I just wonder if the whole poker world started again and was made of deeper stacks the blinds and rake would be adjusted to accommodate and so would strategy surely?
I have no idea about stating stack size and what may be best/worst.
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
297
Posts
61
Users
0
Reactions
41.7 K
Views
I'd say about 80bb for the same reason as Barry. Plus I think 100bb was chosen because you could get allin by the river with pot sized bets. Using the same logic with todays smaller sizings you could get away with a smaller stack... Plus it'll make things more 'comfortable' when talking about 4/5/6betting.
I think 100BB is just because it's 100. It's easier to tell what limit one plays. Like NL10 is 10 cent BB and 10$ full stack, and not like 10 cent BB and 8$stack.
Originally posted by holmeboy
I'd say about 80bb for the same reason as Barry. Plus I think 100bb was chosen because you could get allin by the river with pot sized bets. Using the same logic with todays smaller sizings you could get away with a smaller stack... Plus it'll make things more 'comfortable' when talking about 4/5/6betting.
Originally posted by BarryCarter
Very good question. I actually think the best all round stack would be about 60-75bb. Deep enough so that skill would show itself for the pros, shallow enough so that recreational players (like me) never feel really out of their depth/out played/confused. This stack size would be enough so that the loose passive players feel like they are getting value from their stack and conversely the action junkies still get to go all-in a lot.
Don't you think this is bad for poker? The smaller the stacks the easier to 'solve' poker?
If I had to change the size of the BI I'd go bigger for sure, never smaller. That wasn't obvious in my last posts.
Originally posted by RasTweet
Don't you think this is bad for poker? The smaller the stacks the easier to 'solve' poker?
.
I'm of the school of thought which says the best thing for everyone in poker is when recreational players get to win a reasonable amount of the time. At a 200bb table most rec players will get slaughtered, at shallower tables they will win more often, which is good for everyone.
Originally posted by RasTweet
Don't you think this is bad for poker? The smaller the stacks the easier to 'solve' poker?
Whats best for the recs is best for poker imo
Don't know if it's that simple. You win pretty rarely on the lottery yet a lot of people keep playing it.
Originally posted by pleno1
Day 4This leads me to the question, how should the micros be raked and why? Try and think from a business sense rather than a personal sense.
Thanks.
A day late but want to comment on this too. I think rake should stay similar to what it is now with micros been raked at a higher rate (bb/100 wise) but more bonuses should be targeted towards them.
Like I said my opinion is whats best for recs is best for poker. Most recs won't even be that aware of rake but if they keep getting bonuses the money will be recycled and they'll keep depositing thinking they're getting better value for their $.
@ Barry and Holmeboy
I do get that and do agree. But when going to nl500+ where there are (almost) no fish you're just gonna pass around money with these shallow stacks until you're deep and skill becomes more important.
Originally posted by BarryCarter
Originally posted by RasTweet
Don't you think this is bad for poker? The smaller the stacks the easier to 'solve' poker?
.I'm of the school of thought which says the best thing for everyone in poker is when recreational players get to win a reasonable amount of the time. At a 200bb table most rec players will get slaughtered, at shallower tables they will win more often, which is good for everyone.
But they will also experience way more suckouts and downswings, not something they will enjoy either.
Originally posted by RasTweet
Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.
You have to realize that the strategies are made for 100BB stacks, and not the stacks are made for the 100BB strategies. In other words, strategies for 100BB were created, because this was a standard stack in most platforms. If it was 200BB, 50BB or 20BB standard, the strategies would be created accordingly.
Secondly, I don't see how fishes would be discouraged from playing 200BB or 500BB deep. Most fishes don't even think about amount of BB they have/pay. They usually think in amount of $ they buy in for. Therefore, it would result in fishes playing deeper stacks in lower stakes.
Why 100BB stacks ? I agree with someones opinion about 4 potsize bets in order to get the stacks in. Sounds reasonable - 4 streets to bet, 4 bets required.
Originally posted by Johnis
Originally posted by RasTweet
Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.You have to realize that the strategies are made for 100BB stacks, and not the stacks are made for the 100BB strategies. In other words, strategies for 100BB were created, because this was a standard stack in most platforms. If it was 200BB, 50BB or 20BB standard, the strategies would be created accordingly.
I do. I think there was a misunderstanding between what I meant and what you've understood. I was saying that if the stacks would change right now it would suck because all the strategy's are made for 100bb stacks.
We were talking about the same, but wording it differently.
Saying that a 200BB or 40BB buy-in yields a different game is quite wrong.
The different strategies required just illustrate how complex the (one and only) game of NL Hold'em (or the one and only game of PL Omaha for that matter) really is. Already FL Hold'em is complicated enough to keep you busy for a couple of hundred lifetimes.
I like the idea of having shallow,medium and deep tables available. But perhaps the player pool is too small to have all variants at all stakes.
I'd even go further: One hundred BB stack "strategies" aren't full fledged strategies for the full game of NL Hold'em. They are more like hybrids where parts are made up of "charts" to memorize, while other parts are conventional "poker" reasoning in terms pot odds etc. A "full" strategy would bring back much of the old-fashioned way of "generic" thinking about the game where the number crunching is left for you to do at the table.
Originally posted by RasTweet
Originally posted by Johnis
Originally posted by RasTweet
Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.You have to realize that the strategies are made for 100BB stacks, and not the stacks are made for the 100BB strategies. In other words, strategies for 100BB were created, because this was a standard stack in most platforms. If it was 200BB, 50BB or 20BB standard, the strategies would be created accordingly.
I do. I think there was a misunderstanding between what I meant and what you've understood. I was saying that if the stacks would change right now it would suck because all the strategy's are made for 100bb stacks.
We were talking about the same, but wording it differently.
Alright, I get it. However, I would argue, that radically changing the standards to 200BB or 40BB buyins would not be a disadvantage for everyone. For must of us yes, including me, but there are players, who are good, playing these particular stacks, and there are really good players, who are able to adjust to any stack size. The change in the standards would basically result in changes in winrates, yielding a higher winrate for the ones who are able to adjust better.
It is exactly the same thing with many other things in poker, say studying material. If everyone watched every video, and understood the material equally, it would not result in a bigger winrate for anyone, since everybody knows it 
But it for sure would result in a lower winrate for those, who didn't watch it or didn't understand (assuming the video material is good).
I think 250 bb deep is way better ,because you have a huge edge vs the fish that he can make huge mistake on turn and river
and also you have a big edge vs the nitty guys ,thanks to fold equity
I wish all the tables are 250 bb deep
but the bad thing is that there is a bigger variance than 100bb deep !
I am wondering where the variance is bigger in NL 250 bb deep or regular buy in in PLO ??
what do you think pleno1 ??
Day 6
How important is studying in poker and what ratio is perfect between playing and studying?
Studying in poker is extremely important, everyone how takes poker seriously would know that!
I'm not really sure what a good ratio between studying and playing would be, maybe something like two hours play half an hour study as a general rule, but obviously one will have dedicate some days to studying really hard and doing DB reviews, watching videos getting coaching etc, so I think a pretty good average ratio between studying and playing would be 3:1.
I don't consider being on forums discussing hands etc as studying although it helps ones play a lot, but so much time goes with browsing, sharing videos, moaning etc. that it probably would be more like 1:1.
Don't think the ratio by itself is important. What's important is what you make of the time when studying.
Hell, I can watch 5 Boomer videos in 1 day as mere entertainment. Better is to watch one and try to digest the contents. (Same applies to reading, session evaluations, etc)