Ideal effective stack size for NLHE cash

[soon2bepro]

I was thinking, the game sucks when the stacks are either too small or too large. If they're smaller than 35BB (big blinds) deep, the game degenerates to a PF and flop all-in strategy that is almost purely mathematical. If the stacks are over 1,000BB, drawing hands become too good, whereas marginal hands like AJo become quite bad. You mostly see the flop with almost any 2, and then don't continue playing unless you have almost the nuts, or a draw to a hand that's almost the nuts.

So I was thiking about what would be the ideal stack size to maximize the importance of strategy and skill over theory and math. I think it will probably be somewhere from 70BB to 130BB, but what do you guys think?

I'll go with 85BB (I'm thinking of 6 handed games, but I don't think the adjustment for 9 or 10 handed would be that large, maybe 75BB?).

I do like that theory and math are an important part of poker, but when it comes to the point that anyone who knows as much as you about the subjects plays exactly the same way you do, and there's nothing you can do about it, that's stupid.

[75s]

I think 81BBs the minimum for optimal play (HU calling PSBs OoP every street). I think anything over 243BBs (HU making PSR every street) is too much.

[Gonso]

Well if the opponent is as good as you are you're just paying rake, and playing shorter or deeper is just going to be a variance issue.

I like playing deeper, esp in unlimited buy-in games. Having 200bb and a couple of stacks that big around usually makes for a good game. By the same token, shortstacking is more mechanical and boring.

[soon2bepro]

What's PSBs and PSR? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

And how did you come up with those numbers?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if the opponent is as good as you are you're just paying rake, and playing shorter or deeper is just going to be a variance issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean he's as good as you, just that he's good enough in math and theory. You can be better in strategic play, hand reading, deceiving, manipulating the pot size, etc, and still, if he knows enough theory, you can't make anything off these advantages.

Obviously there are times when a larger stack means a larger advantage over your fish opponents, but you're not always facing fish, or that kind of fish anyway.

What I mean isn't what stack size will make the most money given average opponents, but what is the best stack size to keep the game interesting even if you're playing against players who know enough about theory and math.



[ QUOTE ]
I like playing deeper, esp in unlimited buy-in games. Having 200bb and a couple of stacks that big around usually makes for a good game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. How about 2,000BB though?

[filsteal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if the opponent is as good as you are you're just paying rake, and playing shorter or deeper is just going to be a variance issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean he's as good as you, just that he's good enough in math and theory. You can be better in strategic play, hand reading, deceiving, manipulating the pot size, etc, and still, if he knows enough theory, you can't make anything off these advantages.

Obviously there are times when a larger stack means a larger advantage over your fish opponents, but you're not always facing fish, or that kind of fish anyway.

What I mean isn't what stack size will make the most money given average opponents, but what is the best stack size to keep the game interesting even if you're playing against players who know enough about theory and math.



[ QUOTE ]
I like playing deeper, esp in unlimited buy-in games. Having 200bb and a couple of stacks that big around usually makes for a good game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. How about 2,000BB though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point. The deeper the stacks, the more complex the strategy will be, and that's all there is to it.

There is no "correct" depth of strategy for a poker game; it's purely a matter of your preference. 30BB-deep NLHE isn't inherently any better or worse than 400BB-deep NLHE, in the same way that Hold'Em isn't inherently any better or worse than Omaha Hi-Lo. It's all a matter of how complex you want the strategy to be, and probably more importantly, what particular skills you want to be emphasized.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. How about 2,000BB though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Way missing the point. First, this would just pretty much make the blinds about irrelevant. Second, there are players I'd gladly play this deep against, though I'd have to drop down a couple of levels to be rolled for it.

Third, and vastly more important, there are a ton of PT geniuses around getting killed at 1/2 because (for all their reading) they still don't play well. It's one thing to have information, but it's something else completely to apply it effectively. Experienced players are better able to make difficult raises, laydowns, etc. It's not as if PT is a complete guide for how to play every hand on every street.

[ QUOTE ]
You can be better in strategic play, hand reading, deceiving, manipulating the pot size, etc, and still, if he knows enough theory, you can't make anything off these advantages.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, the 1st player really wouldn't be better, would he? This is only really true in extreme jam/fold situations - that doesn't extend out to the entire game.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
If this were true, the 1st player really wouldn't be better, would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would if the stacks were of a more medium size.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? Geez. If you don't want to answer what I'm asking, please just refrain from answering at all.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
The deeper the stacks, the more complex the strategy will be, and that's all there is to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I agree here. I don't see how it could be a complex strategy to be playing for 1,000,000BB. If you can limp in you see every flop and play only the nuts. If they raise too much PF, you play only AA and only shoving it PF.

Please expand.




[ QUOTE ]
There is no "correct" depth of strategy for a poker game; it's purely a matter of your preference. 30BB-deep NLHE isn't inherently any better or worse than 400BB-deep NLHE, in the same way that Hold'Em isn't inherently any better or worse than Omaha Hi-Lo. It's all a matter of how complex you want the strategy to be, and probably more importantly, what particular skills you want to be emphasized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I agree here, but I did say that I want the strategy to be as complex as possible. At least I'm pretty sure I do.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
What's PSBs and PSR?

And how did you come up with those numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

pot size bets/raise

[ QUOTE ]
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Geez. If you don't want to answer what I'm asking, please just refrain from answering at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you even reading what I'm posting? I'm trying to answer your question, but you seem to have your mind made up already. If you don't like some of these responses, maybe you could just stop posting threads?

OK thx bye