re: Poker & Can somebody please explain...
I usually buy in for 100BB (the max at many rooms, although not all), and I personally don't feel very comfortable buying in for anything less than 50BB, because it limits my poker game
to only a few moves, rather than having a full "tool belt" at my disposal. Anytime you buy in for the minimum, you severely limit your options, and that just doesn't seem smart to me; I do, however, see the logic behind this "strategy" of "short-stacking" and how it might appeal to a weak player who's afraid of making "tough decisions" on the later betting streets. Obviously, it's comparatively much easier to just look at your own two cards and simply decide to shove or fold, rather than actually trying to read your opponents' hands, betting patterns, and other intricacies that develop on the later streets. But, at least to me, those are exactly the things that make poker such a great game, and infinitely more interesting than any other casino game.
I've been playing on the Cake network quite a bit lately, and it seems I have come across more of these "short-stack, all-in pre-flop donkeys" (as I call them - "SS-AIPF-D" for short) on that site than anywhere else. I definitely like to have position on them, if at all possible, and it's important to note that they're not all the same (e.g. some will push AIPF w/ any pair, while others will wait for AT+, etc.), so I usually try to take notes on their hands when someone calls them, and then adjust my calling range appropriately. Generally, if one of these SS-AIPF-Ds pushes and I get to call them HU, I will gladly get into a coin flip for their $9-10 any day, and I often even find myself way ahead when I call them w/ 77 or AQ (a call that I would not usually make if someone raised $10 w/ still $70 behind); of course, when someone else has open-raised and there is still action behind me, I'll want a premium hand to call, not because of the donk's shove, but because of the originaly raiser, who might decide to re-raise.
IMO, there is just no way that this short-stacking strategy is profitable in the long run, as these guys put themselves in coin-flip situations at least 90% of the time, and usually there's only one caller, so they either lose their stack and re-buy, or double up, but then are still short-stacked compared to the rest of the table and often have no clue what to do with their new-found "riches" and often end up going broke, anyway. Even if they're disciplined enough to immediately leave a table after any double-up, they are bound to lose their stacks just as often as they double them, so it's a break-even strategy, at best. (Ok, rarely they might get lucky and get two callers and actually win the pot, but that's an exception. . . .)
Personally I would get bored of playing like that very, very quickly, as it takes all the interesting skill components out of the game and reduces NLHE to a glorified form of flipping a coin. . . .