his big stack. you are just way off base about this.

[ QUOTE ]
my thought: 'only if you know they're a fish'

[/ QUOTE ]

most players on party 6max NL ARE fish. ill take my chances, and often i have PT stats on people.

[ QUOTE ]
if i only had 10, i may as well write him a check.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so wrongheaded. if you only had 10, you'd have an excellent chance at doubling up on ivey. then you could just leave at your pleasure.

[ QUOTE ]
a player that has a big stack and knows how to use it can just roll and roll.'

[/ QUOTE ]

these arent tournaments. you can't bully the shorter stacks, i dont know why you think you can. the shorter stacks allow them to be bolder against you.

[wegs the wegs]

I was going to post this in the other thread but I'll do it here.

When I'm looking for a table to sit down at, if there are one or two big stacks at the table I don't pay much attention to it, but I do try to sit as close as I can to their left.

If I see a table of a player that I know is bad with a big stack... sit me anywhere. Not only do I know I can beat him, but if he can get rich at this table the players here must be AWFUL. That's how it will be on most of the party tables.

If you sit down and see that the big stacks are really good and you don't think you have an advantage there is one cool thing about online poker... you can be at a new table in less than 15 seconds.

As for playing against small stacks... they probably have a taken more from me than the big stacks have. When a big stack goes all-in, I tend to take a closer look at the hand and make a better decision. When a small stack goes in I think "He only has $10 bucks left so he must suck, no way he has that flush... awww crap, he had the nuts." Those add up.

I think what you should do is play against which ever type of stack that you play most comfortable with. If you play worse against big stacks, avoid them. It's that simple.

[bholdr]

"you didnt need to start a new thread."
Why are you flaming me? i really don't get it. we kinda hijacked the old thread, don't you think this topic deserves a thread? it's a valuable discussion, and i hope we'll all learn something as a result.

"in fact, someone sitting with like 8-10 buyins may actually be more likely to be a fish than someone sitting with 5."

why would you say that? i don't understand.

"you can't bully the shorter stacks, i dont know why you think you can."

g'huh?!

you've gotta explain your positions, man! you may be right, but you're giving me no reasons to believe that. I buly small stacks all the time. the fact is, people don't like to lose their stack- not everybody plays for the long run, most players are trying to win THE GAME THAT THEY ARE IN, which gives the big stack an advantage.


why bother chasing a white whale when the sea is full of minniows?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
If I see a table of a player that I know is bad with a big stack... sit me anywhere. Not only do I know I can beat him, but if he can get rich at this table the players here must be AWFUL. That's how it will be on most of the party tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good point. if a bad player has a lot of money, then the others at the table may be even worse...


[ QUOTE ]
If you sit down and see that the big stacks are really good and you don't think you have an advantage there is one cool thing about online poker... you can be at a new table in less than 15 seconds.


[/ QUOTE ]

aggreed.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"you didnt need to start a new thread."

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you flaming me? i really don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

flaming you?? why are you being so damn sensitive?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"in fact, someone sitting with like 8-10 buyins may actually be more likely to be a fish than someone sitting with 5."

[/ QUOTE ]why would you say that? i don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

because a lot of megafish play for the excitement of "big wins." they gamble like crazy and every once in a while they hit a rush and build up a huge stack, then they just love sitting there and looking like the big man with he big stack, and they stay until they lose it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"you can't bully the shorter stacks, i dont know why you think you can.

[/ QUOTE ]"you've gotta explain your positions, man! you may be right, but you're giving me no reasons to believe that. I buly small stacks all the time. the fact is, people don't like to lose their stack- not everybody plays for the long run, most players are trying to win THE GAME THAT THEY ARE IN, which gives the big stack an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry for not explaining, i really think it's obvious. people who have small stacks are less vulnerable to "bullying" than people with bigger stacks because they can call/raise your bets without having to worry about facing huge bets on later streets.

if i'm sitting on 50 big blinds in a raised pot, i pot the flop and you raise me, i don't have to worry about whether you're going to follow up big on the turn or any of that, i just push the rest in.

and i don't see how anyone with a short stack is going to be more worried about busting when a big stack bets into them, they go broke just as easily against similarly sized stacks.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I see a table of a player that I know is bad with a big stack... sit me anywhere. Not only do I know I can beat him, but if he can get rich at this table the players here must be AWFUL. That's how it will be on most of the party tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good point. if a bad player has a lot of money, then the others at the table may be even worse...

[/ QUOTE ]


the variance of the 6max nl games on party is so high that there is only a loose correlation between short-term success and skill.

[DoomSlice]

My thoughts, on a very LAG table, it is easier to double up if you bought in for the min or 2x min than if you bought in for the max at a lower limit buyin for that same amount of money - people are more willing to gamble with a short stack.

However, if you are indeed good, you can make more money off of the big stacks by exploiting their mistakes. I prefer to buy in max and go for the kill on the large stacks who overplay their TPTK