NL with ratholing: adjustments

[Siegmund]

As the title says: suppose you are playing in a NL game where it is explicitly allowed to put money on or take money off the table between hands. Theoretically you could choose your stack size before every deal (and we'd need rules for what order people choose their stack sizes) but in practice it's not that often people would make adjustments.

**The purpose of this thread is NOT to ask if you'd like to play in such a game, or ask if you think such a game is a good idea**

My question is - if faced with such a rule, in the NL games you are currently playing, how would you change your strategy to take advantage of it?

[alphatmw]

couldn't this simply be rephrased to "what is the ideal stack size?"

[mvdgaag]

Play tight with a short stack. All the advantages of playing short stack can be found in 'No Limit Hold 'em Theory and Practice' by Sklansky and Miller.
EDIT: If everyone would be big stacked, pretty loose and you feel you're the better player, you might want to buy in even bigger than them.

[Off Duty]

20-25bb if everyone else was 100BB+.

[Siegmund]

Since there isn't going to be one ideal stack size for every possible combination of opposing stacks and styles, just asking for "ideal stack size" isn't QUITE what I meant.

I was referring more to exactly what circumstances you think it's in your interest to take chips off the table (aside from "I only know how to play shortstacked and I just won a pot".) There must BE some, if everyone is so horrified of the concept, no?

[Kimbell175113]

If you're certain that you're the best player, you want more chips. If Barry and Doyle sit down, you cut down to preflop move-in level before each hand.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're certain that you're the best player, you want more chips. If Barry and Doyle sit down, you find a different game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But yeah, that's generally the only salient difference. Of course you can always add to your stack anyway if bad players enter the game (or if a couple of bad players double through), but in the ratholing game you never have to worry about getting stuck with a lot on the table if the game gets tougher.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]

My question is - if faced with such a rule, in the NL games you are currently playing, how would you change your strategy to take advantage of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Buy in for something like 7 BBs. Go allin preflop with regularity.

[uphigh_downlow]

can you show some practical implications or any insights that can be drawn from such an analysis, before spending tonnes of time on it.

it surely requires tonnes of time to analyse, as it quite depends on your position as well as the stack sizes acting before you and after you.

[guy4565]

The situation I see either wanting to be extremely large stacked or alternately short stack double/triple up amount is exactly one of our donk home games after the friday night tournament. We have 3 regulars that lose in excess of 800.00 each evening, but will all 3 call any all in bet with any suited connectors, chase any ace to the river, and go with any pair to the river. Of course you can't play the same stack they have, they'll all call it to the river on any gutshot draw. What would be your preference, short stack all in and double or triple through them then play with their money,(guess this would be the ideal situation with such loose players to take your win off the table and then go back for more) or 20x their stack and just attack with good hands as normal, knowing you are going to be playing your aces against 3 or 4 callers. As usual, the complaints that it is harder to play against bad players, but it really shouldn't be, I know this kind of trailed off from the intent of the post, but I think it relates.