[George Rice]

In justifying his position that chips in a large stack are worth more than chips in a small stack, he wrote the following:

[ QUOTE ]
If a chip is a bullet, and I have 500 bullets, and you have 4500 bullets, you can utilize your ammo in many ways that I cannot. You can fire test shots to see if you can pick up a small pile of ammo that none of your enemies are all that interested in defending. You can engage in small speculative battles to try and pick up more ammo, and you can back out of these little skirmishes if necessary without much damage to your stockpile. Most importantly, because all of your enemies can see your huge stockpile, you can get them to surrender ammo to you without fighting, even in battles they would have won, were it not for their fear of losing everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

To that I ask the following:

If each chip in the large stack are worth more than each chip in the small stack, and since all players have to put equal chips, not equal value, in the pot of a given hand, then doesn't it follow that the larger stack is risking more value than the smaller stack every time it get's involved in a hand? And if that's the case, shouldn't it be the large stack who wants to avoid confrontations?

Not for nothing, if I had 500 bullets and Arnold had 4500 bullets I would make mine count where he could waste many and not change his chances much. To put it another way, I would use sharp-shooters where he could use machine guns.