Refusing to play with short stacked players?

[Zetack]

If both of these guys were short, I could see your point better. But $30 bucks is a decent stack on a /25/.50 game. 60 big blinds is certainly worth adding to your take.

As I see it, your real issue is that the most likely result of continuing to play is that your six dollar man is going to bust out shortly and kill the game anyway. Do you feel like playing given those circumstances?

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

If I went to a home game to have a good time and a laugh and somebody told me to rebuy or they wouldn't stay to play, I'd happily let them [censored] off and be a nit by themself.

[Albert Moulton]

I think it would have been better just to say, "Well, looks like that's a night boys. I'm going to go."

Gracefully cashing out would be better than sounding a little full of yourself with the "I'll play, but only for more than you have in front of you. Your level of current play is just below me."

Next time, just leave with a smile and a thank you.

I said "6" because I thought it was mildly rude since they'd see it as a condescending comment.

[FireStorm]

I don't see any problem with this. Perhaps you could have been nicer about it, but there is no reward and a ton of risk for you to keep playing with a combined 72 BB's on the table to be won. $30 is acceptable but someone sitting with $6 hurts the game, try and alter the rules/understanding so that this doesn't occur.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
If I went to a home game to have a good time and a laugh and somebody told me to rebuy or they wouldn't stay to play, I'd happily let them [censored] off and be a nit by themself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with me saying bye and leaving is that the game is at my house, lol. As for the above ^, it's not just some home game for a good time, we take it seriously. The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to give them a chance to win back money, but felt I shouldn't have to risk more than them.

Err, and sorry for not responding to this thread, I don't know how but apparently I've been missing it everytime I check this forum. I'm going to re-read some of it, there's a bit in here that I don't understand.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I said what I said was because I wanted to give them a chance to win back money, but felt I shouldn't have to risk more than them.

[/ QUOTE ]

fa4ufh3-83v 84U)*(wfh($*h

you are not risking more than them!!!!

how could you ever risk more than what the other person has?

[Taso]

Whne you consider the idea that I won't be cashing out, but they might, it doesn't make sense? They can double through me 4 times (6X2, 12X2 24x2, 48x2 96) and then cash out, having won $90 off of me, whereas if I happen to get lucky and say, win the first all in, the most I can ever get is $6. From that point on in the game, the most I could EVER win from the $6 player is $6. Even if he doubles up 10 times, and I get it all back, I've still only won $6 from him.

No?

[chillrob]

That is only assuming you kept playing after he doubled up. If you decided to quit after the $6 player doubled through you, you still only risked (and lost) $6. At that point each of you are now risking up to $12. You have to think of the risks individually.

There are other reasons why you might not want to play against varied stack sizes lower than yours though. In this example you give, the $6 player actually has an edge over either you or the other large stack (you effectively have the same stack size as the second biggest stack). The $6 has an advantage because he can play perfect $6 stack poker against all his opponents, while you and the medium stack have to try to play medium stack poker against one opponent and short stack poker against another, and may not be able to choose the best play for both. If you really wanted to make the game more fair so the short stack didn't have an advantage, you could make him buy up to the size of the medium stack to accomplish that. You could then even take some out of your stack to make all three stacks the same if it makes you feel better, but it wouldn't really make any difference.

[garcia1000]

I don't think this idea of risking more makes sense.

Would you be salivating like a thirsty dog if Warren Buffett sat down at your table with $36 billion (7,200,000,000 BB) and said he wouldn't leave until one person had all the money on the table? You're only risking $100 to win $36 billion, so that's 36,000,000 to 1 odds you're getting.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this idea of risking more makes sense.

Would you be salivating like a thirsty dog if Warren Buffett sat down at your table with $36 billion (7,200,000,000 BB) and said he wouldn't leave until one person had all the money on the table? You're only risking $100 to win $36 billion, so that's 36,000,000 to 1 odds you're getting.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's going to be chewing on this one for awhile. Good post.