Did Garrett's buy-in/add-on strategy to be the largest stack give him an advantage on HCL? (1 Viewer)

[elemeno]

Of course Garrett was a superior poker player relative to the Hustler Casino Live field. 100% excluding the skill component, do you believe Garrett’s buy-in / add-on strategy to always be the largest stack gave him an advantage? Why or why not?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

As a winning poker player who has an edge on the table's average player, yes, matching the biggest stack is very +EV. Basic strategy means you're topping up so you can win more.

There is 0 way to exclude the skill component. Do you mean if they all played blind and just played Bingo?

 

[JMC9389]

His deep bankroll allowed him to have the highest win amount because he could cover the table and put pressure on smaller stacks to get their money in.

He's a good, TAG player that knows where his equity in his hands stand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

100% excluding the skill component

If we must view it through this lens, no. There is no inherent advantage agnostic to the skill component.

Whether matching the big stack helps or hurts a player is dependent entirely on relative skill.

In a broad stroke, for a player who is weaker than the field, it's EV–. For a player who is stronger, it's EV+.

This may vary in cases where a player's skill relative to the field is different depending on stack depth (e.g., a skilled player who loses all his discipline when stacks get deep, or a typically undisciplined player who tightens up when stacks get deep). But generally higher skill will scale up with stack depth, and the analysis is the same.

 

[elemeno]

As a winning poker player who has an edge on the table's average player, yes, matching the biggest stack is very +EV. Basic strategy means you're topping up so you can win more.

There is 0 way to exclude the skill component. Do you mean if they all played blind and just played Bingo?

It’s interesting you phrased it this way. Let’s say two people are playing high card or bingo for money. One starts with 100 and the other starts with 20. Would one of them have an advantage?

 

[Eriks]

It’s interesting you phrased it this way. Let’s say two people are playing high card or bingo for money. One starts with 100 and the other starts with 20. Would one of them have an advantage?

There is no inherent advantage in being the big stack in a cash game because of table stakes. But because he has a skill advantage over the table he can maximize his wins by buying in so that he’s covering the table.

A player with low skills would fair better with a short stack where s/he would have far fewer decisions to make, ideally all-in or fold.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

It’s interesting you phrased it this way. Let’s say two people are playing high card or bingo for money. One starts with 100 and the other starts with 20. Would one of them have an advantage?

Phrased how?

Look up effective stacks. If they only have that amount and they go all in every hand, the 100 has an advantage because he can lose and survive, but in each hand they're both only risking 20.

If I'm better than my opponent I want the 100 so I can win their stack when and if I win.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It’s interesting you phrased it this way. Let’s say two people are playing high card or bingo for money. One starts with 100 and the other starts with 20. Would one of them have an advantage?

The player with 100 chips is more likely to come out of this session with more chips, or to "win" because the other ran out of chips (assuming the session would stop then).

But looking at the long game, neither has an inherent EV advantage. The game itself is still an even-money exercise.

Obviously the player with 100 chips has the "advantage" I describe above, but that advantage is 5 : 1, and in any reasonable analog to poker, he paid 5 times as much money to get those chips.

 

[springbox]

It’s interesting you phrased it this way. Let’s say two people are playing high card or bingo for money. One starts with 100 and the other starts with 20. Would one of them have an advantage?

No. For each round they play, they're wagering the same amount of money at exactly 50% odds. The EV is always 0 for any bet. Now, if you forced them to play until one of them ran out of money, technically the player starting with 100 would win more often than the player starting with 20. But the EV is still 0, because the large stack only gets $20 when they win out, and the small stack gets $100.

 

[elemeno]

If we must view it through this lens, no. There is no inherent advantage agnostic to the skill component.

Whether matching the big stack helps or hurts a player is dependent entirely on relative skill.

In a broad stroke, for a player who is weaker than the field, it's EV–. For a player who is stronger, it's EV+.

This may vary in cases where a player's skill relative to the field is different depending on stack depth (e.g., a skilled player who loses all his discipline when stacks get deep, or a typically undisciplined player who tightens up when stacks get deep). But generally higher skill will scale up with stack depth, and the analysis is the same.

There is no inherent advantage in being the big stack in a cash game because of table stakes. But because he has a skill advantage over the table he can maximize his wins by buying in so that he’s covering the table.

A player with low skills would fair better with a short stack where s/he would have far fewer decisions to make, ideally all-in or fold.

The player with 100 chips is more likely to come out of this session with more chips, or to "win" because the other ran out of chips (assuming the session would stop then).

But looking at the long game, neither has an inherent EV advantage. The game itself is still an even-money exercise.

Obviously the player with 100 chips has the "advantage" I describe above, but that advantage is 5 : 1, and in any reasonable analog to poker, he paid 5 times as much money to get those chips.

Well written. Here’s my take and happy to be proven wrong.

At the time I’m writing this, there are 6:1 yes:no. Some of the yes’s have explained their rationale, and so far it’s my opinion that the reasoning is faulty, even though I’m in the yes camp.

Mathematically, there is no advantage for having a larger stack (again, only when agnostic of skill). The perfect example is actually bingo or high card. Each time you play, it’s a 50/50, so though you may come out ahead more often when your stack is 100 and your opponent’s is 20, after infinite games both players are EV neutral.

Psychologically, a larger stack gives an edge because opponents are always 100% at risk. If the opponent is extremely rational, then that edge is also reduced to zero. Many of Garrett’s opponents were playing outside of their bankroll, so his stack size psychological edge was often there, IMO.

 

[Taghkanic]

Advantages:

* Player with the bigger stack can win the most possible (i.e. the villain’s whole stack) when s/he gets it in good;

* Player with the bigger stack can put more pressure on villains, including with bluffs, since s/he can always threaten their stacks.

Disadvantages:

* If someone sucks at poker, s/he is more likely to give away the maximum in any given hand, to those coming after their chips;

* Big stacks can mean harder and more complicated decisions, since you are more likely to play multistreet hands with lots of implied or reverse implied odds.

By contrast, if someone understands shortstacked play better than the rest of the table, and is prepared to get it in appropriately pre- or on the flop with some real variance, that might be advantageous… At least if their goal is to try to get a normal-sized starting stack for cheap.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Psychologically, a larger stack gives an edge because opponents are always 100% at risk. If the opponent is extremely rational, then that edge is also reduced to zero.

Management of one's own psychology in a rational way is also a skill issue.

People irrationally mismanage their psychology at poker all the time. Anyone who has ever played a "favorite hand" in a spot that clearly calls for a fold is doing this very thing. Same with anyone who gets bored after 40 folds in a row and decides to get frisky with hand #41, whatever it may be.

Playing scared money is no different.

 

[elemeno]

Management of one's own psychology at the table is also a skill issue.

That’s a very solid point. I’m changing teams to no.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Okay, sure, if we blindfold ourselves and flip a coin, 100 vs 20, and our stacks automatically replenish/diminish to those numbers each flip, and the money isn't real, and we agree to play a set amount, you're right, the math says there's absolutely no difference (because effective stack size and table stakes).

Do you want to move on to talk about why Garrett/winning players keep a stack topped up, or are we done?

 

[elemeno]

Okay, sure, if we blindfold ourselves and flip a coin, 100 vs 20, and our stacks automatically replenish/diminish to those numbers each flip, and the money isn't real, and we agree to play a set amount, you're right, the math says there's absolutely no difference (because effective stack size and table stakes).

Do you want to move on to talk about why Garrett/winning players keep a stack topped up, or are we done?

Why are you so condescending?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Why are you so condescending?

Apologies, I've been following the reasoning and it just seems to no longer include poker, I'm wondering why Garrett was included. Sorry about the tone, woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

 

[elemeno]

Apologies, I've been following the reasoning and it just seems to no longer include poker, I'm wondering why Garrett was included. Sorry about the tone, woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

You’re good in my book

Anyway, the reason I made this post was simply to think out loud/double check my logic. At many home games (I think, but certainly at mine), there are players that complain about large stack bullying/advantages. Without knowing anyone’s skill level, I had always assumed the only advantage was psychological, if any. I still believe this given the thread. In fact, I think you believe it too since you liked this comment:

People in my games always wanna rebuy off the big stack for some reason. I'm not sure how many times I've tried to explain that big stack bullying doesn't exist in cash poker, but they still don't believe me.

Yet, there’s currently a 9:2 phenomenon in the poll. This tells me that a large majority of people think stack size does provide an edge. Since it’s apparent so many people feel this way, and even though I think they’re wrong, I’m contemplating whether I should adjust my home game rules to cap rebuys/add-ons at some level to keep the peace. My game isn’t cut throat and is 100% a social thing, so I don’t mind either way.


All this said, I just want to make it clear that I 100% know it changes when skill is factored in. The higher the skill difference, the more +EV it is to play with larger stacks.

 

[springbox]

Yet, there’s currently a 9:2 phenomenon in the poll. This tells me that a large majority of people think stack size does provide an edge. Since it’s apparent so many people feel this way, and even though I think they’re wrong, I’m contemplating whether I should adjust my home game rules to cap rebuys/add-ons at some level to keep the peace. My game isn’t cut throat and is 100% a social thing, so I don’t mind either way.


All this said, I just want to make it clear that I 100% know it changes when skill is factored in. The higher the skill difference, the more +EV it is to play with larger stacks.

I think you're missing something with this response. The question you ask in the poll is 'Did Garrett’s buy-in/add-on strategy give him an advantage on HCL?'. The question you asked in the comments was, 'ignoring skill, does covering other players offer any advantage'? I assume Garrett is much more skilled than other players, that's why covering other players gives him a benefit. Even if his 'edge' is the same, would you rather make a $100 bet with 60% odds or a $1000 bet? The latter nets you $200 in EV while the former only gets you $20 in EV. If we ignore skill, there's no difference. A $100 bet with 50% odds is the same as a $1000 bet with 50% odds (in terms of EV).

Also, in reference to big stack bullying: What I meant, was that my players think if they buy in for $10 it somehow matters if someone else has $15 in their stack, or $25. From the perspective of the player with $10 there's no difference, their opponent covers them either way. From the perspective of the big stack, all that matters is that they cover all the other players, so they win the max in an all-in situation. From the perspective of the small stack, all that matters is whether or not they're covered, they can't lose any amount beyond that.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

You’re good in my book

Anyway, the reason I made this post was simply to think out loud/double check my logic. At many home games (I think, but certainly at mine), there are players that complain about large stack bullying/advantages. Without knowing anyone’s skill level, I had always assumed the only advantage was psychological, if any. I still believe this given the thread. In fact, I think you believe it too since you liked this comment:

That's where I rolled my eyes: the initial question on the poll is about Garrett's strategy of having the max stack/adding on to his stack to play in a poker game. We're then asked to ignore the entirety of poker: strategy, psychology, all of it. Now you're back to saying that some of your players and the poll respondents are wrong in your mind, because we agreed that in a coinflip or bingo it doesn't matter. If your players are viewing the cash game as a tournament, seeing it as only the money on the table mattering and not accounting for rebuying/adding on, that's a different conversation. But if they see it as the 100 vs 20, they see it as the 100 being able to lose more times before going home than they can.

It is not only a psychological effect, it is mathematical: if you think you're better than the field, you want to have the highest stack because your estimated returns are higher. I don't want to misunderstand you, but we're back to talking about poker so we can never fully remove skill. Its not just "monkey like big stack", its, "We're all going to get AA the same number of times over infinite, I can make more money and leverage my edge more when I have the biggest stack."

 

[elemeno]

I think you're missing something with this response. The question you ask in the poll is 'Did Garrett’s buy-in/add-on strategy give him an advantage on HCL?'. The question you asked in the comments was, 'ignoring skill, does covering other players offer any advantage'? I assume Garrett is much more skilled than other players, that's why covering other players gives him a benefit. Even if his 'edge' is the same, would you rather make a $100 bet with 60% odds or a $1000 bet? The latter nets you $200 in EV while the former only gets you $20 in EV. If we ignore skill, there's no difference. A $100 bet with 50% odds is the same as a $1000 bet with 50% odds (in terms of EV).

Also, in reference to big stack bullying: What I meant, was that my players think if they buy in for $10 it somehow matters if someone else has $15 in their stack, or $25. From the perspective of the player with $10 there's no difference, their opponent covers them either way. From the perspective of the big stack, all that matters is that they cover all the other players, so they win the max in an all-in situation. From the perspective of the small stack, all that matters is whether or not they're covered, they can't lose any amount beyond that.

You’re right, the question I meant to ask isn't the question in the poll.

Just to make sure I understand your perspective, do you think rebuy/add-on rules affect EV or provide an advantage?

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think you're missing something with this response. The question you ask in the poll is 'Did Garrett’s buy-in/add-on strategy give him an advantage on HCL?'. The question you asked in the comments was, 'ignoring skill, does covering other players offer any advantage'? I assume Garrett is much more skilled than other players, that's why covering other players gives him a benefit. Even if his 'edge' is the same, would you rather make a $100 bet with 60% odds or a $1000 bet? The latter nets you $100 in EV while the former only gets you $10 in EV.

Yeah, the question is stated differently in the poll than in the OP. I bet the poll would have different results if the "ignoring skill" aspect were clearer in the poll.

At many home games (I think, but certainly at mine), there are players that complain about large stack bullying/advantages.

You may notice that the players who complain about this are disproportionately of the non-winning variety. There's a reason for that.

While rebuying to match the big stack is EV-neutral without knowing the player, it's an optional play that is advantageous specifically to skilled players.

That brings me to this:

I’m contemplating whether I should adjust my home game rules to cap rebuys/add-ons at some level to keep the peace.

If you find that your winning players are using this feature to crush everyone else, it may be a good idea to cap buy-ins to protect your non-winning players.

This not only prevents winning players from stack-matching and taking down any recreational player who builds a stack, but it also prevents lower-skilled players from rebuying their way into devastating losses that may drive them out of the game.

Remember, you never really have to recruit winning players. They will generally find their way to any game that will pay them to play.

It's the donators you should always cater to.

 

[elemeno]

If your players are viewing the cash game as a tournament, seeing it as only the money on the table mattering and not accounting for rebuying/adding on, that's a different conversation. But if they see it as the 100 vs 20, they see it as the 100 being able to lose more times before going home than they can.

It is not only a psychological effect, it is mathematical

Wait, hold on. I structured this thread/the poll question in a very flawed way.

Let me try again : do you think uncapped buyin/rebuy/add-on rules affect EV or provide an advantage?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

You’re right, the question I meant to ask isn't the question in the poll.

Just to make sure I understand your perspective, do you think rebuy/add-on rules affect EV?

Yes. My expected value is increased when I can match the stack of the players I have an advantage over. If I show up with only $100 dollars, but I'm much better than the entire player pool, I can still lose that $100 because duh, its poker. If I have $1000 behind, I can lose that $100, then match the stack of the person that beat me, $200. It is +EV to have $200 instead of $100 if I am better than that player because now there's more money changing hands, we want money flowing if we're winning.

If I lose a hand and only have $75, that's the max I can win, instead of the full $125 in the stack of the player that beat me. I'm losing value there.

I will add on to the max every time, because its a disaster if I have $100, get dealt AA when the fish with $1000 gets KK and I only grab $100 off him. If I have a lower flush and the fish is excited and obviously has a higher flush, I can fold; I would bet that he can't do the same. This is why I want to be as deepstacked as possible to win that money. @Jimulacrum brings up great points about health of the game, but if I'm Garrett/at a casino where I just want to make money, I want to leverage the edge that I have.

 

[springbox]

You’re right, the question I meant to ask isn't the question in the poll.

Just to make sure I understand your perspective, do you think rebuy/add-on rules affect EV?

Wait, hold on. I structured this thread/the poll question in a very flawed way.

Let me try again : do you think uncapped buyin/rebuy/add-on rules affect EV or provide an advantage?

Yes. If you're better than another player, it behooves you to have as much as they do on the table, because it means you can win more from them. This doesn't extend any farther though. Having 10% more chips than them is the same as having double their chips in a single given hand. If we assume you top off every hand, then it truly does not matter beyond matching the largest stack. If you don't top off, you want enough such that even if you lose a hand you'll still match the largest stack.

If you have players with large skill discrepancies, and you want to limit the losers, a buy-in cap is a good idea. It prevents skilled players from immediately matching the stack and winning more off of the worse players. It prevents the worse players from huge buy ins that they can lose in one hand against the more skilled players.

Obvious example: Do you think Phil Ivey would win more money off me if I buy in for $5 and he covers me, or if I buy in for $50k and he covers me? If I cooler Phil Ivey and double up, is it better for him to re-buy at the initial $50k, or match my $100k?

 

[elemeno]

Yes. My expected value is increased when I can match the stack of the players I have an advantage over. If I show up with only $100 dollars, but I'm much better than the entire player pool, I can still lose that $100 because duh, its poker. If I have $1000 behind, I can lose that $100, then match the stack of the person that beat me, $200. It is +EV to have $200 instead of $100 if I am better than that player because now there's more money changing hands, we want money flowing if we're winning.

If I lose a hand and only have $75, that's the max I can win, instead of the full $125 in the stack of the player that beat me. I'm losing value there.

I will add on to the max every time, because its a disaster if I get AA when the fish with $1000 gets KK and I only grab $100 off him. If I have a lower flush and the fish is excited and obviously has a higher flush, I can fold; I would bet that he can't do the same. This is why I want to be as deepstacked as possible to win that money. @Jimulacrum brings up great points about health of the game, but if I'm Garrett/at a casino where I just want to make money, I want to leverage the edge that I have.

Yes. If you're better than another player, it behooves you to have as much as they do on the table, because it means you can win more from them. This doesn't extend any farther though. Having 10% more chips than them is the same as having double their chips in a single given hand. If we assume you top off every hand, then it truly does not matter beyond matching the largest stack. If you don't top off, you want enough such that even if you lose a hand you'll still match the largest stack.

If you have players with large skill discrepancies, and you want to limit the losers, a buy-in cap is a good idea. It prevents skilled players from immediately matching the stack and winning more off of the worse players. It prevents the worse players from huge buy ins that they can lose in one hand against the more skilled players.

Obvious example: Do you think Phil Ivey would win more money off me if I buy in for $5 and he covers me, or if I buy in for $50k and he covers me? If I cooler Phil Ivey and double up, is it better for him to re-buy at the initial $50k, or match my $100k?

But you both are assuming a player is superior in your example. We already know it’s better for a superior player to cover and that it’s +EV and therefore an advantage.

If we consider just the rule, and are therefore player/skill agnostic, I agree with Jimulacrum that buyin/rebuy/add-on rules are EV neutral.

rebuying to match the big stack is EV-neutral without knowing the player

 

[elemeno]

Obvious example: Do you think Phil Ivey would win more money off me if I buy in for $5 and he covers me, or if I buy in for $50k and he covers me?

His EV% would be the same in both, but of course EV$ is different. (Unless he plays worse because it’s only $5)

 

[Taghkanic]

Just to make sure I understand your perspective, do you think rebuy/add-on rules affect EV or provide an advantage?

TBH it’s starting to feel like the question keeps getting re-asked in multiple ways because only one answer is acceptable.

 

[elemeno]

TBH it’s starting to feel like the question keeps getting re-asked in multiple ways because only one answer is acceptable.

That’s not my intent, sincerely.

 

[springbox]

But you both are assuming a player is superior in your example. We already know it’s better for a superior player to cover and that it’s +EV and therefore an advantage.

If we consider just the rule, and are therefore player/skill agnostic, I agree with Jimulacrum that buyin/rebuy/add-on rules are EV neutral.

Well sure, but assuming all players are equally skilled you could just play flip coins, play war, or any other game of random chance instead of poker and you'd expect the same outcome. The idea you'll find 6~10 players who are all of identical skill levels seems exceedingly unlikely unless you're running some kind of bot simulation. I'm really not sure what information you're looking for, or how you want to apply it. Your buy in rules will depend on the players in your games. Those players will have different disposable incomes, propensities for gambling, relative experience, variance tolerance, and a lot of other considerations. Player skill is one of those considerations, so it makes sense to think about it when determining buy in rules, but it's hardly the only thing to think about.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Seems like a key point of all this is that there's a difference judging whether a rule is fair—i.e., applies equally to everyone and offers no inherent EV advantage to any random individual, agnostic to skill—and whether a rule amplifies skill advantage.

Poker itself is an example of this. It's a fair game, but within that fair game are many parameters that can amplify or dull skill advantage depending on how you set them. Stack depth in NL games is one such parameter, as is choosing NL as a format in the first place. Ante size in limit stud games is another. The poker variant you choose to play is yet another.

The sweet spot for any particular poker gathering depends on the balance you need to strike.

If your players are all relatively close in skill, it doesn't matter very much. Features that amplify skill advantage will make the game more competitive and less gambley, but they won't really hurt anyone too much, since there's isn't much advantage to amplify.

In this case it's a matter of preference.

If there's substantial skill difference among your players, it matters a lot. If you're a skilled, experienced player, and you find yourself at a table where you're the only person who knows what "semi-bluff" means, features like matching the big stack and tough variants (e.g., Scarney) are going to leave you shooting fish in a barrel.

In this case you should lean toward gambley features (because recreational players win by chance) and avoid competitive features, to protect the lower-skilled players.