Overall this is a pretty complex topic, but I'll post a few simple thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey5Suited
While we like deep stacks to give us the most flexibility is our decisions ( i.e. rationalize any stupid play with implied odds )
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey5Suited
is there a point where we're over-exposing ourselves to too big of a single loss due to variance?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey5Suited
if you were in an uncapped game, how much would you prefer to buy-in for?
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.
Last edited by Koss; 05-13-2018 at 04:58 AM.