just proved our point. have a nice day!
no, I didn’t. for the twelfth time, my point is not to say what others do or don’t have a right to do. my claim is that what they are doing, within their rights, is not good for them or good for the game.
your stubborn refusal to engage with this point, which is clearly the actual substance of my position, suggests that you recognize I’m right
oh well.
I’ll take that as concession. It was fun debating you <3
I disagree with everything you’ve posted in here
You think it’s good for the game, and good for the player, to buy in short? Why?
oh for crying out loud. its their chips/money do whatever they want to. better question is why does this offend you?
I just don’t understand what the problem is . just like that poster who kept on making threads about high stake players playing on low stake tables.
I’m trying to talk to you but you’re just talking at me. I am not “offended” by anything; I am pointing out behavior that I think is unproductive. I’ve explained why I think it is unproductive, and I’ve asked for your opinion as to why you disagree.
You have not answered these questions; you keep emphasizing one small part of this discussion, which is the idea that I think people “have to do” something or don’t “have a right” to do something else, that something “offends” me, or that there is a “problem.”
I’ve said none of these things; you’re putting words in my mouth.
To be crystal clear:
-
I recognize that players are free to spend their chips as they wish. We agree on this point.
-
Nonetheless, I still believe that buying in short, while allowed and not “a problem” per se, is not the best for the games, or for the players who do it. I’ve explained why already, so I won’t repeat myself here again.
I’d appreciate if we could drop point 1) as exhaustively agreed upon by now. Are you interested in talking about point 2) ? If not, we can just end the discussion here.
More broadly, I do find this social paradigm interesting, as it’s one I’ve often observed in the past. When someone critiques the behavior of others, there is often resistance phrased in the form of “people can do what they want.” Of course, this is rarely a meaningful or substantive response, as in most cases the critic is not saying that anyone CANNOT do certain things, only that they SHOULD NOT do those things as they are counterproductive.
Yet it seems an established routine for the protesting interlocutor to insist that the only question at issue is “does the critic have a right to tell other people what to do or not,” even though that isn’t actually what’s being proposed.
Buying in short is a bit like driving in the fast lane. Sure, you may be driving at or above the speed limit, but if you’re going slower than most of the traffic around you, you’re preventing others from doing as they please.
Being short reduces the effective stacks for everyone at the table. It also creates weird dynamics with opening sizes, because if you’re mostly 200bb deep and use a decent size for that depth, it means any 3-bet from the 30bb player is essentially an all-in.
I wouldn’t go as far as YG and say that people shouldn’t play short (if someone wants to sit a higher stake than they can really afford for the challenge or whatever, more power to them), but I also think it’s fair to point out that this does materially affect the game, and is a little bit selfish. That’s fine too of course, as long as they’re not the ones complaining about higher rolled players sitting at low stakes games.
1 Like
nope. you wait till you can safely change lanes and get around them and move back into the fast lane
maybe a player likes a challenge sitting with minimum stack.
Way to miss the point, but at least you recognize they are forcing people to wait when ideally they shouldn’t have to. Also, it’s illegal to overtake on the inside in the UK, so your solution isn’t always an option. (It always amused me that that is the rule most UK drivers won’t break, but they drive like maniacs otherwise)
I believe I said exactly that above. That’s great for them, it still affects the game for everyone else though.
1 Like
inb4 more deliberately missing the point
1 Like
I didn’t miss the point. there’s literally nothing you can do about a person driving slower in a fast lane, but to wait to get around them.
it doesn’t affect anything
explains how it affects things
says it doesn’t affect anything
1 Like
how does it affect the game? its no different in a tourney when someone is short stacked and someone has a big stack. exact same thing
Right, and if I enjoyed tournament poker, that’s what I’d play. Some of us enjoy having to make decisions post flop 
Again though, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, I’m just saying that it changes the game vs everyone being deep stacked.
A tournament short stack was once a starting stack. They didn’t get to buy into a 25k for 5k and simply start with 1/5 the chips. That would be “the same thing.”
It affects the game in the ways specifically outlined above. See lihiue’s comment about opening sizes and preflop dynamics.
I like MrCallOuts but I admit it’s kind of a stifled groan when I see him sitting at the only high limit ring game running. I know he’s going to sit short and rebuy short, and I’ll have to constantly keep this in mind when I try to play back at other deep stacks. It’s just a little annoying.
Being confronted with the assertion that it literally doesn’t affect anything has kinda forced me to sound dramatic. But I agree that it’s not a huge problem or anything. Just a minor inconvenience
I have sat at ring tables with minimum, it affected nothing. players gonna bet/raise whatever they want to regardless if I sit with minimum or max or anything in between min/max.
if the table dynamic is players playing like maniacs preflop flop turn river, calling no matter what, then its gonna continue to be that way regardless if I it at max buy in or min buy in.
if table is limping and checking till river, then its gonna continue to be like that.