Separate names with a comma.
Want to join the rest of the ChipTalk members? It is free to sign up today and unlock new features, discussions, and reduce the advertising.
Discussion in 'Cash Game / Ring Game Advice' started by dad604, Aug 4, 2007.
Is there an advantage in having the biggest stack in a NL game vs average vs small stack?
There's a lot of debate about this, and both sides have merit. If I'm playing NL with a $200 stack and some guy has a $10,000 stack, I don't mind. His decision process with his stack is going to be different than mine is with my stack, but if I'm the better player, I'm going to win money regardless of the size of his stack. Same goes the other way too. If I'm the Goliath stack and I'm the better player, I'm going to swat those flies and take their money.
So for the individual, since the stacks play a bit differently, would you play better with a small relative stack or a huge relative stack? There's your answer.
Psychological advantage at best.
Even though you can reload any time in a cash game, having more chips in your stack allows you to cash in bigger if you have a deep stack hemorrhaging money and you think you can double through him.
If you are the best (or above the table average) player then yes, there is. You can win the most money when you take advantage of your opponent's mistakes.
If you are one of the least skilled players, then the short stack is to your advantage, your opponent's implied odds are lower, tending to negate their skill advantage provided you play a strategy suited to a smaller stack.
afcourse there is an advantage. if you are the better player that is.
everytime you push someone all in you get the most out of them. but if you are the short stack you are not getting the most out of them.
Big stacks have no intrinsic advantage over smaller stacks. They just have more options and require more care against other medium and large stacks.
Ask "Kid Poker" how his Million dollar stack worked out....
Stack sizes need to be played differently, and the bigger the stack, the bigger the theoretical advantage.
there is a distinct disadvantage to being the large stack, in the vast majority of normal situations.
i'd go more into it, but it's come up a million times. it seems clear to me that people have staked out positions and that the discussion has pretty well stagnated.
Kid poker is not an example. I know daniel and used to play with him up to about 2 months prior to him winning the WSOP braclet. daniel used to frequent the back rooms in toronto where i also used to live and frequent. i still see daniel play at the bellagio till this day when ever i go visit my friends in vegas. and you know what? daniel sucked back then and he still sucks today. he is the worst cash game player in the world. belive what you want but i know it first hand.
I agree with respect to being the biggest stack at the table as you have more of your stack in play. The only real advantages are never leaving money on the table on a big hand and sometimes folks will give the big stack more action as they see an opportunity to get a bigger payday from him or may perceive him playing looser because of his stack. I think the important criteria here is simply keep playing the same game that got you there, don't loosen your standards or start playing differently. Don't be afraid to fold AA on the flop just because its only 1/5 of your stack, etc. Personally, I prefer to be in the upper middle of the stack brackets.
As for the discussion jojo is referencing, I believe that is a different topic related to buying in shallower (40bb or less IMO) versus deeper (around 100bb) in cash games; rarely is 100bb the biggest stack at a table. I don't think the discussion has stagnated on it, at least not on CT. Each approach has it pros and cons IMO, just need to find which one works better for you.
In terms of sitting down with a big stack...I'd say no. I won't play any different if I sat down with more than anyone else. But if I've won my way to big stack...I'm more opt to gamble or call with a middle pair against a perceived bluff. In this way I might be more dangerous, once I'm up a bit, I will play more aggressively and push the short stacks when I have a decent read... I also like to play agaisnt the big stack for the same reason so there's a give and take. I'm a looser player with a triple up in fron tof me, especially if the whole table is at the min buy- in and any confrontation does not put my stack in jeopardy.
ONline-totally different, I hate being bigstack online...I always buy in small.
He's gotta be better than me. LOL.
Personally, the goal is too always be the big stack and unless your game allows you to go south, you won't be avoiding this situation short of leaving what appears to be a soft table. Online, leaving isn't a big deal while live this can be an issue.
As for buying in, I'd never want to buyin as the biggest stack (assuming no max buyin) but somewhere in the middle but I would want to make sure that I have enough chips to take advantage of a good hand when I get it (80bb+). Same issue with buying in short, the goal is you won't be the short stack and then you need to adjust your play somewhat or get up and leave.
tust me on this one.. i wouldn't be surprized if he isn't.
Can you stake me. I'd love to try my luck.
80 times the big blind is an execellent buy in. not to much not to little. just perfect for a good hand to go all in. you raise 5x pre-flop and get 2 callers. you got 15blinds in the pot. you got 75 left. you bet 15x on the flop and get 1 caller. you got 45blinds in the pot. you got 60 left. you bet 35 blinds on the turn and get a call. now there is 115 blinds in the pot. and you got 25 blinds left. if your apponent has anything. even bottom pair you can rest asure his calling you for the extra 25 blinds you got cause once you put it in you already have a pot with 140 blinds. so its a good stack to suck someone in for the all in.
if i was able to stake you i wouldn't not have been here right now typing all this... i'd be playing high limit poker at the bellagio. lol..
One thing to point out, a lot of this depends on the table. Online, 4bb +/- 1bb is a pretty standard pf raise at least at the limits I play. Live, this can very quite a bit. Some 1/2 NL games can have a min. pf bring-in of $5 (a limp is a small raise) while IMLE a std raise is usually around $15-$20. All of these should factor into your buyin equation.
Nothing like a 1/2 NL game with a max buyin of $100 and std. opening raises of $10-15 to turn into a major luckfest early on (venting here).
i was reffering to any stake game but NLHE. that's why i used the BB count instead of $$$