Refusing to play with short stacked players?

[pfapfap]

Agree that you shouldn't be worried about this. Tiny stacks are like pieces of lint to be sucked into my black hole. Relish the big stack. Stroke it. Explode it on their faces.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you always buy up to close to the max stack, when you're short... even if you don't want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you want to? Well, okay, maybe not max stack, but I certainly buy up a bit when I'm short.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you've had a bad session and your session roll is almost gone- do you borrow to buy up?[/quote[

I like loaning money to people doing this. That way I win twice!

[rchandra]

[ QUOTE ]

The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's suppose you plan to play until somebody has all the money on the table. Sure you have more to lose if you have more money, but you are much more likely to be the one who wins, assuming equal skill. These factors will cancel out and so your EV is exactly equal to the amount of money in front of you, irrespective of their stack sizes. There is a proof of this concept in Sklansky's Tournament Poker. The other players being shorter than you does not harm you assuming you know how to play. (obvious example, don't call $2 from the $6 stack with a speculative hand) A short stack can harm you when your must play poorly against shortie to exploit weaknesses of a deeper stack, but that situation will not apply here as the other stack is also short, and it can't ever apply if you are assuming equal skill.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, is my reasoning ridiculous? (having everything to lose and nothing to gain)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning isn't ridiculous, just not completely thought out. And if you have bankroll considerations you might be better off locking up the win anyway, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[BrianBigNFun]

I find myself playing better when I have a big chip stack lead. It's easier to read players, desperation sets in and they'll play tight preflop and if they hit top pair or even middle pair they bet big, otherwise they usually fold to pressure.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
to be sucked into my black hole. Relish the big stack. Stroke it. Explode it on their faces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone needs a cold shower... freak

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have confidence in my game, but I felt the amount of money I was risking compared to the amount they were risking was very unfair

[/ QUOTE ]

What was "unfair" about it?

I've faced the reverse- the big stack wouldn't let me buy up to close in on their level, so they couldn't lose it all back.



I'd be worried about future game support, if I asked people to buy up.

Do you always buy up to close to the max stack, when you're short... even if you don't want to?

What if you've had a bad session and your session roll is almost gone- do you borrow to buy up?

Something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm never short when we play three handed. Everyone elses cashes out when they win a lot, I generally have most of the $$ when we are three handed. But, when 6 handed or more, yes, I add on always.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The way I see it, I have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by playing with people who have no money in front of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's suppose you plan to play until somebody has all the money on the table. Sure you have more to lose if you have more money, but you are much more likely to be the one who wins, assuming equal skill. These factors will cancel out and so your EV is exactly equal to the amount of money in front of you, irrespective of their stack sizes. There is a proof of this concept in Sklansky's Tournament Poker. The other players being shorter than you does not harm you assuming you know how to play. (obvious example, don't call $2 from the $6 stack with a speculative hand) A short stack can harm you when your must play poorly against shortie to exploit weaknesses of a deeper stack, but that situation will not apply here as the other stack is also short, and it can't ever apply if you are assuming equal skill.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, is my reasoning ridiculous? (having everything to lose and nothing to gain)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning isn't ridiculous, just not completely thought out. And if you have bankroll considerations you might be better off locking up the win anyway, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that's an incorrect assumption; that we will play until one person has most of the money. What is more likely is the short players will double up on me and then cash out shortly after. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "your EV is equal to whats infront of you" ? I am very tired, but, can't my EV only be whats infront of the other players? How can I expect to make more than what they have? I'll admit, I'm a noob to any talk relating to EV.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I find myself playing better when I have a big chip stack lead. It's easier to read players, desperation sets in and they'll play tight preflop and if they hit top pair or even middle pair they bet big, otherwise they usually fold to pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]This is all psychological, though. You can only play for the amount of money in the 2nd largest stack at the table- the chips you have over that amount are not in play. If you have a psychological advantage over your opponents, then use it. However, if you find that YOU make better plays with a stack "advantage" in a cash game, this points to a weakness in your own game.

[rchandra]

[ QUOTE ]


I think that's an incorrect assumption; that we will play until one person has most of the money. What is more likely is the short players will double up on me and then cash out shortly after. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "your EV is equal to whats infront of you" ? I am very tired, but, can't my EV only be whats infront of the other players? How can I expect to make more than what they have? I'll admit, I'm a noob to any talk relating to EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say you have $300, and he has $50. Assuming equal skill, I expect you to have $300 _on average_ when you're done playing, no matter how you decide to stop. Since you're equally skilled, you wont gain or lose money each hand on average. If you play until somebody is bust, you will have $350 6/7 times and $0 1/7 times, and vice versa for your opponent - leaving your EV as the same as what you currently have.

Now, what if you want to play until he's bust or doubles up. If you each had $50, these results are obviously equally likely. But what does your having $300 change? He still can't win more than he has in front of him. His being short is like both of you being short.

[n.s.]

It sounds to me like you just don't know how to adjust when playing against a small stack. It's simply not true that you have more to lose, since you can only lose as much as the next biggest stack, and if they double through you, then you've got more money you can win back.

Casual/bad players seem to like going through the rest of their stack before rebuying - you should let them (or just go home if you are done playing).

[pfapfap]

There's a guy I know who's a decent aggressive player but doesn't know when to pull it back. He almsot always goes bust, and sometimes he burns through his money $20 at a time against our $100-$200+ stacks, going all-in almost every hand.

I love this time of the night. It's why I'm there.