[Erik Blazynski]

I understand the concepts here (after creating a book of your posts and reading them on the shitter.

Blazman's dilemma - Lets say you get the table where you are big stack with (26 BB) and progressively decreasing stacks to the small stack on your left. The person 2 positions to your right raises, to 5x BB. I re-raise to 10x BB, everyone fold and the original raiser goes all-in. Well mission accomplished (not allowing a small to creep in) so I'm folding assuming that my holding is marginal. Now lets assume that this player has 22 BB, and we are no longer the big stack. Are you still running with the strategy? If the guy immediately to you right raises, we are going to have to commit a significant amount of our stack to re-raise and try to keep the smalls from doubling up. If you extrapolate this scenario there becomes a point where you become the short stack and the people to your left are able enjoy the fruits of your labor (always sit directly to the right of gigabet)

So I have 2 questions..

1. Is this strategy a core strategy for you, is it routinely driving your decisions? or is this a consideration when you are faced with a marginal decision?

2. If it's core, there has to be a point were the above scenario plays out and you have to abandon, where is that point?

Thanks
Blazman