[BigAlK]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

George,

I'm confused. The first paragraph seems to argue against the theory and the 2nd, unless i'm misunderstanding, for it.

Regarding the 1st - the theoritical monetary value of a chip at any point in time and whether each chip has a different value is an interesting discussion. Maybe the answer even matters. However Snyder's theory is that the extra value of chips in the larger stack comes from increased utility. Not due to a difference in the theoretical monetary value of each chip. I'd liken this to someone with a million dollars in savings. That's more than I have and, if both of us have the goal of increasing our savings, that person has more options to increase their savings without going broke. I couldn't risk my meager dollars in a high risk/high reward venture because that one investment could break me. The person with the greater savings could make several small investments in these type of ventures knowing that if one hits he'd make a tremendous amount. The greater utility of more viable investment options gives that person's money greater utility value than mine. This, despite each of our dollars (chips) having exactly the same monetary value. Your comment is akin to recommending he stuff his money in a mattress because "it's worth more."

I'm not sure I get your point in the 2nd paragraph. In this situation you've got little choice but to be selective, using a sharpshooter to take extremely selective shots (bringing it back to poker you're in push/fold mode, waiting for a big hand that you want to have called or pushing in those situations where you believe you can pick up the blinds without a fight).

Arnold has the same options that you do. He can push (or at least raise enough to force you to fold or risk all your chips). He also has the machine gun option as you suggest, sspraying the general area where he's spotted you. He could fire random shots (or bursts with the machine gun) toward the area where he knows you're hiding to make you adverse to raising your head to try and take a shot while, in the meantime you're running out of food and water (kind of like the blinds continuing to rise). If I had time there are probably lots more bad analogies that could be made explaining all of Arnolds potential options. All of these additional options are due to the added utility of the bigger stockpile of ammo.

Yes, I've done well in tournaments with a small stack. But this often requires specific table conditions and lucky cards. When I've built a big stack early my success rate has been higher. Obviously this is no great revelation and measuring the impact of acquiring the big stack is difficult to measure. However, just as in life, in tournament poker "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." The reason for that is the utility value of the bigger bank account or bigger stack.

Al