[filsteal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if the opponent is as good as you are you're just paying rake, and playing shorter or deeper is just going to be a variance issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean he's as good as you, just that he's good enough in math and theory. You can be better in strategic play, hand reading, deceiving, manipulating the pot size, etc, and still, if he knows enough theory, you can't make anything off these advantages.

Obviously there are times when a larger stack means a larger advantage over your fish opponents, but you're not always facing fish, or that kind of fish anyway.

What I mean isn't what stack size will make the most money given average opponents, but what is the best stack size to keep the game interesting even if you're playing against players who know enough about theory and math.



[ QUOTE ]
I like playing deeper, esp in unlimited buy-in games. Having 200bb and a couple of stacks that big around usually makes for a good game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. How about 2,000BB though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point. The deeper the stacks, the more complex the strategy will be, and that's all there is to it.

There is no "correct" depth of strategy for a poker game; it's purely a matter of your preference. 30BB-deep NLHE isn't inherently any better or worse than 400BB-deep NLHE, in the same way that Hold'Em isn't inherently any better or worse than Omaha Hi-Lo. It's all a matter of how complex you want the strategy to be, and probably more importantly, what particular skills you want to be emphasized.