Hitman26 said:
Im thinking that as long as the short stack stays weak. 20% or less chips than you. It is a good idea to keep the short stack in the game so you dont have to pay the blinds every hand when its down to 3 people.
I was basically being sarcastic. There is NO reason to not eliminate the short stack.
There are too many examples of players coming back from having even only ONE chip left and winning the tournament to not eliminate the short stack.
If the short stack wins 2 all-ins, there may now be 2 medium stack opponents.
primetime21's statement is ridiculous.
There are too many examples of players coming back from having even only ONE chip left and winning the tournament to not eliminate the short stack.
If the short stack wins 2 all-ins, there may now be 2 medium stack opponents.
primetime21's statement is ridiculous.
By keeping the shortstack around the big chip leader has more control over the table. The player with the 2nd largest chipstack will be less likely to challenge the big stack because he is waiting for the shortstack to get knocked out and move up in the money.
Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players.
Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players.
So in your theory, the Bigstack would never want to take out the small stack because he will have continuous control and a more dominate postion.
I don't agree with this, to me that would be like a team having first and goal on the one and kicking a field goal to go up by 10 instead of trying to punch it in and go up by 14.
I don't agree with this, to me that would be like a team having first and goal on the one and kicking a field goal to go up by 10 instead of trying to punch it in and go up by 14.
Hitman26 said:
First, its not my theory. I have only done it a couple of times. But it is a theory that some people do use.
Second, its situation specific. Depends on the opponents and the style. Like any lesson in poker you have to know how to apply the theory before testing it out in a real game.
Third, obviously it can't last forever. You need to knock people off eventually, but if you can chip away at the second stack for a few hands before finally knocking out the shortstack you can really have an advantage heads up.
Fourth, this is used alot in SNGs and especially when its 4 handed and the players are just trying to survive and get into the money. the big stack can really make a killing during that time.
This is just a possible excuse for what went on in this hand. For all i know these guys were colluding, but i would bet they weren't.
I don't believe collusion detection is limited to looking at IP address, MAC address or other machine-related information; nor account related information.
I believe they also have algorithms to detect possible collusion by play characteristics, table sitting patterns, etc.
Collusion is the only thing I'd be worried about (especially in limit ring games). As for computer assisted play and opponent profiling; it may make a bad player better, but it won't make a player great.
I disagree collusion is harder to detect in a real-life casino. It's easier to get to know who you are playing against. At least in my experience and the relatively small world of poker here.
I believe they also have algorithms to detect possible collusion by play characteristics, table sitting patterns, etc.
Collusion is the only thing I'd be worried about (especially in limit ring games). As for computer assisted play and opponent profiling; it may make a bad player better, but it won't make a player great.
I disagree collusion is harder to detect in a real-life casino. It's easier to get to know who you are playing against. At least in my experience and the relatively small world of poker here.
primetime21 -
Perhaps I was too harsh and should've stuck with "interesting" and not "ridiculous".
primetime 21 - "Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players."
If this is true, then I concede to my being behind the curve, and you're being ahead of the curve.
Can you tell me which poker books you've read which advocate this theory?
And which top notch poker players apply this everyday?
Perhaps I was too harsh and should've stuck with "interesting" and not "ridiculous".
primetime 21 - "Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players."
If this is true, then I concede to my being behind the curve, and you're being ahead of the curve.
Can you tell me which poker books you've read which advocate this theory?
And which top notch poker players apply this everyday?
