When choosing a NL ring game table to sit at, do you generally prefer to see big stacks at the table, or do you steer clear of them because they are most likely strong players you'd rather avoid?
Printable View
When choosing a NL ring game table to sit at, do you generally prefer to see big stacks at the table, or do you steer clear of them because they are most likely strong players you'd rather avoid?
Anyone can win a stray, big pot.
I just want position on them.
-'rilla
I'm talking about say a $300 stack at the $50 tables..
Depends on the players. If I can sit there long enough to wait for premium hands, I like a few big stacks at the tables. It allows me to get paid off more with them. Also depends on the position I can get on them. I prefer the big stack to my right so that I can gauge the likelyhood I'm gonna have to play for all my chips... and sitting as the cream in the oreo between two big stacks is dangerous, if they both decide to get involved.
I avoid tables with multiple big stacks because I think there is a greater chance that there are more good players at the table. Where I play people usually have around the same amount I buy in at so I'm not looking for a big payoff from a big stack because I would have to wait a long time to first build a large stack and then get into a hand with him where I had the best of it. By that time they have probably left. I don't mind a table with one big stack in front of a good player because I can just avoid him until I have the nuts because they are usually tight. I would like to have position on this person but I think I would prefer having position on the most aggressive player at the table instead. If it’s a maniac with a big stack then position is essential or I will just find another table.
Sometimes a fish will build a large stack purely by luck. I like this situation very much and I would love to have position on him.
Another reason to avoid multiple big stacks at a table - collusion. I know the poker rooms work hard to catch cheaters and do everything they can, but I'm sure there are people who work equally hard to cheat.
-Fishmagician
You're more likely to run into collusion at a B&M than online. This post is just plain paranoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishMagician
I've only heard of one credible case of explicit collusion in all of my time playing and on the boards. It was delt with swiftly and thoughly by the poker site.
I've also heard of a couple cases of accidently collusion. One was chip dumping to someone he was sorry for giving a really bad beat. That was also delt with very well and fairly. The other was a famous multi-tabler talking about his hand on another table when he didn't realize there was overlap in table membership.
I play at the 6-max tables.
If 3 or more ppl have over the buy-in, I don't sit at the table. I figure the fish have already left.
But I prefer to sit at a table that has at least 1 or 2 tall stacks, like 3x-5x buyin. Usually one of them is a maniac or a bad player on a rush.
I don't mind one or two big stacks, but any more than that and there's trouble.
First off, if you find yourself with decent but questionable holdings, they have leverage on you in terms of aggression.
Second, I think you're right, that it is an ok indication that the big stacks are, on average, better players than the small stacks. If they have 6 times the buy in, that means they either got really lucky on a few all ins, or they got a bunch of fish to donate. I guess it's more likely to be the latter the higher you go up in stakes.
I try to avoid multiple big stacks also. It's not that I give them credit for being good players, it's more the "bully factor". I know that my aggression changes when I have built my stack - I assume others do the same. When I buy in for the maximum ($25NL or $50NL, 6 max) I don't want two or more players with 3-4x my stack trying to push me around.
That having been said, the other thing I try to avoid is a table with 2 or 3 small stacks. They tend to be reckless (Oh hell, it's my last $9, I'll throw it in and see if I can get lucky). My ideal table is one with all the players within about 30% of the maximum buy in. Hard to find though.
That's almost exactly how I feel about them. I just don't like sitting with huge stacks. Much of the time, they are willing to take bad gambles...while this can pay you off, it can also suck out your entire stack.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ
I don't mind sitting behind someone with a stack around 100-150, but once it gets bigger than that, I'm a little cautious.
On the other hand, I've also seen more than few big stacks piss away their money by being overconfident and calling too many all-ins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montimus
Quote:
Originally Posted by montimus
Isn't this the same thing?
That's one of the things I like about Absolute. Most of the lowest limit NL players there buy in with a 10 or 20 dollar stack. Max buy in is 50, so you can start pushing them around from the get go. OTOH, there's a lot less $ in play, so it's not as juicy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ
It sucks to build up your stack only to have it sucked out by a big stack on a bad call. That said I like to have one, maybe 2 big stacks at a 6max table 2 medium stacks and one small stack.
bigger stack= more fun
most people are inexperienced with big stacks, with good tall stack skills, the better player has HUGE edge vs players w/o one
I'm learning to play better tall stacks playing the prima 100bb buyin games, I like the fact that I can play more hands and "poker"
I agree, if your talking about NL holdem ... H/L games, especially Omaha, seem to be more of a problem. Although I have seen, and heard, about more than one case of collusion.Quote:
I've only heard of one credible case of explicit collusion in all of my time playing and on the boards. It was delt with swiftly and thoughly by the poker site.