I think most of the stuff I have read and learned about short stacking has been about in online poker. In my 800k+ hand experience in online poker at the 100NL stakes and below has been that most have a bankroll that can accommodate losing multiple buyins in a session without it being much of a threat to them continuing playing poker. I know this is a very big assumption but most players I chat with about online poker know the variance in the game can be brutal and need an larger bankroll.

However, the dynamics of brick and mortar are often such that you actually have to physically go to the game and this puts additional pressure on someone wanting to have an evening of poker and being continually forced to a decision for their stack every hand they are in from the start and potentially every hand they are in the entire night. Its not only a threat to their stack, but possibly to their overall bankroll in addition to the threat of losing the fun and entertainment they had planned for the night.

In your example, if $60 bucks was a somewhat significant amount of money to all the players and most only brought maybe $120 bucks to the game and physically had to take time to drive to the game, then yes I would say you had a big advantage with your $1million dollars.

Isn't the psychological a huge part of the game. Isn't playing good poker all about putting your opponent to a tough decision?

My last casino trip I had attempted to chip up early to get that psychological edge as quickly as possible. To become "table captain" and to have an intimidating stack.

If you truly do not think there is no edge, then tell me why when I went on a 50 minute lunch break my last two sessions at a casino the table started requesting that I be removed from the table or chipped down to a starting stack when I had $1400 on the table and I had to get the pit boss over to make sure my stack would remain in play.

Both times I had openly told the table I was going to take my one hour lunch break and both times players had attempted to have me removed or dechipped. I mean there was an open argument which was me versus half the table on how they wanted me removed - no joke.

It is because they were all tired of feeling threatened by the big stack.

This conversation often has two camps talking past each other.

With an infinite player pool with infinitely deep pockets, uncapped is fine. But that's not the reality of our world.

The reason that good players want uncapped is exactly the reason to protect the weaker players. Psychology is huge here. If you've spent time building up and massaging your player pool, it'd be folly to let one aggressive blowhard pressure you to change it.

I ran a private 3-table game for many years. I raised the cap for a month. The game was dead by the end of that month, and it took me a while to build it back up.

It's similar with PLO. At the 2+2 party I threw last year, I ran 3/6 mixed games. A handful of people pushed for PLO, so I opened a table. They went through more rebuys in an hour than the two tables of 3/6 managed in triple that time.

The PLO game broke quickly and the players left. Meanwhile, the 3/6 lasted for twelve hours, and only ended because I kicked them out.

Even educated poker players don't always understand what's best for the long-term health of the game. They can't see past the noses on their faces.

Probably pulling cards out of the muck.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=14

Good, experienced, properly bankrolled, logical, regular players don't (or shouldn't) feel this way.

Sure it is, and we've reached the crux of the discussion. There's $200 in the pot and you have exactly $200 behind on the river with a good but non-nut hand and your opponent moves all in on you. Which of the following puts you to the toughest decision?

Your opponent has $200
Your opponent has $201
Your opponent has $500
Your opponent has $10000
Your opponent has $1000000000000

Yes. IIRC Mason has written extensively on this. The caps are to keep people from going broke too quickly thereby killing the games/rake.

We're not really talking about comparisons between capped vs uncapped games. In an uncapped game there will be likely multiple people sitting on deep stacks.

This discussion is about whether one person who covers the table many times over has any sort of advantage due to his large stack.

Mostly everyone here knows that having a huge stack compared to 2nd most has no mathematical edge, and that it shouldn't even have a psychological edge, but...

...this shows that it works in the games he's playing in, so it's definitely +EV for him to try to get the exception made for him.

The problem isn't when everyone else has a short stack, but when someone who normally buys in for $200 or so wins a succession of hands and suddenly has over $1000 in front of them and now has to face a player that has the same amount and has simply bought in for that.

I used to buy in for around $300 when playing 2/4 and I'd buy in for more ($800-$1200, whatever the maximum was at the particular place) if there were fish who bought in for a big stack or won enough to have a big stack; or if there weren't any decent regs who were deep.

Now I just buy in from the max or at least $800 from the start, I feel this has the effects of not making the fish feel like I'm targeting them, and of letting everyone know that I'm comfortable playing for a lot of money, which means most players are less likely to bluff me and more likely to call me. It also feels like when I buy in for a lot from the start, some of the fish start buying in for more when they lose a hand. And the regs seem to think twice about buying in deep, which makes sense and is what I used to do.

It does make a lot of hands harder to play, but that goes both ways. The main reason to avoid buying in deep is to reduce variance. Both for bankroll management and for tilt issues.

Mathematically there is no advantage to a huge stack, I quite like buying in short if there is a good game above my normal stakes. BUT, the psychological effect cannot be overstated on weaker players. Not that they will just play poorly (a good thing) but rather they will stop playing altogether if a strong player keeps turning up with a massive stack. Weaker players are there for some fun, maybe luck into a bit of drink money, but they don't want to be made to look like fools. A strong player buying in for way more than the rest of the table is effectively saying "I'm better than all you guys and I am going to make sure anyone walking past can't fail to notice you guys suck compared to me". We all know that a big stack has no advantage however weaker players do not know this (I have recently been in a discussion in a low buy-in home game on this exact point, the weaker players truly feel that they are at a massive disadvantage if they play significantly shorter). I recall a few years back at the local 10/20 LHE (limit of all things!) the better regs collectively decided to make sure our buy-ins were not that big as we found it was scaring away the weaker players. To keep weaker players in the game and the game itself healthy, perception is everything.

This is what I mean by two camps talking past each other.

That is not the discussion. Everybody agrees that there is no mathematical advantage.

OK is it possible that many, if not most ,newer/weaker players come from a Tournament background where big stacks do have much advantage. When they enter a cash game ,this prior understanding of the power of the big stack may carry over too much until they understand the dynamic better. Perception is reality for them, valid cliche.

This is definitely part of it. The tournament dynamic has definitely affected a lot of players' attitudes.

Ah, for the good old days of the Wynn uncapped 1/3. A lot of people bought in for $500 to $800. Occasionally someone would buy in for $1200. It seemed like generally they were trying to play a 2/5 game. Luckily they only brought 1/3 skill with them.