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.