Quote:
Originally Posted by Lattimer
That's exactly what it is. In a tournament scenario, your line of thinking is absolutely correct. In cash games it doesn't apply, because you theoretically have infinte life (re-loading).
But it's important to note that most people don't have infinite reloading. Many that come to play poker and, for the most part, are the ones that make up soft games, are there for recreation and may only come with a couple buy ins.
These are the players that view someone coming to the game with a huge stack as having a large advantage. They have chosen to play 1-2 NL with $100 max (or whatever it might be) so they could play with like minded individuals, who value that $100 just as they do. In the players mind the playing field is level. When someone arrives at the table with $1500 their perception is that the playing field is no longer level.
If poker is going to grow, as recreational players are introduced to the game they need to be comfortable and to feel as though the playing field is level. If they feel intimidated they may not play, plain and simple. Perception is what's important here, not what the "effective stacks" are.
In low limit games I think it's important to maintain the level playing field because, in reality, recreational players don't have unlimited buy ins. The game plays more like a tournament to them because they may only budget a couple buy-ins. IMO, making the table-changing player reduce to the max is protecting the other players, and in the long run is better for poker.