4 ms·

> People will play poker differently when they are playing for large amounts of money than when they are playing for small amounts of money: they are a lot more

> People will play poker differently when they are playing for large amounts of money than when they are playing for small amounts of money: they are a lot more conservative when a lot of cash is on the line This is false. If your playing style changes with stakes, you shouldn’t be playing poker. And you want to play at a table where people do that, because it’s exploitable. The only bet sizing that matters in cash games is relative to the big blind. Your playstyle shouldn’t change if the big blind is $1 or $1000. Game theory doesn’t care about the absolute size of the bets, and you should always aim to play game theory optimal game. If game theory says the most optimal play is to make a 35 big blind bluff, you make the 35 big blind bluff whether it’s $35 or $35000 (unless you know something about the particular opponent). And if you can’t afford to lose the money when the stakes are higher, you shouldn’t be at that table.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nimih 4y ago
> Your playstyle shouldn’t change if the big blind is $1 or $1000. Your playstyle might not change, but it certainly seems plausible that the average players' does. Anecdotally, even a $5 vs $20 buy-in seems to meaningfully change the character of house games I've hosted/attended (at least, when everyone attending is a broke college student).
mechanical_bear 4y ago
Ok Phil Helmuth… “you’re playing the game wrong!”
pclmulqdq 4y ago
It's well known that people shouldn't change playing style when playing at high stakes, but that they do (this is a classic Monty Hall style thing). The really interesting game theoretic thing is that it goes further than just being relative to big blinds (if you have an infinite bankroll): it's all relative to the size of the pot. When you should be making or calling a bet is determined only by the relative size of the bet and the pot, not the blinds. The blinds just provide a natural escalation of pot size from 0. Bankroll management comes into play with larger bets (at any stakes), and naturally affects pot odds decisions: if you have a $5,000 bankroll and you are facing a half-pot $1,000 bet, you should call that bet with a much tighter range than if you had a $20,000 bankroll. You can only afford to take so many coin flips. It is actually rational to be more conservative as bet sizes get closer to your bankroll size. This means that people should be playing stakes relative to the size of their bankroll, which they don't always do (the average $1/$2 player doesn't usually have 1/5th the bankroll of the average $5/$10 player in my experience, it's closer to 1/3rd). However, when the pot size is $0, people naturally treat the pot very differently than when it is even $1, since there are no bankroll considerations at all.
cortesoft 4y ago
You are missing an important element of the game theory, and the missing part is what makes the stakes matter. You can't just make decisions based on expected value of the bet, because when you run out of money, you can't play anymore. A bet that has a positive expected value, but has a good chance of knocking you out of the game, is not worth playing if your baseline expected value per hand is positive. Running out of money (either your actual money, or the amount of your stack in a tournament) means guy can't make any more bets, so you have to factor that risk in. This is why it is different without real money. Does the game end when your bankroll runs out, or are you playing such that you can refill your stack? That will change the game theory.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > You can't just make decisions based on expected value of the bet, because when you run out of money, you can't play anymore. Yes, variance can be a bitch, but that goes back to my original point, if you can't afford to go all in on a flip with a pocket pair vs a range that's most likely to be 2 overcards (i.e. TT+), where you should have at least 55% equity in a heads up scenario, you can't afford to sit at that table. This isn't as relevant for recreational players, but for this exact reason professional poker players should have a bankroll of _at least_ 200 max buy ins for a cash game, and even more for tournaments. Even pocket aces will lose at least 18% of the time when going all in pre-flop in a heads up scenario (more multi way). If you can't afford to take that chance, you playing at the wrong table. Of course, most people would be willing to take these 80/20 odds even with money they can't afford to lose, but that's a whole different scenario.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nimih 4y ago

> Your playstyle shouldn’t change if the big blind is $1 or $1000. Your playstyle might not change, but it certainly seems plausible that the average players' does. Anecdotally, even a $5 vs $20 buy-in seems to meaningfully change the character of house games I've hosted/attended (at least, when everyone attending is a broke college student).

mechanical_bear 4y ago

Ok Phil Helmuth… “you’re playing the game wrong!”

pclmulqdq 4y ago

It's well known that people shouldn't change playing style when playing at high stakes, but that they do (this is a classic Monty Hall style thing). The really interesting game theoretic thing is that it goes further than just being relative to big blinds (if you have an infinite bankroll): it's all relative to the size of the pot. When you should be making or calling a bet is determined only by the relative size of the bet and the pot, not the blinds. The blinds just provide a natural escalation of pot size from 0. Bankroll management comes into play with larger bets (at any stakes), and naturally affects pot odds decisions: if you have a $5,000 bankroll and you are facing a half-pot $1,000 bet, you should call that bet with a much tighter range than if you had a $20,000 bankroll. You can only afford to take so many coin flips. It is actually rational to be more conservative as bet sizes get closer to your bankroll size. This means that people should be playing stakes relative to the size of their bankroll, which they don't always do (the average $1/$2 player doesn't usually have 1/5th the bankroll of the average $5/$10 player in my experience, it's closer to 1/3rd). However, when the pot size is $0, people naturally treat the pot very differently than when it is even $1, since there are no bankroll considerations at all.

cortesoft 4y ago

You are missing an important element of the game theory, and the missing part is what makes the stakes matter. You can't just make decisions based on expected value of the bet, because when you run out of money, you can't play anymore. A bet that has a positive expected value, but has a good chance of knocking you out of the game, is not worth playing if your baseline expected value per hand is positive. Running out of money (either your actual money, or the amount of your stack in a tournament) means guy can't make any more bets, so you have to factor that risk in. This is why it is different without real money. Does the game end when your bankroll runs out, or are you playing such that you can refill your stack? That will change the game theory.

sgjohnson 4y ago
> You can't just make decisions based on expected value of the bet, because when you run out of money, you can't play anymore. Yes, variance can be a bitch, but that goes back to my original point, if you can't afford to go all in on a flip with a pocket pair vs a range that's most likely to be 2 overcards (i.e. TT+), where you should have at least 55% equity in a heads up scenario, you can't afford to sit at that table. This isn't as relevant for recreational players, but for this exact reason professional poker players should have a bankroll of _at least_ 200 max buy ins for a cash game, and even more for tournaments. Even pocket aces will lose at least 18% of the time when going all in pre-flop in a heads up scenario (more multi way). If you can't afford to take that chance, you playing at the wrong table. Of course, most people would be willing to take these 80/20 odds even with money they can't afford to lose, but that's a whole different scenario.