the main problem with shortstackers that no one seems to mention

[pete fabrizio]

is having them to your right while having a full stack to your left. does anyone think that a coherent argument could be made to the poker sites that allowing shortstackers makes the games less fair -- not because it creates an unfair advantage for the shortstackers, but because it arbitrarily creates unfair advantages between the remaining players?

[wazz]

That's just silly. Firstly, the advantage goes to whoever adapts best to the presence of the shortstacker, which is inherently unfair because it is based on whoever is skilled at poker. Secondly, you can't call it unfair, it's just like the retarded argument on facebook that wearing sunglasses at the poker table is unfair because it gives them an advantage. It's not unfair because you can do it as well - so if you're in a situation where you're sandwiched between a full-stack and a shortstack, you're always allowed to get up from your seat and wait for a better one. If game conditions mean you're not in a profitable spot, you get up, and it's bad play from you if you continue to sit in that bad spot.

[roggles]

How much do you want the minimum buy-in to be? At casinos around here it's 50 big blinds

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you want the minimum buy-in to be? At casinos around here it's 50 big blinds

[/ QUOTE ]

They should let you buyin between 50-infinity. 100bb would be better but that will kill games over 1/2.

[ChuckyB]

Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just silly. Firstly, the advantage goes to whoever adapts best to the presence of the shortstacker, which is inherently unfair because it is based on whoever is skilled at poker. Secondly, you can't call it unfair, it's just like the retarded argument on facebook that wearing sunglasses at the poker table is unfair because it gives them an advantage. It's not unfair because you can do it as well - so if you're in a situation where you're sandwiched between a full-stack and a shortstack, you're always allowed to get up from your seat and wait for a better one. If game conditions mean you're not in a profitable spot, you get up, and it's bad play from you if you continue to sit in that bad spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

i actually do get up if i'm sandwiched between a couple of tight shortstack and a decent full stack, but most people don't. i think you're being a tiny bit too dismissive of the idea that there is at least some unfairness here. let's say i get 4 shortstacking friends together and we intentionally take over a 6-max table with one deep stack, placing me immediately to his left, intending to take advantage of our superior position and sharing the profits after. even if we don't share cards or softplay each other or anything, i still think this would be kind of sketchy, bordering on collusion. and, although relevant, i don't think the fact that he can stand up relieves that sketchiness entirely.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider 50 BB to still be a "short stack"?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. let me put it this way: having two 50 bb stacks to your right and two full stacks to your left would not be a very significant disadvantage. two 20bb stacks, on the other hand, most definitely would be.

[Waffleticket]

I think that there shouldn't be a buy in below 35BB

[BadBenOni]

I dont mind shortstackers, they are not much of a threat and never seem to win much.

I am a winning player every month and they are not a problem for me, cant see why anyone is afraid of them.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont mind shortstackers, they are not much of a threat and never seem to win much.

I am a winning player every month and they are not a problem for me, cant see why anyone is afraid of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really mind shortstackers either, at least these days, because they tend to be really bad. But that doesn't change my point that having 80% or more of your stack always out of position is a huge disadvantage.