Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Err, didn't think I could give the subject justice in the subject line. Here's the situation.

We've been playing about 2 and a half hours, we're down to 4 players in the game, it's a cash game, .25/.50 I've been doing well the entire game and I'm up about 185BB. The only other player with any real $$ infront of him announces cash out, he has about 120bb infront of him ($60) the other two players have around $6 and $30. I tell them I'd be willing to keep playing if they added on to their stacks. The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.

I never (ever, ever, never have, not even once) cashed out of the game, and I vowed to do it after a few hit and runs from some regulars, but the ones who I wanted revenge on weren't playing anyways. In a casino, I don't care about a hit and run. At a home game, when the players are limited, I can't stand it.

Anyways, the question is, is me not wanting to play with 2 very short stacked players bad etiquette? Also, is my reasoning ridiculous? (having everything to lose and nothing to gain)

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I believe the best option would've been to cash. While on a strategic level, I agree with you 110%, I believe my line would've been something along the lines of "Well, I guess I'll cash out too" and if they say "Wait, don't go!" then tell them they'll have to add more to the stacks.

I've always felt that it was humiliating to have a player ask you to add chips to your stack, and usually, when I'm asked, I leave, and will rarely play the person again, because it just rubs me the wrong way.

~Mike

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I would of asked to cash out at the sametime. If questioned, I would of said down to three players, not much sense to play on any longer. I wouldn't of asked for them to add to their stacks.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Yeah. That would be very strange for me though, is the thing. I wasn't kidding when I said I have never, ever, cashed out. I'm there playing with 3 players, even heads up, almost everytime we play. So it would be a weird explanation either way.

Unblinking, the way you said it is the way it happened. They asked me to stay and then I said I would if they'd add on.

I guess it would have been best to just cash out and not say anything, but again, that'd be odd coming from me. I really don't like cashing out, and to be honest, I don't see a need for me to do it. I have confidence in my game, but I felt the amount of money I was risking compared to the amount they were risking was very unfair.

Edit: What ended up happening was I said I'd play one more round (just three hands) with the stacks the way they were, and the other guy with $30 infront of him said "maybe we should just do a cheap tournament" and the guy with $6 infront said he didn't want to put any more money in. So we did the last round and that was that.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't understand. Are you a better player than these guys? Can you make the adjustments necessary for stack sizes? If so, you have the money in front of them to gain. If not then you should leave because the game isn't good for you anymore.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would of asked to cash out at the sametime. If questioned, I would of said down to three players, not much sense to play on any longer. I wouldn't of asked for them to add to their stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

There are many ways to cash out without making the other 2 players feel that they are not playing big enough for you (which might make them upset).

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't understand. Are you a better player than these guys? Can you make the adjustments necessary for stack sizes? If so, you have the money in front of them to gain. If not then you should leave because the game isn't good for you anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could treat this experience as the end of a tournament (where it is rare to have two people with more than 50BBs). You are the big stack trying to kill off the smaller stacks.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unblinking, the way you said it is the way it happened. They asked me to stay and then I said I would if they'd add on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in that case, I change my opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking them to add if they asked you to stay.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't understand. Are you a better player than these guys? Can you make the adjustments necessary for stack sizes? If so, you have the money in front of them to gain. If not then you should leave because the game isn't good for you anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have confidence in my game, but I felt the amount of money I was risking compared to the amount they were risking was very unfair

[/ QUOTE ]

What was "unfair" about it?

I've faced the reverse- the big stack wouldn't let me buy up to close in on their level, so they couldn't lose it all back.



I'd be worried about future game support, if I asked people to buy up.

Do you always buy up to close to the max stack, when you're short... even if you don't want to?

What if you've had a bad session and your session roll is almost gone- do you borrow to buy up?

Something to think about.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Agree that you shouldn't be worried about this. Tiny stacks are like pieces of lint to be sucked into my black hole. Relish the big stack. Stroke it. Explode it on their faces.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you always buy up to close to the max stack, when you're short... even if you don't want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you want to? Well, okay, maybe not max stack, but I certainly buy up a bit when I'm short.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you've had a bad session and your session roll is almost gone- do you borrow to buy up?[/quote[

I like loaning money to people doing this. That way I win twice!

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's suppose you plan to play until somebody has all the money on the table. Sure you have more to lose if you have more money, but you are much more likely to be the one who wins, assuming equal skill. These factors will cancel out and so your EV is exactly equal to the amount of money in front of you, irrespective of their stack sizes. There is a proof of this concept in Sklansky's Tournament Poker. The other players being shorter than you does not harm you assuming you know how to play. (obvious example, don't call $2 from the $6 stack with a speculative hand) A short stack can harm you when your must play poorly against shortie to exploit weaknesses of a deeper stack, but that situation will not apply here as the other stack is also short, and it can't ever apply if you are assuming equal skill.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, is my reasoning ridiculous? (having everything to lose and nothing to gain)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning isn't ridiculous, just not completely thought out. And if you have bankroll considerations you might be better off locking up the win anyway, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I find myself playing better when I have a big chip stack lead. It's easier to read players, desperation sets in and they'll play tight preflop and if they hit top pair or even middle pair they bet big, otherwise they usually fold to pressure.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
to be sucked into my black hole. Relish the big stack. Stroke it. Explode it on their faces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone needs a cold shower... freak

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have confidence in my game, but I felt the amount of money I was risking compared to the amount they were risking was very unfair

[/ QUOTE ]

What was "unfair" about it?

I've faced the reverse- the big stack wouldn't let me buy up to close in on their level, so they couldn't lose it all back.



I'd be worried about future game support, if I asked people to buy up.

Do you always buy up to close to the max stack, when you're short... even if you don't want to?

What if you've had a bad session and your session roll is almost gone- do you borrow to buy up?

Something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never short when we play three handed. Everyone elses cashes out when they win a lot, I generally have most of the $$ when we are three handed. But, when 6 handed or more, yes, I add on always.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's suppose you plan to play until somebody has all the money on the table. Sure you have more to lose if you have more money, but you are much more likely to be the one who wins, assuming equal skill. These factors will cancel out and so your EV is exactly equal to the amount of money in front of you, irrespective of their stack sizes. There is a proof of this concept in Sklansky's Tournament Poker. The other players being shorter than you does not harm you assuming you know how to play. (obvious example, don't call $2 from the $6 stack with a speculative hand) A short stack can harm you when your must play poorly against shortie to exploit weaknesses of a deeper stack, but that situation will not apply here as the other stack is also short, and it can't ever apply if you are assuming equal skill.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, is my reasoning ridiculous? (having everything to lose and nothing to gain)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning isn't ridiculous, just not completely thought out. And if you have bankroll considerations you might be better off locking up the win anyway, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that's an incorrect assumption; that we will play until one person has most of the money. What is more likely is the short players will double up on me and then cash out shortly after. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "your EV is equal to whats infront of you" ? I am very tired, but, can't my EV only be whats infront of the other players? How can I expect to make more than what they have? I'll admit, I'm a noob to any talk relating to EV.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find myself playing better when I have a big chip stack lead. It's easier to read players, desperation sets in and they'll play tight preflop and if they hit top pair or even middle pair they bet big, otherwise they usually fold to pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]This is all psychological, though. You can only play for the amount of money in the 2nd largest stack at the table- the chips you have over that amount are not in play. If you have a psychological advantage over your opponents, then use it. However, if you find that YOU make better plays with a stack "advantage" in a cash game, this points to a weakness in your own game.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think that's an incorrect assumption; that we will play until one person has most of the money. What is more likely is the short players will double up on me and then cash out shortly after. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "your EV is equal to whats infront of you" ? I am very tired, but, can't my EV only be whats infront of the other players? How can I expect to make more than what they have? I'll admit, I'm a noob to any talk relating to EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you have $300, and he has $50. Assuming equal skill, I expect you to have $300 _on average_ when you're done playing, no matter how you decide to stop. Since you're equally skilled, you wont gain or lose money each hand on average. If you play until somebody is bust, you will have $350 6/7 times and $0 1/7 times, and vice versa for your opponent - leaving your EV as the same as what you currently have.

Now, what if you want to play until he's bust or doubles up. If you each had $50, these results are obviously equally likely. But what does your having $300 change? He still can't win more than he has in front of him. His being short is like both of you being short.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

It sounds to me like you just don't know how to adjust when playing against a small stack. It's simply not true that you have more to lose, since you can only lose as much as the next biggest stack, and if they double through you, then you've got more money you can win back.

Casual/bad players seem to like going through the rest of their stack before rebuying - you should let them (or just go home if you are done playing).

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

There's a guy I know who's a decent aggressive player but doesn't know when to pull it back. He almsot always goes bust, and sometimes he burns through his money $20 at a time against our $100-$200+ stacks, going all-in almost every hand.

I love this time of the night. It's why I'm there.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

If both of these guys were short, I could see your point better. But $30 bucks is a decent stack on a /25/.50 game. 60 big blinds is certainly worth adding to your take.

As I see it, your real issue is that the most likely result of continuing to play is that your six dollar man is going to bust out shortly and kill the game anyway. Do you feel like playing given those circumstances?

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

If I went to a home game to have a good time and a laugh and somebody told me to rebuy or they wouldn't stay to play, I'd happily let them [censored] off and be a nit by themself.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I think it would have been better just to say, "Well, looks like that's a night boys. I'm going to go."

Gracefully cashing out would be better than sounding a little full of yourself with the "I'll play, but only for more than you have in front of you. Your level of current play is just below me."

Next time, just leave with a smile and a thank you.

I said "6" because I thought it was mildly rude since they'd see it as a condescending comment.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I don't see any problem with this. Perhaps you could have been nicer about it, but there is no reward and a ton of risk for you to keep playing with a combined 72 BB's on the table to be won. $30 is acceptable but someone sitting with $6 hurts the game, try and alter the rules/understanding so that this doesn't occur.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I went to a home game to have a good time and a laugh and somebody told me to rebuy or they wouldn't stay to play, I'd happily let them [censored] off and be a nit by themself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with me saying bye and leaving is that the game is at my house, lol. As for the above ^, it's not just some home game for a good time, we take it seriously. The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to give them a chance to win back money, but felt I shouldn't have to risk more than them.

Err, and sorry for not responding to this thread, I don't know how but apparently I've been missing it everytime I check this forum. I'm going to re-read some of it, there's a bit in here that I don't understand.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to give them a chance to win back money, but felt I shouldn't have to risk more than them.

[/ QUOTE ]

fa4ufh3-83v 84U)*(wfh($*h

you are not risking more than them!!!!

how could you ever risk more than what the other person has?

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Whne you consider the idea that I won't be cashing out, but they might, it doesn't make sense? They can double through me 4 times (6X2, 12X2 24x2, 48x2 96) and then cash out, having won $90 off of me, whereas if I happen to get lucky and say, win the first all in, the most I can ever get is $6. From that point on in the game, the most I could EVER win from the $6 player is $6. Even if he doubles up 10 times, and I get it all back, I've still only won $6 from him.

No?

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

That is only assuming you kept playing after he doubled up. If you decided to quit after the $6 player doubled through you, you still only risked (and lost) $6. At that point each of you are now risking up to $12. You have to think of the risks individually.

There are other reasons why you might not want to play against varied stack sizes lower than yours though. In this example you give, the $6 player actually has an edge over either you or the other large stack (you effectively have the same stack size as the second biggest stack). The $6 has an advantage because he can play perfect $6 stack poker against all his opponents, while you and the medium stack have to try to play medium stack poker against one opponent and short stack poker against another, and may not be able to choose the best play for both. If you really wanted to make the game more fair so the short stack didn't have an advantage, you could make him buy up to the size of the medium stack to accomplish that. You could then even take some out of your stack to make all three stacks the same if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't really make any difference.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I don't think this idea of risking more makes sense.

Would you be salivating like a thirsty dog if Warren Buffett sat down at your table with $36 billion (7,200,000,000 BB) and said he wouldn't leave until one person had all the money on the table? You're only risking $100 to win $36 billion, so that's 36,000,000 to 1 odds you're getting.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this idea of risking more makes sense.

Would you be salivating like a thirsty dog if Warren Buffett sat down at your table with $36 billion (7,200,000,000 BB) and said he wouldn't leave until one person had all the money on the table? You're only risking $100 to win $36 billion, so that's 36,000,000 to 1 odds you're getting.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's going to be chewing on this one for awhile. Good post.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this idea of risking more makes sense.

Would you be salivating like a thirsty dog if Warren Buffett sat down at your table with $36 billion (7,200,000,000 BB) and said he wouldn't leave until one person had all the money on the table? You're only risking $100 to win $36 billion, so that's 36,000,000 to 1 odds you're getting.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's going to be chewing on this one for awhile. Good post.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, I'm not getting it. I WOULD be salivating. I can double up, triple up, whatever, and then leave the game. He has to stay, not me. How is this not great?

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Okay, can you explain any situation then where you would prefer to have the biggest stack at the table? Why would you want to ever have more, doesn't that (by your logic) just mean that you are risking more?

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

Guys, you can only wager on the 2nd largest stack at the table, period. Yeah the shorter player can double up and then you can play for that amount, but that doesn't make that above amount "at risk". It isn't at risk until the short player doubles up. Assuming that you are the better player, you are far more likely to bust the other player than he is to get all of that extra money.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, can you explain any situation then where you would prefer to have the biggest stack at the table? Why would you want to ever have more, doesn't that (by your logic) just mean that you are risking more?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, there is no theoretical reason why it would help you to have a bigger stack than everyone else on the table. If you want to be able to win as much money as possible, all you need is to be even with the biggest stack among your opponents. If you get any advantage by having a bigger stack than that, it is only psychological because of your opponents making a mistake by fearing the big stack.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

I had voted 8 based on the assumption it was a fun home game.

After reading more of Taso's posts, I see he says that everyone takes it seriously.

With that in mind, the only reason it's bad is cause you are the host. If there would be no game without you, you get a 5 for coming across like a greedy host.

If hosting moves around and it's just your turn, then you get 1.

If shortie ($6) is a new player who might just be there for fun and doesn't take it as seriously as the rest of the players you get an 8 for making a new player uncomfortable at a home game you are hosting (if you weren't hosting and did the same thing it would be a 4).

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

haha, damn that is complicated. I'll answer a few questions, and then see where I stand.

I'm the host, host it/set it up basically every game for the past 2 years. Shortie is a regular, been playing since we started playing.

Re: Refusing to play with short stacked players?
 

It is complicated. Hosting adds that extra factor against which people are going to base their perception of the game.

The players in your game probably already feel like you have an edge on them. My players prefer not to play cash games becasue they think that I'll clean them out. As a host, if all I offered was a cash game no one would come.

They feel that my edge is reduced in a tournament, so they all have a good time. I've been hosting the same group for about 2 years too. They still feel this way because they don't study the game or play nearly as much as I do.

Your game probably also has regular winners and regular losers. The losers come to play and have a fun time, despite always losing. If shortie is a clear winner in your game, then you probably didn't do anything wrong.

If shortie is a clear loser than your request that he put up more money for you to play against him accentuates that perception that not only are you better than him but now you want to take more money than he is willing to lose.

The fact that you were just going to cash out and they asked you to keep playing also factors in. It reduces the effect of your request if shortie is a winner, in which case you get a 1.

If shortie is a loser, it's pretty bad to ask him to risk more money. You get a 6 if he's a loser.