[baztalkspoker]

This post was originally just a simple question on what a shortstack bankroll strategy should be, some people so clearly hate short stacking that it has turned into a 'heated' debate about short stacking.

I reiterate I'm not a regular short-stacker, these days I'm not even a regular Omaha player. My understanding of poker has been like Sodom's that it's not charity, that players will seek out any edge any way they can and it is fine to do so unless that edge involves cheating. Personally I actually think I'm way better off playing with a full stack as it suits the way I play the game a lot better and I was running well in the $2-$4 plo on Partypoker doing so before I got ahead of myself and taking shots at the $10-$20, some of those shots were with a full stack btw.

However I do understand the guys who are dead set against shortstacking also as I have said it's not conducive to a good game of Omaha.

The question is then, do we as players have some sort of moral duty to not shortstack even in situations where it is clearly advantageous to do so, i.e. sitting to the right of an Ultra Lag? And if you think yes you still shouldn't play with a shortstack, what happens when you lose a big pot and are left with a shortstack, will you immediately reload so you are no longer a shortstack?

My own feeling on it is that you should not be allowed to buy into a game for less than 50 BBs, I would be quite happy if the poker sites implemented this. The alternative for people who hate playing against short stackers, is play shorthand, the blinds coming quickly around does not suit the short stack play.

On whether shortstacking is simply wrong to do even when the option is available, well so many people seem to think so, if it was just the obnoxious respondees who thought it I would totally ignore their opinions but when some more normal level headed responders think so it's definitely given me food for thought.