Legend5555
Full House
That literally doesn't matter in the slightest. You could just reload.It’s also beneficial when flipping against smaller stacks. When you can survive more coin flips that’s an advantage if you play aggressively.
That literally doesn't matter in the slightest. You could just reload.It’s also beneficial when flipping against smaller stacks. When you can survive more coin flips that’s an advantage if you play aggressively.
Little bit of a flex there huh pro?
I think he means for tournaments, where having more chips is an advantage cause it allows you to survive more all in situations, and you are still in the tourney even if you lose an all in to a short stack.That literally doesn't matter in the slightest. You could just reload.
I understand that. I think we drifted away from the point that allowing uncapped rebuys creates an advantage.That literally doesn't matter in the slightest. You could just reload.
Except it doesn't. If 8 people are in for 100bb, and one person is in for 2000bb, the 2000bb player has no inherent advantage. He may have 2000bb, but he effectively only has 100bb in play.I understand that. I think we drifted away from the point that allowing uncapped rebuys creates an advantage.
I don't know if you can compare high stakes television poker to Bob's home game with friends. Completely different scenario. However, you are correct. It is better for TV to have tons of money on the table, and the best players will buy-in to cover the table. I've seen shows with Ivey and Antonius just keep topping up until they have everyone covered. Now why would they do that? Hmmm, maybe because it's to their advantage perhaps?And online poker shows would be super boring if everyone was limited to buying in 100bb. Players at the highest stakes aren't complaining
Your example is ridiculous because if the player was able to buy in for 500, they wouldn't be playing the hand the same way and jamming 500 on the river as they would if they had 100.Being able to buy in and cover everyone at the table is an advantage. It gives you the power to bust them in any hand and any time, whereas if you had to buy in for the starting amount (or 50% of biggest stack), you don't have that advantage. Also, bigger stacks allows for more "play" compared to smaller stacks where set mining, for example, isn't as profitable. Again, I will buy in for 10x everyone at the table if I'm allowed (and can afford it depending on stacks obviously). It is definitely an advantage.
EDIT: Just to provide a simple example. Max buy-in is $100 at this table and I just busted you. I'm sitting with $500 in front of me and you rebuy for the max of $100. Very next hand, you end up shoving on me for a full $100 on the river. Now, can you see how this decision would be greatly influenced if you were able to buy in for up to biggest stack and now instead of a $100 shove, I'm facing a $500 shove? Clearly, this is helping the rebuy player and taking the advantage away from the big stack, for example. Like already mentioned, it also benefits the deepest pockets.
How can you say this? Depending on the cards and the way the hand is played, it's definitely possible the two players could get all the money in. Why does it matter if it's $100 effective or $500 effective? The cards matter if the player is shoving all in or not. So you are saying if I have $500 get dealt AA and you with $500 get dealt KK, there's no way all the money isn't going all in ever? What if flop comes AKK? No one going to end up shoving because stacks are too deep? Clearly, it's possible to get all the money in no matter the amount in the stacks depending on the cards dealt, and if rebuy guy gets to rebuy to max, that's going to effect the decision of the big stack (since he's not technically the big stack then). If he was up against only $100 effective, it is easier for him to make that decision obviously.Your example is ridiculous because if the player was able to buy in for 500, they wouldn't be playing the hand the same way and jamming 500 on the river as they would if they had 100.
? So you agree with me? Having a deeper stack is an advantage. I'm not understanding you I guess.As a good player, being and to buy in deep is an advantage because you can bust larger stacked weaker players. But stack size, more specifically effective stack size, dictates a lot about how hands should be played.
See bold. That is one advantage, yes. There are also others but, like you have now stated, being able to cover the table with a deeper stack has its advantages. Seems like you are agreeing with me...but you aren't for some reason, so I'm confused.If there is a cap on the buy in, all that does is affect how you can play hands. And just handicaps better players' win rates against weaker players that have run up a stack.
It's constantly baffling to me how many people think having a giant stack in a cash game gives any advantage other than being able to play larger pots against other deep stacked players. Going bust in a cash game means nothing since you can always just reload.
Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.See bold. That is one advantage, yes. There are also others but, like you have now stated, being able to cover the table with a deeper stack has its advantages. Seems like you are agreeing with me...but you aren't for some reason, so I'm confused.
I get what you're saying but consider a big stack bad player vs a small stack bad player? Who has the advantage?Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.
Larger stacks don't confer advantages, they amplify the advantage or disadvantage that the player already has due to his relative skill.
Consider a good player with $500 facing a bad player with $50; now consider a bad player with $500 facing a good player with $50. The hand plays out the same in both cases because the effective stacks are the same in both cases. If you give the shorter-stacked player another $400 to bring him even with the bigger stack, regardless of whether it was the good player or the bad player that got the boost, you've made the good player better off and the bad player worse off because the good player will end up with more of the bad player's money, faster.
One of my regs who is a good player has suggested I change the stakes of my home game from .25/.50 to 1/2 based on how it plays. His argument is that raises get no respect, and people are playing any 2 cards to the flop because it's only a few bucks.
Against each other? Neither one, because they have the same effective stack size.I get what you're saying but consider a big stack bad player vs a small stack bad player? Who has the advantage?
EDIT: Forget it. I must be wrong.Against each other? Neither one, because they have the same effective stack size.
The smaller stack is at greater risk of losing all his chips... but that doesn't matter, because it's a cash game and there are no consequences to getting felted. If Small Stack loses, he loses $X and is felted. If Big Stack loses, he loses $X and is not felted. But in either case, they both stand to lose $X and nothing else because being felted is of no special significance.
These are the right questions.It might help to know a little bit more about the betting patterns/dynamics here.
What is a standard preflop open size in your game? $1.50 (3x)? $2 (4x)? $3 (6x)?
How many callers does a standard open typically get?
Next: If you have a hand you want to isolate with, how big do you have to go?
Say you have AQo or JJ in the cutoff. Two people have already limped.
You’d like to get at least the button to fold, so you have position on any callers. If you see a flop, you probably prefer it to be heads-up. Just taking down the 3.5BB already in the pot is not such a bad outcome either.
Presumably there is a bet size at .25/.50 which doesn’t result in everyone (the button, both blinds and both limpers) flatting. How big is that in your game—$5 (10x)? $7.50 (15x)? $10 (20x)? Even more?
I ask these questions because I think the answers may help to show what your game’s “real” stakes are.
I take it back. I have to say one more thing. Dude, you are literally stating that it is an advantage for good players in your opinion. Therefore, there is clearly some sort of advantage to having a big stack. Maybe not for everyone according to you, but you admit there is one.Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.
Larger stacks don't confer advantages, they amplify the advantage or disadvantage that the player already has due to his relative skill.
Consider a good player with $500 facing a bad player with $50; now consider a bad player with $500 facing a good player with $50. The hand plays out the same in both cases because the effective stacks are the same in both cases. If you give the shorter-stacked player another $400 to bring him even with the bigger stack, regardless of whether it was the good player or the bad player that got the boost, you've made the good player better off and the bad player worse off because the good player will end up with more of the bad player's money, faster.
I’m think what he’s trying to point out is that stack size only magnifies what’s already there and skill level is the most contributing factor. Therefore a bad player with a large stack is at a bigger disadvantage and a solid player with a larger stack is at a bigger advantage overall.I take it back. I have to say one more thing. Dude, you are literally stating that it is an advantage for good players in your opinion. Therefore, there is clearly some sort of advantage to having a big stack. Maybe not for everyone according to you, but you admit there is one.
Right, but also - the better player isn't gaining any advantage (isn't increasing his inherent advantage) by having a bigger stack than his opponent. He only increases his advantage if both he and his weaker opponent have bigger stacks. His advantage doesn't come from his stack size, it comes from having more money in play, and you can only have more money in play if both players have more money in their stacks. You can't win what the other guy doesn't have.I’m think what he’s trying to point out is that stack size only magnifies what’s already there and skill level is the most contributing factor. Therefore a bad player with a large stack is at a bigger disadvantage and a solid player with a larger stack is at a bigger advantage overall.
Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.Right, but also - the better player isn't gaining any advantage (isn't increasing his inherent advantage) by having a bigger stack than his opponent. He only increases his advantage if both he and his weaker opponent have bigger stacks. His advantage doesn't come from his stack size, it comes from having more money in play, and you can only have more money in play if both players have more money in their stacks. You can't win what the other guy doesn't have.
I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's a good way to think about the how-big-can-we-rebuy question. Here's an example that maybe will help explain why:Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.
Maybe it depends, according to you, on if they are good players and if bad players also have big stacks, but you are still literally providing an example of the advantage of being able to rebuy up to the big stack. Hence why I only do rebuys up to 50% big stack in my games.
The issue is that the way you explain it, it seems that you think that having a big stack itself is an inherent advantage regardless of skill. And that just isn't true since the biggest stack can't use anymore of their stack than the smallest stack in the hand.Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.
Maybe it depends, according to you, on if they are good players and if bad players also have big stacks, but you are still literally providing an example of the advantage of being able to rebuy up to the big stack. Hence why I only do rebuys up to 50% big stack in my games.
This is again just another example of how allowing a rebuy to the biggest stack can provide an advantage in a different way. Like I said, there is more than one way it provides an advantage. This is just an argument for it from a different perspective.I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's a good way to think about the how-big-can-we-rebuy question. Here's an example that maybe will help explain why:
Let's say Bob is bad and Gordon is great at poker. They start with 100bb. Gordon gets Bob all in while Bob is way behind in the hand and now Gordon has 200bb to Bob's zilch.
Bob wants to rebuy to match the big stack so he can win his money back. But the group thinks "No way, that's not fair, Gordon earned his big stack fair and square. Bob should have to rebuy at the normal max buyin and work his way up from there. Gotta be fair to Gordon, after all."
Meanwhile Gordon is super-annoyed at the group. He doesn't want everyone protecting his precious big stack from unearned competition. He wants Bob to buy in for as much money as Bob has in his wallet because he can't win what Bob doesn't put on the table. By preventing Bob from buying in big, you're not preventing Bob from getting an unearned advantage, you're preventing Gordon from getting the advantage he worked so hard to get! If Bob doesn't buy in big, Gordon doesn't have an advantage from having a big stack.
You don't get an advantage from having a big stack. You get an advantage by other, weaker players having at least as big a stack as you do, so that you can take it away from them.