Ratholing and Short Stacking in NL Poker

[fish2plus2]

I sent Diablo this PM and he thought it'd make a good thread:

For awhile, I have felt like ratholing was unethical, however I am beginning to reconsider.

If I open a table and there is one 20bb stack, and the other 100bb stacks continue to play with him, then that means that they support his right to play with 20bb's. If they disagree with the his right to rathole/play 20bb's, then they should immediately sit out. When you play in a game, you are essentially agreeing to the rules of that game, and there is no room to complain or argue. Its not much different in signing a contract.

What are your thoughts about this?

He responded:

Here's the thing. Online, players can choose not to play with this sort of player. There are unlimited tables and options. But people want the best of both worlds. They want to play the idiots who are the same type of guy as the typical bad short stacker, but they don't want solid players short stacking. Nobody cares aobut the idiots who are just pushing any two / any pair w/ short stacks. Those guys are donating such huge money.

Anyway, point is simple. Guys online have the ability to play wherever they want. However, they want to play with the fish. Part of playing with the fish is playing with these guys.

[fish2plus2]

I agree with Diablo's statements, however there are often times were the fish has 100bb's himself, particularly in high stakes. Mathmatically, NL Poker is a flawed game without a 50bb minimum buy-in.

Ideally, a poker site would have a variety of tables, some with a minimum of 50, 100, 200, and 20bb's.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally, a poker site would have a variety of tables, some with a minimum of 50, 100, 200, and 20bb's.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would probably be unwieldy with all the possible permutations of min and max buy in and blinds. But I see no problem with a site presenting a few of the most popular ones.

The ethics argument is ridiculous. The site allows it, the players know it, anyone who doesn't like it can choose not to play under those conditions.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ideally, a poker site would have a variety of tables, some with a minimum of 50, 100, 200, and 20bb's.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would probably be unwieldy with all the possible permutations of min and max buy in and blinds. But I see no problem with a site presenting a few of the most popular ones.

The ethics argument is ridiculous. The site allows it, the players know it, anyone who doesn't like it can choose not to play under those conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it might be good for them to offer tables where you have to buyin with a certain amount. So they could do the capped NL games as on FTP, tables where you much buy in for 50, tables where you much buy in for 100 blinds and on the deep end 200. You can have more or less based on play, and can always rebuy but only to give yourself exactly the buy in.

The disadvantage of this for the good player is that other players have trouble adjusting to stack sizes and you would be less likely to be in a hand where for example one guy has 40 blinds, and two have 100. Not sure how people not being able to shortstack would make up for it.

[Victor]

ive always felt that you nl guys who complained about shortstackers were a bunch of nitty crybabys.

your initial point is exactly how i feel. you choose to play in a game where shortstacking is possible. you know the rules well ahead of time.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
ive always felt that you nl guys who complained about shortstackers were a bunch of nitty crybabys.

your initial point is exactly how i feel. you choose to play in a game where shortstacking is possible. you know the rules well ahead of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is the people who buy in short, win a pot, then rebuyin short again. You would never be able to do that in a casino, but you can get away with it online if the site's software doesn't stop it.

I do not believe that such behavior is unethical because it is technically within the rules. But at the same, chastizing people for complaining about the short-stackers is stupid. Poker players are customers of a business, and like in any other business customers should complain if they want to continue patronizing that business but also want to change it. Allowing people to continually rebuyin short decreases the edge of more skilled players and generally makes the game less fun because all the decsions are made preflop. Since most of us here consider ourselves skilled players and don't want to play push or fold poker, complaining about short stacks is justified.

[Victor]

i guess it just gives me perverse satisfaction since shortstacking throws a wrench in the whole nl superiority complex.

[eviljeff]

I always get a little annoyed when on an airplane the person in front of me leans their seat back. For whatever reason it always makes whatever I'm doing (reading, watching personal tv screen, using laptop) more uncomfortable. I would much prefer if none of the seats on the airplane leaned back. I realized awhile ago that any annoyance should be directed against the airline rather than the person in front of me. Still, the airlines have to accomodate a large number of people. I imagine that they think on the whole that people are more comfortable with the option of leaning back and/or it wouldn't be worth the hassle at this point to change things. All I can really do is voice my preference or not fly coach.

[cbloom]

Short-stackers at a HU table are annoying but not unethical.

Short-stackers who hit & run multi-way tables are scum bags abusing the system and it's definitely unethical. It's the whole definition of "ethics". No, it's not strictly against the rules, but you are being a bastard to everyone involved, taking advantage of a flaw in the system.

Even if you wanted to just sit out any time a short stacker showed up, that would be a huge loss of profitable play because you'd have to be moving tables a lot and you'd be posting more blinds than you have to. And of course you usually won't want to sit out because you'll have learned that table and might have targeted a fish. You want to play a style for the deep stacks of most of the players but a shorty sticks himself in and you have to play to him.

IMHO it's similar to doing something like berating a fish. Sure, it's legal, but it's retarded, it makes the games worse, everyone hates it, and it will lose you the respect of all the good players.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I sent Diablo this PM and he thought it'd make a good thread:

For awhile, I have felt like ratholing was unethical, however I am beginning to reconsider.

If I open a table and there is one 20bb stack, and the other 100bb stacks continue to play with him, then that means that they support his right to play with 20bb's. If they disagree with the his right to rathole/play 20bb's, then they should immediately sit out. When you play in a game, you are essentially agreeing to the rules of that game, and there is no room to complain or argue. Its not much different in signing a contract.

What are your thoughts about this?

He responded:

Here's the thing. Online, players can choose not to play with this sort of player. There are unlimited tables and options. But people want the best of both worlds. They want to play the idiots who are the same type of guy as the typical bad short stacker, but they don't want solid players short stacking. Nobody cares aobut the idiots who are just pushing any two / any pair w/ short stacks. Those guys are donating such huge money.

Anyway, point is simple. Guys online have the ability to play wherever they want. However, they want to play with the fish. Part of playing with the fish is playing with these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

i always buy in for the minimum and add on as necessary. i feel i play my best in a solid game w/ appx. 75-100bb's (i try to avoid solid games). if the other players dont call me out (usually when the game is short) i ratthole my "bills" at a pee break whenever i get over 150bb's. if there is an obvious donator in the game who cant lay down an overpair i play for whatever he has even if it is a ridiculous amount. the rules of any given poker game sorta float around. i take advantage of whatever is available.