Does Size Matter? (1 Viewer)

shorticus

4 of a Kind
Tourney Director
Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
6,549
Reaction score
7,991
Location
Cajun Country
So ladies…just kidding

I feel like a conversation that started yesterday began to change direction from the original intention of the thread. Because of that, I’m starting a new thread to continue the conversation.

The bulk of the conversation can be found here: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/25-50-vs-1-2-at-a-home-game.77118/post-1610036

Let’s continue this conversation here so as we don’t thread Jack someone who’s trying to get help with his home game.

Tagging people who were associated with the thread:
@CrazyEddie @Highli99 @Legend5555 @trigs
(Sorry if I missed anyone)

Also tagging people who’s opinion’s I would be interested in hearing:
@DrStrange @Moxie Mike @upNdown @Rhodeman77 @Hornet @Beakertwang @IaHawk @detroitdad

So does stack size matter, and does the ability to rebuy up to the size of the big stack provide advantage?

…annnnndddddd go
 
Playing deeper vs shorter is different strategies so if someone has a larger advantage in a certain stack size, that can be material. Note the effective stack is what determines how deep it is, doesn’t matter who covers whom.

As to buy-in caps and ability to rebuy, in theory there is no difference at all, there is no big stack advantage in any way. In practice some players may make -ev adjustments to minimize their variance and discomfort in some of those scenarios.
 
Deeper stacks favor the better players in no limit / pot limit games. When discussing "advantage", the question should be who's advantage.

Weak players get lucky just like anyone else. But the question is, can they keep their winnings? If the better players can top off / buy in to match the biggest stack, all it takes is one mistake ridden hand to break the weak player. No kidding the good players find this attractive. Couple in the disgust over "hit-n-run" players and you create conditions where the bad players are little more than sitting ducks.

Is this good for the game? Maybe it doesn't matter at a commercial poker room. But at a home game it seems designed to cull the weaker player from the game if they care about the losses and the fact the pretty much never win a session.

The host will need to decide who's interests to promote. I host both types of games, but the buy in up to the bigger stack game has reached a pretty sad state - lucky to have a four player table if it runs at all.
 
So does stack size matter
Does it matter in general? Yes. Big stacks let players win and lose more money, but only if they're playing against players who also have big stacks.

Does it matter to the play of a hand? Yes. Effective stack sizes have a big effect on strategy.

Does it matter to the play of a hand who has the bigger stack? No. The effective stack size is determined by the smaller of the two stacks, without regard to who that smaller stack belongs to.

and does the ability to rebuy up to the size of the big stack provide advantage?
Between players of equal skill, no.

For stronger players, yes, but only if the weaker players also do it.

For weak players, not only does it not give them an advantage, it hurts them.
 
I don't have much of an opinion either way honestly. I've never capped the buy-in in the games I've hosted but I understand both sides of the argument.

@DrStrange pretty much summed it up... it just depends on what you're trying to accomplish. An environment where the weaker players will have a better chance at booking a win is probably +EV, since recreational players who'll reliably show up are more difficult to attract in my experience.

I have an old friend (professional gambler) who would always top up anytime someone won a big pot to make sure he had the table covered. I don't recall it ever being a problem for anyone else in the game.
 
Deeper stacks favor the better players in no limit / pot limit games. When discussing "advantage", the question should be who's advantage.

Weak players get lucky just like anyone else. But the question is, can they keep their winnings? If the better players can top off / buy in to match the biggest stack, all it takes is one mistake ridden hand to break the weak player. No kidding the good players find this attractive. Couple in the disgust over "hit-n-run" players and you create conditions where the bad players are little more than sitting ducks.

Is this good for the game? Maybe it doesn't matter at a commercial poker room. But at a home game it seems designed to cull the weaker player from the game if they care about the losses and the fact the pretty much never win a session.

The host will need to decide who's interests to promote. I host both types of games, but the buy in up to the bigger stack game has reached a pretty sad state - lucky to have a four player table if it runs at all.
This all day.

Want a cutthroat game where the name of the game is making money? Deep stacks.

Want a fun friendly game? standard buy-in caps

I will go ahead and beat my drum while I am at it....the BEST style for home games is fixed limit. Less stalling, less tanking, easier to play, and easier to nurse a stack all night while hanging out for your rec players. The cream will still rise to the top, but it happens in smaller increments.
 
Depending on who is playing and how big the stacks are I think it can also have a psychological effect that you may have to take into account. Not saying all games but can come in to play.
 
I agree with the point people have made that deeper stacks favor the more skilled players. But there’s also a fundamental fairness question that is irrespective of skill level. Say there are two players, Player A and Player B of equal skill. Say for the sake of argument they are both terrible players. Player A gets lucky 4 times on the river to felt Player B each time. Should Player B have the opportunity to rebuy up to Player A’s stack and potentially felt him in one hand? Or should Player B be limited in his rebuy and have to win multiple hands to get his money back? One approach gives the stuck player a better chance of getting unstuck. The other approach gives the winning player a better chance of holding on to his winnings.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. We have players on both sides of the fence on this issue.
 
Deeper stacks favor the better players in no limit / pot limit games. When discussing "advantage", the question should be who's advantage.

Weak players get lucky just like anyone else. But the question is, can they keep their winnings? If the better players can top off / buy in to match the biggest stack, all it takes is one mistake ridden hand to break the weak player. No kidding the good players find this attractive. Couple in the disgust over "hit-n-run" players and you create conditions where the bad players are little more than sitting ducks.

Is this good for the game? Maybe it doesn't matter at a commercial poker room. But at a home game it seems designed to cull the weaker player from the game if they care about the losses and the fact the pretty much never win a session.

The host will need to decide who's interests to promote. I host both types of games, but the buy in up to the bigger stack game has reached a pretty sad state - lucky to have a four player table if it runs at all.
/thread
 
I agree with the point people have made that deeper stacks favor the more skilled players. But there’s also a fundamental fairness question that is irrespective of skill level. Say there are two players, Player A and Player B of equal skill. Say for the sake of argument they are both terrible players. Player A gets lucky 4 times on the river to felt Player B each time. Should Player B have the opportunity to rebuy up to Player A’s stack and potentially felt him in one hand? Or should Player B be limited in his rebuy and have to win multiple hands to get his money back? One approach gives the stuck player a better chance of getting unstuck. The other approach gives the winning player a better chance of holding on to his winnings.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. We have players on both sides of the fence on this issue.
My OPINION is that it took 4 hands to get that stuck, it should take you 4 hands to get out of that hole as well.

But of course, I do love LIMIT! Have I mentioned that yet?
 
As usual @DrStrange articulated the point better than I could. I concur with his thoughts and suggest people manage their games accordingly. Personally, I would rather optimize for game sustainability more than profit maximization for strong players.
 
I agree with the point people have made that deeper stacks favor the more skilled players. But there’s also a fundamental fairness question that is irrespective of skill level. Say there are two players, Player A and Player B of equal skill. Say for the sake of argument they are both terrible players. Player A gets lucky 4 times on the river to felt Player B each time. Should Player B have the opportunity to rebuy up to Player A’s stack and potentially felt him in one hand? Or should Player B be limited in his rebuy and have to win multiple hands to get his money back? One approach gives the stuck player a better chance of getting unstuck. The other approach gives the winning player a better chance of holding on to his winnings.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. We have players on both sides of the fence on this issue.
This is an excellent way to frame the question, but also note that this is roughly equivalent to saying "Should Player B have the opportunity to raise the game's stakes when he gets stuck?"

I'd agree there's no right or wrong answer, but I think it's a profoundly important question, moreso than many people might think at first.
 
Just saying . . .

My Tuesday night limit mixed game still runs every week. We have lost one player in the last 15 years to "its not fun any more". Sadly the grim reaper has taken too many others.

The big boys $1/$2 game ran once a week in 2005, sometimes twice. Buy-in rule was match the biggest stack if desired. We had enough people to run two tables every session. Say twelve regulars and thirty casual. Just before covid19 the big boys game ran once every month or two. There are two or three regulars and lots of people who once played with us who just don't any more.

There are reasons why these games have different life cycles. And the buy-in rules are a big part of that. Sure it was fun to win enough to pay my mortgage every month. Oddly the guys losing didn't seem to have as much fun.
 
I really don’t have enough experience at deep stack cash game play to answer this very well. Probably the deepest I’ve ever bought into a cash game is 200 big blinds.
But of course I’ve been in cash games where I’ve built my stack to 500, 600, 700 big blinds deep, and I’m not particularly comfortable with it. And it’s not because I’m an unskilled player (that may or may not be part of it - it really depends on who I’m playing with; I could be the best player at the table, or the worst.) The reason is, I’m risk averse - simply put, I don’t want to lose a big 400bb stack in one hand. When I’m that deep, I’ll avoid getting into hands with similarly deep stacks. And when I do, I’m probably paying more of a pot control type of hand. Not super.
Translated to tournament play, which is really my game, I’ve known for years that my biggest weakness is probably that I play poorly in the middle stages, when I’ve built up a stack. But that’s another story.

But enough about me. Yes, stack size matters for skilled players because they’re smart enough to understand the implications. Letting people rebuy up to the big stack is a dangerous game and it will illustrate the best and worst of big bet poker.
 
Most of us seem in agreement here. And this is essentially what I was trying to articulate in the other thread.

The total derailment of the other thread occurred because from my POV it seemed that certain people thought just the act of having a large stack in and of itself was an advantage. As if it offered some strategic advantage in play. Which I, and most here, seem to agree isn't the case.

Assuming bankroll isn't an issue:

Good players want stacks that cover weaker players so they can win more.

Weaker players should favor having a shorter stack of they think they are at a skill disadvantage in the game.

As to whether allowing buy ins up to the biggest stack, it depends on the group. In a group of mixed skill, limiting buy ins makes a ton of sense so the weaker players don't just get demolished to quickly. It especially makes sense in home games among friends unless they are all cool with large buy ins.
 
I brought this over from the other thread.
Did you even read the sentence that follows the bolded sentence?
Yes, I did. However, I disagree. It is very much in contention because it is a specific example of how a big stack can be an advantage. You simply stating that it isn't an issue doesn't make it so.
My last post about this. I want to know what @trigs thinks about this. True or false? If false, please explain.
CrazyEddie said:
Between two players who are equally skilled, there is exactly zero advantage to either one of them having a stack bigger than the other.
That is true, but everyone is not equal obviously. So I ask you then: in a game where everyone is not equal (i.e. basically every home game ever), is there any possible advantage to be had in allowing players to rebuy up to the biggest stack? Clearly the answer is yes as you have stated.
 
I brought this over from the other thread.

Yes, I did. However, I disagree. It is very much in contention because it is a specific example of how a big stack can be an advantage. You simply stating that it isn't an issue doesn't make it so.


That is true, but everyone is not equal obviously. So I ask you then: in a game where everyone is not equal (i.e. basically every home game ever), is there any possible advantage to be had in allowing players to rebuy up to the biggest stack? Clearly the answer is yes as you have stated.
You have changed the goalposts on this conversation about a million times. You started off by saying that having a big stack is an advantage. I countered with no and further clarified that I meant having a big stack is not an intrisic advantage by itself which you seemed to imply. I also said that as a good player you want to cover weaker players. So that is AN advantage. And I think it's the only one that makes any sense.

Now you bring up the issue of buy in size, which I get was the point of the other thread. But this was not what I was arguing about.
 
@trigs so again, what other advantages are there to having a big stack other than covering your opponents when you are more skilled than them?
 
You have changed the goalposts on this conversation about a million times. You started off by saying that having a big stack is an advantage. I countered with no and further clarified that I meant having a big stack is not an intrisic advantage by itself which you seemed to imply. I also said that as a good player you want to cover weaker players. So that is AN advantage. And I think it's the only one that makes any sense.

Now you bring up the issue of buy in size, which I get was the point of the other thread. But this was not what I was arguing about.
My bad. I'm wrong lol.
 
The whole original thread was about allowing people to buy in to the biggest stack! That was the entire point dude!
But that's not what our conversation was about. You said having a big stack is an advantage. What is the advantage other than covering weaker players?
 
But that's not what our conversation was about. You said having a big stack is an advantage. What is the advantage other than covering weaker players?
I'm wrong. That wasn't the original point of the thread. That's what it changed into.
 
But that's not what our conversation was about. You said having a big stack is an advantage. What is the advantage other than covering weaker players?
Again, I mentioned multiple examples. If you feel they are wrong, that is fine. And again, covering weaker players is also an advantage of allowing people to rebuy to the biggest stack. I've said this many times already.

Are you just arguing that that is the only advantage and there are no others? Fine, you win. There are no other advantages except the one you agree with. Still means there's an advantage in allowing people to rebuy to the biggest stack, and I personally don't want to give away advantages (especially to the better players) in my home games. So I don't allow rebuys to the biggest stack. That is all I'm trying to say.
 
There are no other advantages except [that a stronger player can top up to put himself in a more advantageous position against a weaker player with a deep stack]. Still means there's an advantage in allowing people to rebuy to the biggest stack …
Is that a form of advantage? Yes.

But it's merely an application of the same advantage the stronger player has by virtue of legitimate skill. It's not a new advantage. It's just the existing advantage being amplified by the game structure, on a scale with the player's investment.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not really an unfair advantage, which is what people often mean when they complain about something being an advantage, and might explain some folks getting defensive about it. If everyone's adequately funded to play the game, it's just another part of the game that bolsters strong players' ability to beat weak players faster. But if we're being honest, so is no-limit betting in the first place.

And then:

… I personally don't want to give away advantages (especially to the better players) in my home games. So I don't allow rebuys to the biggest stack. That is all I'm trying to say.
You're right to not want to give away advantages to the better players. When you have a choice that can help stronger players or hurt them, you should almost always be willing to hurt them, for the sake of the overall game. Trust me, the stronger players will find a way to cope. They're getting paid to be there, after all.

But the thing is, it's a mistake to think you have a choice in whether you're "giv[ing] away advantages" in general when you run a poker game. I assure you that, by hosting a poker game of any kind, you are always granting some measure of advantage to the stronger poker players.

The details of the game you host form a sort of scale that you can use to (loosely) adjust how quickly and reliably the stronger players can win (and, in turn, how quickly and reliably the weaker players lose). The variant(s), betting structure, and buy-in limits are the three main factors.

At the extreme low-advantage (actually no-advantage) end of the scale, host a night of $20 Hold'em or Omaha flips. Just $20 ante and run it out, over and over. There will be no such thing as strong and weak players. But from there, essentially every decision-making point increases the advantage of the stronger players by some amount. Even if all you do is make it $20 flips of 5 Card Draw or Crazy Pineapple, the stronger players will gain a little bit of advantage on the discarding decisions. That's just how it is.

At the extreme high-advantage end of the scale is what most of the poker world plays: big-bet games with moderate to deep stacks. Once you've crossed that line, you're well into "crushing the weak players" territory, and every adjustment you make in their favor is just pulling punches a little. It's good that you're pulling punches, don't get me wrong, and it's better for the longevity of the game than not pulling punches, but it's a pretty marginal adjustment relative to the overall scale.
 
Is that a form of advantage? Yes.

But it's merely an application of the same advantage the stronger player has by virtue of legitimate skill. It's not a new advantage. It's just the existing advantage being amplified by the game structure, on a scale with the player's investment.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not really an unfair advantage, which is what people often mean when they complain about something being an advantage, and might explain some folks getting defensive about it. If everyone's adequately funded to play the game, it's just another part of the game that bolsters strong players' ability to beat weak players faster. But if we're being honest, so is no-limit betting in the first place.

And then:


You're right to not want to give away advantages to the better players. When you have a choice that can help stronger players or hurt them, you should almost always be willing to hurt them, for the sake of the overall game. Trust me, the stronger players will find a way to cope. They're getting paid to be there, after all.

But the thing is, it's a mistake to think you have a choice in whether you're "giv[ing] away advantages" in general when you run a poker game. I assure you that, by hosting a poker game of any kind, you are always granting some measure of advantage to the stronger poker players.

The details of the game you host form a sort of scale that you can use to (loosely) adjust how quickly and reliably the stronger players can win (and, in turn, how quickly and reliably the weaker players lose). The variant(s), betting structure, and buy-in limits are the three main factors.

At the extreme low-advantage (actually no-advantage) end of the scale, host a night of $20 Hold'em or Omaha flips. Just $20 ante and run it out, over and over. There will be no such thing as strong and weak players. But from there, essentially every decision-making point increases the advantage of the stronger players by some amount. Even if all you do is make it $20 flips of 5 Card Draw or Crazy Pineapple, the stronger players will gain a little bit of advantage on the discarding decisions. That's just how it is.

At the extreme high-advantage end of the scale is what most of the poker world plays: big-bet games with moderate to deep stacks. Once you've crossed that line, you're well into "crushing the weak players" territory, and every adjustment you make in their favor is just pulling punches a little. It's good that you're pulling punches, don't get me wrong, and it's better for the longevity of the game than not pulling punches, but it's a pretty marginal adjustment relative to the overall scale.
Yes, in the larger view of complete overall variance in all of poker, a big stack is not a huge advantage. I agree.
 
I don’t find that many take issue with being allowed to rebuy to cover the big stack.

but if some of the weaker players did it’s generally worth accommodating.

you set the rules - and all rules are fair as long as they’re agreed upon.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom