Would it matter if.....

[losingdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the $5k guy was a friend or good acquaintance of mine, I might suggest he drop down or call it a night.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd suggest this anyway, even if he weren't a friend.



[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't, not even if it was my own grandmother, why don't you like money?

[HOWMANY]

Yeah it would matter. I'd keep going after the 5k guy and take small pot after small pot from him as a result of his being scared of losing it all on one hand.

[omaha]

No it wouldnt matter , i would personally be quite happy if i was to stack both of them

[dopp16]

[ QUOTE ]
by implication the properly rolled guy is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how true this is. You would think a player like this perhaps has more discipline and is in fact not playing with scared money and can focus on making sound decisions. There are many more variables, however, that would translate to who the better player is.

[Hoi Polloi]

You have to be cruel to be kind. Consider stacking them both.

[BenzeneBird]

wow, what a bunch of c***s you all are.

...yeah, but assuming i was a winning 25/50 player i would do my best to relieve him of his money.

[dkoleary]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by implication the properly rolled guy is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how true this is. You would think a player like this perhaps has more discipline and is in fact not playing with scared money and can focus on making sound decisions. There are many more variables, however, that would translate to who the better player is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think (most of the time) the guy playing with the last of his roll on the table is the better player.. I dunno, show me your reasoning so I can understand where you are coming from.

[dopp16]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by implication the properly rolled guy is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how true this is. You would think a player like this perhaps has more discipline and is in fact not playing with scared money and can focus on making sound decisions. There are many more variables, however, that would translate to who the better player is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think (most of the time) the guy playing with the last of his roll on the table is the better player.. I dunno, show me your reasoning so I can understand where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that he is a better player. I am not saying that he is the worst player either. The post I was responding to indicated that the fact that he was short rolled meant that he was a worse player...for which I disagree with.

[dkoleary]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by implication the properly rolled guy is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how true this is. You would think a player like this perhaps has more discipline and is in fact not playing with scared money and can focus on making sound decisions. There are many more variables, however, that would translate to who the better player is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think (most of the time) the guy playing with the last of his roll on the table is the better player.. I dunno, show me your reasoning so I can understand where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that he is a better player. I am not saying that he is the worst player either. The post I was responding to indicated that the fact that he was short rolled meant that he was a worse player...for which I disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well assuming that experience = skill/understanding/knowledge of playing poker. And that through experience, a player would know not to be underrolled. I deduced that, if we knew nothing else of the two players except for the fact that one was playing with his roll on the table and the other was deeply rolled, it is most likely that the one with his roll on the table has less experience hence less skill/understanding/knowledge of playing poker, hence he is a worse player than the other.

You haven't really explained yourself when you stated:
"the fact that he was short rolled meant that he was a worse player...for which I disagree with."

[Fitz]

Poker is by nature a predatory game; the strong feed on the weak. That being said, I would not play, and I'd try to talk to the guy. Somebody in that condition is practically giving his money away; unless he catches lightning in a bottle a few times, he is going to get busted. I'd rather not be the one who busts him.

The big question is what would the third guy do? You can step out of the game and leave the short stack heads up with a shark. Now I'll read the rest of thread and see how many of my fellow 2+2ers have kind hearts... lol.

Fitz