This might be a stupid question

You fire up a NL100 table.

One player has a $110 stack
Another player has a $200 stack

Who is more likely to be a tight/solid winning player against most of the player pool?

It depends

Originally Posted by Warpe

It depends

I think there is a better answer given that certain players tend to top-off.

We've all seen big stacks that turn out to be complete donkeys and end up donating everything back, but in general I respect a big stack until I have reason to change my mind.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't think you can make a general assumption based on such limited data.

Players that top off usually have a clue though, you're right.

If your at Stars, the big stack is usually a Donk. I would say its a 70/30-Donk/Solid player split.

I don't get this. Which player has a topped up stack? Did you mean to say 200NL?

ummm, all in all the winning player will more likely be the bigger stack, duh!
is this a trick question?

The answer is they are both donk's. Whoever the "you" is in, "you fire up a $100NL table", is the tight/solid winning player. Your going to play tight/solid until you get more info on the big stack.

But alot of times, a donk won't sit at a table with a full stack of winnings. Most are the win the lottery and leave type player.

If it's an unknown with a $200 stack I assume he's the donk. I don't play that much different against him mind you. But if it's one of those decisions where you're sitting on the fence I go with the play I'd make with a bad player.

If it's a table with a high average pot the big stack is almost the donk 100% of the time. Of course you should avoid him anyway because he is running super hot and he will easily stack you when he raises with 58o and you reraise him hard with AA and hit an A69 flop when you hold AA and he chases his gutshot and hits. But I'm not bitter about yesterday or anything...

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...669&highlight=

I think the guy with $110 is pretty likely to be a decent player since hes kept himself at the full buyin before winning a small TPTK pot with a small hand.

I think the guy with $200 is almost as likely to be a bad player as a decent player since bad players tend to get allin more but rebuy when they lose.

I think the guy with $300 is much more likely to be a decent player than a bad player.

Originally Posted by Pelion

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...669&highlight=

I think the guy with $110 is pretty likely to be a decent player since hes kept himself at the full buyin before winning a small TPTK pot with a small hand.

I think the guy with $200 is almost as likely to be a bad player as a decent player since bad players tend to get allin more but rebuy when they lose.

I think the guy with $300 is much more likely to be a decent player than a bad player.

ahhh that makes sense. the bad player makes more gambles for his stack and the tight/solid chips away slowly but surely. an ideal player probably will be inbetween- a good lag.

$200 IMO is the bad player more often. But this is likely because I'm joining tables with higher avg pots and more players to the flop.
I don't get why people keep responding to this post like it's a trick question.

Because with Fnord, it's always a trick question. We all take a stab and then wait for Warpe or Randavu to give a third level answer that Fnord is waiting for, then he posses the next step to the question and we debate.

this is what is known as the "false dilemma"

c'mon, we can use more shades than this, but maybe you just wanted to ignite the thoughts that we see in the thread.

I'd say the $110 player is likely to be one of:
a) a TAG who has taken a flop with a c-bet.
b) a passive player who has been lucky enough to win a small pot.

Here I'd put my money on a).

The $200 player has most likely not participated in many pots, but has still managed to get a stacking (otherwise his stack would be $194 or $232 or something - not sure if Fnord meant it to be that specific). He could be anything, but I'd say most likely:
a) a maniac who rivered his flush draw or something.
b) a nutcamper who stacked a fish.
d) any player who hit a lucky hand soon after sitting down.

I'd say the $110 is more likely to be the solid player. Anyone with a modicum of aggression could easily be the $200 stack if they hit a lucky hand.

Originally Posted by flyingPenguin

a)
b)
d)

I never was good with the alphabet.

I am almost certain that there is zero information when someone is sitting with 110 BB at a table. Sure, he could have bought in for $100, and won a hand, or he could have won $5 lost $40, won $5 and doubled up.

The guy with 200... I guess you could argue (weakly) that it's mostly likely that this is a 100BB stack that doubled up exactly once. Since he has *exactly* 200.

There is probably significantly more info at ~<40BB and >250 or so.

Having a $100 stack and doubling first hand, or after topping up is no indicater of ability. I think what Fnord was getting at is your thinking when sitting at this table, and seeing these stacks. Are you putting labels to people without info. Are you basing your play on the player or the stack sizes when you first sit at a new table.

The answer is they are both donk's. Whoever the "you" is in, "you fire up a $100NL table", is the tight/solid winning player. Your going to play tight/solid until you get more info on the big stack.

But alot of times, a donk won't sit at a table with a full stack of winnings. Most are the win the lottery and leave type player

I stick with my original answer, until Fnord changes my mind.

I don't care who they are, I am gonna sit right after the 200 guy and find out later if he is a donk or not.

a good and a bad player can both win $10 or $100. When I 1st started playing poker I found myself in both positions, and I find myself in both positions now.

Give me 20-30 hands and then I will tell you who they are.

10 hands is probably enough to figure whos who.

fwiw, whos sat with position on the table ninja?

wtf? I'm a good player. Therefore, I never double up.

C'mon...

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

wtf? I'm a good player. Therefore, I never double up.

C'mon...

im pretty sure noone said that. The question was who is most likely to be better? Since we have such little information to go by we have to make some assumptions. One of those is that loose players get it allin more and players who get it allin alot more are more likely to double up even if they are often getting it in with the worst hand.

In reality I dont base any decisions about the type of player im facing (bad/good/loose/tight) on their stack size. Ill try and sit with position on a big stack (or a biggish stack who i know donates) and then ill watch them for and orbit or 2 before i decide how loose he is.

Quite often we end up in a hand with someone and don't have much to go on. ANYTHING is better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quite often we end up in a hand with someone and don't have much to go on. ANYTHING is better than nothing.

"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - someguy.

I think changing your basic play by much based on something like this can have a reverse implied odds effect.

e.g. say you sit down and a big stack raises the first 3 hands at the table without showing down. Seems like we can peg him as reasonably loose but obviously we want to solidify that read before we act on it too much.
4th hand he raises again and we look down at AJo. Do we really want to get involved here against someone we dont know when we are probably way ahead of his range but probably wont win nearly as much (or as often) when we are as we lose when hes actually a tighty on a hot streak. If we think hes LAG but arent sure then how do we deal with his 2nd barrel on the turn once we've hit our A or J? Id rather stay weak tight and pass up marginal edges like this one until i have at least 10 hands on him (or he shows down something insane) and can be more confident playing my good-ish hands for big pots against him.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Quite often we end up in a hand with someone and don't have much to go on. ANYTHING is better than nothing.

What we have here is nothing. If we start to read into nothing information, what we have here is dangerous.

Originally Posted by Fnord

You fire up a NL100 table.

One player has a $110 stack
Another player has a $200 stack

Who is more likely to be a tight/solid winning player against most of the player pool?

I believe it's the bigger stack. In my experiences many players (especially tight ones) become even tighter after increasing their stack past 200BB. I also believe that big stacks hold a mental advantage, if nothing else, versus the rest of the table, which would make him/her a better candidate to be a winning player.

I definitely think the 110BB guy is more likely to be a TAG. I think of myself when I come to this conclusion. I'm TAG and I top off if my stack gets below 90BB (sometimes sooner), until I win a small pot and gets 100BB+. I very often have a stack of around 110-120BB on all my tables within 10 minutes. Doubling up within that time is much more uncommon.

From the 150,000+ hands at stars 6max, the more likely 'solid' player is the $110 stack. The fish is more likely to have the $200 stack. If I look at a table and I see someone with a big stack that I don't know, they are 95% of the time a 40+ vpip fish. The common theory is that the Tags will eventually get the fishes money, but this is not true.

"4th hand he raises again and we look down at AJo. Do we really want to get involved here against someone we dont know when we are probably way ahead of his range but probably wont win nearly as much (or as often) when we are as we lose when hes actually a tighty on a hot streak. If we think hes LAG but arent sure then how do we deal with his 2nd barrel on the turn once we've hit our A or J? Id rather stay weak tight and pass up marginal edges like this one until i have at least 10 hands on him (or he shows down something insane) and can be more confident playing my good-ish hands for big pots against him."

I sure hope Pelion is right about this, because it's exactly what I try and do as well....