While we like deep stacks to give us the most flexibility is our decisions ( i.e. rationalize any stupid play with implied odds ) is there a point where we're over-exposing ourselves to too big of a single loss due to variance? I feel as though we want our stacks to be large enough to cover our opponents, while they themselves are also deep, but at the same time, we don't want to be much deeper than is necessary to have access to all +EV plays. If we dip below the level where our decisions start to become restricted, we add on.

Agree? Disagree? While many casinos limit the amount we can buy-in for, making it a moot point, if you were in an uncapped game, how much would you prefer to buy-in for?

fyp

Mark? Surely not. I am no common thug hiding in an alley! My day job is sales. My fellow players are also my valued customers. My job is to entertain and allow them to see the value in the decisions they make to pay me.

This is not a predator/prey relationship. In fact, I ensure the poker game is an enriching experience for everyone...even if not in the monetary sense for some. Service with a smile! As Winston Churchill once said, "if you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

If your opponents all have 200BB stacks, it doesn't really matter if yours is 200BB or 2000BB.

you should cover the player(s) that are weaker and are likely to get it in worse against you often enough to make the game profitable.

you know,,,, mark(s).

Assuming you still maintain an edge over the opposition, then stack depth only matters in the way you are asking if it becomes so large that it's a significant fraction of your bank roll e.g. 10%.

If you play against weaker players for money, then it's a predator/prey relationship. The fact that in poker, lambs come willingly to the slaughter, does not change that fact.

The is-ness of the relationship doesn't change, but perception is what shapes reality. A remora fish and a shark have such a symbiotic relationship. Is the relationship mutual? Some sharks would say so, others have a crappier attitude. Am I sharing good times with folks and earning some supplementary money or am I preying on them? One might be surprised to lean that how we perceive the relationship not only makes the game better for the other players, but subsequently makes it better for ourselves...again, symbiotic.

To reference the Matrix...if you think the steak is thick and juicy, the fact that it is an illusory piece of meat does not change your enjoyment...unless you allow it to.

How you perceive the is-ness of a thing affects its quality, for better or worse. There are mopes at the tables who have ****ty attitudes, that create ****ty experiences for others, and ultimately for themselves.

You appear to be hung up on the semantics instead of the message.

As an example, you are at a 10 handed table. You, 8 OMC and 1 loose-as-a-goose whale.

Your stack should cover the whale.

The whale should be on your radar as the only one you really want to play for stacks without the nuts. OMCs by nature will only get into it with a VERY strong range.

So at this table you have one really good target...your mark so to speak. No one here has suggested you treat him poorly. You made that leap away from the message.

I assumed it was you who wanted to discuss philosophy with your first response. It was a digression from my question, but I have no rules about staying on topic.

Overall this is a pretty complex topic, but I'll post a few simple thoughts.

Just because the stacks are on the table doesn't mean they are "in play" when considering your implied odds. Implied odds are what your opponent is likely to put into the pot with a worse hand if you make yours. Although you seemed to have touched on this by mentioning that stack depth is often used to rationalize stupid plays. So often you see people flop sets or straights deep and get paid nothing, because they are up against a solid opponent who is never paying them off.

This is more of a bankroll management question, not as much of a function of stack depth. While playing 5/10 with $1k is going to be riskier than playing 1/2 with $1k, if both stacks are covered at the table, you have that much of your bankroll at risk. If you aren't OK with losing what you have on the table from a risk of ruin standpoint, then you are too deep. Otherwise deeper is going to be better as long as you have a skill advantage.

I would say 5 or 600bb is the point where the stack depths start to get to a point where they are only both going in when you are in an extreme cooler situation (i.e. AA vs. 88 on an A88 board). In these cases you are just trading massive stacks in once in a million hand type board runouts. Watching the nosebleed stakes where games are uncapped you seem to see a lot of 300bb buy-ins, sometimes a bit more, so maybe there's something to that amount.

This is basically a lot of wanking with words. You make the lambs happy for slaughter, everyone is OK with the process, that's all fine. That doesn't alter the fact that you engage in a predatory process.

stealing this...thank you

FWIW, how much of the deep stacks goes in depends on you and your opponents.

If they are willing to put in 200BB with middle pair but you don’t, it’s possible they play big pots with each other but you aren’t involved. If you are willing to get it in light but they aren’t, you won’t see anything crazy even if you would like to.

Another important factor in live games is how 200BB or 500BB really is. If you have 6-7BB standard open raises, the 200BB game already doesn’t really play deeper than your regular 3BB open online game with 100BB stacks. If you are in a game with a regular double straddle, open raises are already in the 10-15BB+ neighborhood which means that 4way to the flop the stack to pot ratio for a 100BB stack usually is between 2 and 3. That’s not different from playing a 20BB short stack strategy among 100BB stacks.

I remember losing a 1k+ BB pot all-in preflop with KK against 98s a couple of years ago. Still stinks, but that’s part of the game.

Poker is 100% predatory. You win by determining what mistakes your opponents make, and maneuvering them into a position where they make those mistakes and you take their money.

No.

Your question was "what size stack should I have in a low limit (assumed live casino) poker game. My first reply answered with "size of your stack should cover the table mark".

No digression.

Interesting topic ..
1) Do you ever let a few shots 'get away from you' on the golf course with a (potential) client? Would you do the same at the poker table?

2) I think the main topic is answered pretty directly .. always cover the weak spots at the table.

3) I think the deeper part of the topic has yet to be scratched and could be tied to how we play when we step up in stake as well. Although it certainly shouldn't be assumed that players at higher stakes are better I think that we should carry that expectation until proven otherwise. There is also the impact on our overall bankroll and poker mentality when facing the possibility (or reality) of losing a pot 'that big'.

Why is it be easier to handle losing $280 (56BB) AIPF with TT v a 2/5 'short stack' AQo than it would be to lose 140BB at 1/2 KK v 9T on a 987 Board? I think that the majority of posters would say that it shouldn't matter or your need to rethink your poker 'attitude'.

We all know that short stack poker is different than 'average' stack poker. But then we also must admit that deep stack poker is different as well, but only if we can expect those differences to affect our opponents as well.

How many of us have played in a cash game deep enough to 5-bet fold QQ? Should we even ever be in a game where 5-betting QQ might be 'correct'? Should we ever be able to consider 4-bet flatting QQ? Most of those comments are covered under our opponent's range (and 'skill') considerations with a sprinkle of our own risk aversion mentality.

Typically we are only faced with all-ins when contemplating the old "He never shows up here with less than ... " type of spots. But in deeper stack poker I think you certainly have to consider those types of thoughts on the Flop, if not PF, when stacks aren't even a consideration as of yet. I think it's more of a tournament and/or above-average player mindset when we play super deep. Can we expect 'all' players to be wider PF just because they are deep ... and then also expect them to button up on the Turn, because they are still deep?

I just saw 'another' post from a tournament player with the vibe that they gave their opponents too much credit for 'large' moves made from a deep stack. Giving them way too much credit for narrowing their range when they make such a move. Whether it be ICM or GTO, that's the fun (and frustrating) part of poker where we look more to how we would play in the opponent's shoes in a spot against us rather than the actual opponent themselves.

Not sure I said anything here that makes sense ... but it felt good going down. GL

"To win at this game you have to be willing to bust your grandmother." -- Doyle Brunson

I took another look at this thread and I wonder why we were even discussing whether poker is "predatory" or not. In just about any competition, the job is to everything possible within the rules to win and work any advantage we can find.

Is Lebron James "predatory" when he takes advantage of players who are smaller and not as strong? He might even be in a sense taking the other player's money if he exposes his weaknesses, which could affect future employment or contracts.

What's the option to being "predatory" at the poker table, losing money on purpose because we feel sorry for villain?

Tt's all about the Benjamins.

Because OP disagreed with the fact poker is predatory for some reason. If poker wasn't predatory then we wouldn't have to bumhunt fish. It sounds bad but it is what it is.

What are you doing if you sell something to somebody for $20 and they give you $100 without noticing it?

If you notice somebody is making a huge financial mistake by sitting in a poker game with little chance of winning, the ethical thing is to tell them it would be in their best interest to not play in the game. Plain and simple.

We don't do that and keep taking their money, usually even if we can tell it's highly likely our opponent has a gambling problem and/or is using money that he should spend on more important things.

I don't think that means serious poker players are bad human beings. But telling yourself it's noting different than LeBron beating up on another NBA player is pretty ridiculous. That said, do whatever makes you feel good about yourself and what you're doing. That's your prerogative. Just don't be surprised if others have a different view on things and that the general population views professional gamblers in a very unfavorable light.

That's what the guy said when he robbed you in the parking lot of the casino. You cool with that?

One of the purposes of language is to accurately describe things in order to better define them and thereby better understand them. By describing winning poker as 'predatory', we acknowledge the reality of the situation. You don't have to apologise for doing it, but you should be able to face it.

Nah .. poker predatory? I can provide you with a list of three people who instantly have (had) list priority and 10-handed status in a lot of poker rooms. Call it what you may ...

I have on occasion told Players to fold or what not, but it's never really been reciprocated that I remember .. Players are more than happy to see me go through a bad run/day of cards. GL