"paddy o connor" <treemore@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:wwVUa.24964$pK2.39095@news.indigo.ie...
> so what if they do [have more chips]
> is it that much of an advantage?

"Stephen Jacobs" (jacosa@comcast.net) replied
> Yeah it is a huge advantage.

"CSI Minneapolis" (pokerace@comcast.net) snided
> omg....read a book.

My NL book hasn't talked about this. I searched the archives for
discussion. The only interesting I found is that the best player will
want to be able to cover any bet and therefore should have the largest
stack.

If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

I've noticed that no-limit ring games play a lot like tournaments.
Players will buy-in, and if they lose chips early, they will play their
short stack, instead of adding on. So if 5 people start with $100, and
after an hour, the stacks are $150, $110, $110, $100, $30, the player
with $150 might have more of an advantage than his chips indicate. The
$110 players might play overly tight and try not to "tangle" with the
big stack, even though there is no prize money implication. The small
stack might be playing a mostly all-in or fold strategy, which is
probably not optimal given the non-tournament situation.
Mathematically, it shouldn't matter. If it were a 6 person game, and
everyone put a dollar into the pot and rolled a die and whoever's number
came up won the pot, it wouldn't matter. It depends on the other
player's frames of mind.

It might be optimal to start a no-limit game, buy in for the max, have a
friend sit with you heads up at the start and lose his stack to you, and
then wait for others to join. Doesn't seem ethical to me though, if
there's a max buy-in, it is there for a reason.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3f255db6.58827226@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> ...
>
> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
> without putting their whole stack at risk.

I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack? We
aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

I might accept your argument if you assume your opponets are
risk-averse or bought in for more than they can afford to lose.

> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips and
> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.

Why do I care if you bust me?

> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand. If
> I bust you, you can't get your chips back in one hand (you can only
> rebuy 100)

Why do I care if I can only rebuy for 100?

> The big stack at the table has an advantage anyway, but if you add in
> the limit on rebuys the edge gets pretty large.

By "limit on rebuy" I assume you mean the same $ limit as the buy in.
Or are you implying that ring games only let you rebuy a few times
before they say, "I'm sorry... we've taken enough of your money. Go
home."

The limit on rebuys only grants an advantage if you already accept
that having a big stack is an advntage. It doesn't proove that having
a big stack is an advantage.

> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the big
> stack?

I just reread parts of "Pot Limit & No Limit Poker" (Stewart Reuben,
Bob Ciaffone). They go into great detail about how to handle
situations where you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not
find anywhere that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>"paddy o connor" <treemore@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:wwVUa.24964$pK2.39095@news.indigo.ie...
>> so what if they do [have more chips]
>> is it that much of an advantage?
>
>"Stephen Jacobs" (jacosa@comcast.net) replied
>> Yeah it is a huge advantage.
>
>"CSI Minneapolis" (pokerace@comcast.net) snided
>> omg....read a book.
>
>My NL book hasn't talked about this. I searched the archives for
>discussion. The only interesting I found is that the best player will
>want to be able to cover any bet and therefore should have the largest
>stack.
>
>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

Think of it this way.

You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
every opportunity.

How long will your money last?

You can't call without the nuts because eventually you will
loose to chance. And you have to call eventually, otherwise
you will be blinded to death.

Of course, if your opponent has a finite stack, this doesn't
apply. But sufficiently large stacks can employ similar
strategys versus sufficiently small stacks, and be virtually
guaranteed to win.

- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

>According to Crazy <bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com>:
>>If we are talking a non-tournament ring where buy-in is significantly
>>larger than the blinds how could a large stack be at any advantage?

A. Prock <prock_rgp@pokerstove.com> wrote:
>Think of it this way.
>
>You are playing with your short stack, and your opponent
>has an infinite stack. He bets and raises you all-in at
>every opportunity.

>How long will your money last?

Depends on how long I'm willing to play. I think my EV is very high in this
situation, but I'll have to stop at some point because I'll have too much of
my bankroll on the table.

Wanna try it? $0.25-$0.50 blinds, you start with any amount you like, I'll
start with $20. You go all in every chance, I'll play how I like. Either
of us can leave at any point, and either can rebuy (you for any amount, me
for $20). You can find me easily at Binion's all this weekend.

Remember, this is a ring game. We have the same amount of actual money, but
he has more on the table. He busts me, I rebuy. When I've won enough of his
money, I go home.

>You can't call without the nuts because eventually you will
>loose to chance.

I can call anytime I figure to be the favorite. I rebuy when I get unlucky,
and leave if my stack gets to be high enough compared to my total bankroll
that I'm unwilling to risk it all on +ev wagers.

>Of course, if your opponent has a finite stack, this doesn't
>apply. But sufficiently large stacks can employ similar
>strategys versus sufficiently small stacks, and be virtually
>guaranteed to win.

In a tourney, sure. Stack size matters a lot. In a ring game, as long as
you're not playing with scared money, it's not much (if any) disadvantage to
have less on the table.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

On 29 Jul 2003 11:55:20 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:

>garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message
news:<3f255db6.58827226@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
>> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
>> without putting their whole stack at risk.
>
>I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack?
We
>aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

This particular thread popped up in the context of games where rebuys
had to be less than a certain amount.


>
>I might accept your argument if you assume your opponets are
>risk-averse or bought in for more than they can afford to lose.
>
>> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
>> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips
and
>> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.
>
>Why do I care if you bust me?
>
>> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand.
If
>> I bust you, you can't get your chips back in one hand (you can only
>> rebuy 100)
>
>Why do I care if I can only rebuy for 100?

If you don't understand that, then I don't think I can help you.



>
>> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the
big
>> stack?
>
>I just reread parts of "Pot Limit & No Limit Poker" (Stewart Reuben,
>Bob Ciaffone). They go into great detail about how to handle
>situations where you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not
>find anywhere that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

Well, I'm saying it.

>>garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote:
>>> I don't even have to use my stack to have an advantage. If I'm the
>>> biggest stack in the valley, then nobody can play in a pot with me
>>> without putting their whole stack at risk.

So what? In a ring game, my stack isn't my bankroll. I rebuy if I go bust,
and take another shot at you.

>On 29 Jul 2003 11:55:20 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:
>>I don't accept that. Why don't they want to risk their whole stack? We
>>aren't talking about a tournament where you want to knock people out.

Gary Carson <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>This particular thread popped up in the context of games where rebuys
>had to be less than a certain amount.

Sure, but plenty large for the blind structure ($400 max with $2/$4 blinds).
Even if it were a silly limitation - say $40 max buyin for those blinds, it's
not clear at all that someone with a giant stack of chips on the table has any
innate advantage over someone who can rebuy as needed.

>>> This doesn't matter much to small stacks, but it matters a lot to
>>> other big stacks. If I've got 300 chips, and you have 150 chips and
>>> the max buyin is 100, then you can't bust me, but I can bust you.

Who cares about busting folks? In a ring game, money has linear value. It's
just money.

>>> And, if you double up with me I can get my chips back in one hand.

Sure, with the chance of quadrupling me up. Put the other way, I can double
through you, but you can only marginally increase your stack by busting me.

More importantly, think in terms of dollars. This is a ring game. We
both risk and can win the same amount of dollars (the amount I have on
the table). I have money not in play in my bank account. You have money
not in play on the table. In both cases: so what?

>If you don't understand that, then I don't think I can help you.

Back at ya. Or maybe we can give examples and illustrations, and perhaps
explain our various positions a bit more.

>>> What no limit book doesn't talk about the benefits of having the big
>>> stack?

There are psychological advantages. It will be intimidating to some. In a
tourney (which is still most NL games people say), there's a very clear
advantage.

In a ring game with rational players, there's just no innate advantage
to a large stack compared to having the same amount of cash in the
pocket and a small amount on the table.

>>They go into great detail about how to handle situations where
>>you have a larger or smaller stack but I could not find anywhere
>>that said it was an advantage to have a larger stack.

>Well, I'm saying it.

Just saying it doesn't actually help. Say why. I say there's no advantage
because neither person can win or lose any more money than the small stack
has. Why do you say the big stack has an advantage monetarily?
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

The point is most players do not know how to
play a large stack and will lose it eventually to
the player who does, that is the advantage of
the big stack, Reuben and Ciaffone go into
great detail on this subject, Russ has written
at length about it and Tex dolly talks about it in
Super System.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com

On 31 Jul 2003 10:05:16 -0700, bigbignutsnuts@yahoo.com (Crazy) wrote:

>"Paul L. Schwartz" <see-text@aaa.aaa> wrote in message
news:<vii8hh2ioovh47@corp.supernews.com>...
>> In NL there will be situations where a big stack will win you a pot
that you
>> otherwise could not have won, and there will be situations where a
small
>> stack will win you a pot you could not have won. For a strong
player, the
>> money won by virtue of having a large stack will in the long far
exceed the
>> money that could have been won by virtue of having a small stack.
>
>I agree with all of that.
>
>You say a strong player gains EV from having a large stack. (I
agree).
>Does a weak player therefore lose EV from having a large stack? Would
>a weak player have a better EV if he bought in for a smaller stack?

Of course. He maximizes EV with a stack of zero.



Positively 5th Street is 7th on the list this week
Bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

> But in the limit, you are still screwed.
Andrew, you're being ridiculous. So long as Mark doesn't overplay his
bankroll, he's going to win a lot of money off the infinite stack.

Let's consider the analogy of a winning blackjack player playing
against the house who is to all intents and purposes infinitely
bankrolled. He has +EV on every hand, so will usually be a long run
winner, so long as his risk of going broke is properly managed.

The limit does not approach 0. All winning blackjack players know
that.

As far as I can make out Gary is suggesting a Martingale can be
successful. If the small stack doubles up, just make sure you cover
him and as soon as you get him you'll win his stack. Well, yes you
usually will, but the nights you don't, you'll lose much more than he
will. If he's +EV hand by hand, then he's +EV in the long run. If
someone claimed that you could overcome a 3% edge at roulette by using
a Martingale, you'd laugh at them. Well, I'm laughing at you for
claiming a big stack can overcome a better player's edge merely by
weight of money.

As far as stack size goes, I like to buy in with a decent sized stack
for many reasons. I feel my EV is hihger if I cover the weaker players
stacks. Also, my variance is lower, because all the key pots that come
up have a chance to be the same size. If you buy in short, and build
up, your results are going to depend on winning critical hands at the
end of your session when your stack is biggest. You'll tend to win
very big or go broke unless you pick up early.