6 replies to this topic

[No_Neck]

Shouldn't it be EV + to constantly keep your stack at the maximum table limit?

assuming you are a winning player

Discuss.

[Actuary]

yes.
If you can outplay the table post flop

[Sluggo]

Not necessarily. Playing with a short CAN have a higher EV than a large stack.

Also, there's a point where it's more profitable to move up in limits rather than buy in with a bigger stack. For example, playing $1/$2 NL with $200 is better than playing $0.01/$0.02 with $200 even though your bb/hr rate might be higher at the second table.

[Jordan]

I rebuy everytime i drop 10% of starting stack.

- Jordan

[Sluggo]

Why not 1%?

[No_Neck]

Not necessarily. Playing with a short CAN have a higher EV than a large stack.

Also, there's a point where it's more profitable to move up in limits rather than buy in with a bigger stack. For example, playing $1/$2 NL with $200 is better than playing $0.01/$0.02 with $200 even though your bb/hr rate might be higher at the second table.

I really don't want to open up this can of worms.

[iggymcfly]

Actually, there are times when it's better to be on a shortstack. In PL Omaha for instance, a lot of times when you have AAxx, you'd have a really +EV situation to reraise if you had a small enough stack to pot-commit yourself PF. In fact, most times when you commit yourself to a hand preflop and your opponents will have to make a decision on the flop, you get somewhat of an edge on them. If you're a good enough player, you'll usually make up for this by making good decisions with higher amounts of money on the line, and will be better off playing a big stack anyway, but it's certainly worth consideration.

When I play PL Omaha, if I lose a large portion stack when I'm OOP, I usually wait until my button to rebuy. Having to make tough decisions on late streets OOP is -EV.