Why Poker in General in Cashgame allows shortstacking?

[CrAcK_N_CoKe]

I was asking myself this question.
Its pretty ridiculous that even at my micro takes like Nl10 people can buy-in for 2$.
I know im not gonna change the world , but why in the rules of poker shrotstaking is allow?

( sorry for my english working on it )

[Ben Young]

to give fish a *chance* at the bigtime? not all short stackers are good at what they do

[Nsight7]

Well, my question would be why shouldn't it be allowed? The only reasons anyone ever gives for why short-stacking "shouldn't" exist are entirely anecdotal. I think as a practical matter one shouldn't allow someone to buy in super-super-short, but the outside of pragmatic limitations the amount one brings in for could and should be entirely arbitrary since there exists no principled reason for banning them from the table. In addition, as has been pointed out many times by others on the boards, most short-stackers suck at short-stacking, and thus are actually easy pickins. I would be more wary of a strong middle-stacker.

[Sean Fraley]

Short stacking has nothing to do with the rules of poker since the only rules that have any bearing on how much money you have at the table are the table stakes rule and the all-in rule. The minimum (and for that matter maximum) buy-in are an issue of venue policy. Just learn how stack size effects your play and make the appropriate adjustments from hand to hand.

[Pot Odds RAC]

Since a Cash game is an on going game with unlimited buy-ins and people dropping out and being replaced by fresh stacks, there is always going to be a discrepancy in stack sizes. Would you have (or allow?) any new player buy-in at the current biggest , smallest, or average table stack?

I think this is sort of a silly question that implies that Short Stacking gives a player an advantage. Personally I feel at an advantage sitting behind more chips, not fewer.

Besides, if you ever want to play short stacked, just lose your first hand.

[r0eKY]

20bb buy in is a joke in a cash game imo

[indianaV8]

1. For players: To allow novice players or players going to higher limits to play Ed miller's strategy [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], and the meaning of that is basically you have some breakeven +- something strategy until you get uptospeed.

2. For sites ... well they don't care, but basically in a short stack game there is less edge for the players (so more equalized game, better for the casinos) due to people start to play meaningful much faster.

What annoys me (personally) is actually the 40BB play which I see from time to time (and more lately). This is neither short stack (easy to play against) nor long stack (where you I make the bigger part of my money). I can't say playing against a 40BB stack is hard or easy or whatever but I never spent time analyzing 40 BB game.

[vetiver]

Why does poker allow 100BB stacks? What's "true" poker? 1000 BB? 15mil BB maybe.

[Niediam]

It's because 30% of players want it available, 10% don't like it, and the rest could care less.

[4W Cowboy]

There's always going to be a minimum buy in. Thats just the way it is in cash poker games. Some people people are only comfortable buying in for the minimum or a little more without considering the # of BBs it is, thats just their psyche. Frankly your complaining about it would be like the novices who don't want to buy in for more $$ saying that others should have to go south with $$ when they reach a certain amount.