Cash game problems

[JustCuz]

[ QUOTE ]
The stack sizes do matter because of how they change implied odds. It's really that simple.

example: If the $100 stack raises to $15 preflop, and I have pocket 5's, I won't call because I don't have the implied odds for my set. If the guy with $500 makes the same raise, I will call because I can make so much money if I hit my set.

This effects how I play against them, so it effects how they must play against me. Thus, stack sizes absolutely matter even if you can reload.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely 100% agree with this post. Strange how so many people are arguing that there's no basis in poker theory to believe that a short-stack is disadvantaged at a table full of bigger stacks, yet everyone has ignored this post.

I don't know about you guys, but I most certainly, in addition to the ratio of the pot to my stack, consider the stack sizes of the others at the table when figuring out how to bet. If I have $500 and am playing 9 other players, 8 of them having $500+ and one of them with $100, you'd better believe that I will play the hand less aggressively against the big stacks than I would the short stack alone. If you can agree with this, then you can't deny that the $100 stack is going to be "bullied," even if not intentionally, by the other players. The simple fact is that $1/$2 NL home games can quickly turn into the equivilant of $2/$5 or even $5/$10 games, without raising the stakes, by pure virtue of the number of chips on the table. By the end of the night at my $1/$2 games, an opeining raise of $18+ becomes fairly standard. I would NOT want to re-buy at that stage with $100...

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely 100% agree with this post. Strange how so many people are arguing that there's no basis in poker theory to believe that a short-stack is disadvantaged at a table full of bigger stacks, yet everyone has ignored this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us didn't "ignore" it, we're just debating as to whether poker reality matches theory.

[ QUOTE ]
If I have $500 and am playing 9 other players, 8 of them having $500+ and one of them with $100, you'd better believe that I will play the hand less aggressively against the big stacks than I would the short stack alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That really depends on the players, wouldn't it? I think if I were in a game where I'd be much more afraid of the big stacks than the small stacks, I need to find a new game or switch to limit.

Isn't that somewhat counteracting big-bet theory? In fact, aren't you in a sense confirming the bully theory? If the short stack knows that the big stacks are going to be very aggressive against him, then it becomes a card-catch game preflop/flop for the short stack, severly limiting his playing options.

In the short time of a home game night (yes, most people think in sessions rather than long term, as we all know), that could be an important playing factor, correct?

[JustCuz]

We agree far more than we disagree, Larry.

My point is that both examples support the fact that the short stack is in a tough position. As you say, he's limited to a card-catch situation when he's facing action from other players (as in my example). When he does get a playable hand that he leads out with, the big stacks are less likely to give him action due to the poor implied odds they're getting (as in the example I quoted). Either way you slice it, there's a disadvantage to being trapped into a short-stack re-load in a home game.

Now, if we have unlimited cash and the game goes on forever, as many posters seem to imply, then the theory might take on some new traits, but that's just not the reality in a home game situation.

[jjflash]

I haven't read all of the replies, but the few I did read seem to be moving away from the original question.

A simple answer would be that a player be allowed to buy-in for any amount up to 1/2 of the largest stack assuming that one or more players has more than the original max buy-in. I have played in casinos that do this and it seems to work out well.

[Fubster]

I didn't read all eight pages, but maybe have it so that if you go bust, you're allowed to rebuy for the max. amount someone has on the table? Already suggested perhaps?