If another
big stack has signalled their intention to attack you then it is in your own
best interests to figure out an acceptable defence that will tell them that you
mean business without it leading to world war 3 or in this case the total
decimation of your stack. The only time that it may be in your interests to not
go up against a big stack is if you are the one who will be starting the
aggression. Just like in politics, other players will know when you are being
out of line.
So should we
avoid another big stack when it is merely poker chips and money that in poker
tournaments? Once we make the connection then we understand that the
conventional thought of avoiding big stacks is blatantly wrong just like much
of the perceived wisdom in poker books is wrong. It is wrong because much of it
fails to make this game theory connection with other fields.
Let’s say
that you have studied poker so well and worked so hard on your game that you
are now the poker equivalent of Manchester United (bear with me here). Would
Alex Ferguson send his team out into a third round FA Cup tie at home to
Grimsby Town with a game plan of sitting back and hitting Grimsby on the
counter attack?
Of course he
wouldn’t and the reasons that he wouldn’t are obvious. Their overwhelming
superiority over the opposition means that this is not the optimal strategy.
Better to go at them and be 3-0 up with twenty minutes to go and then rest
players for the next match. Despite the fact that Ferguson knows nothing about
the Grimsby players he knows their relative ability because he is aware of what
league they are in.
But change
the opposition to a mid-week Champions League clash against Barcelona and he is
not going to play the same gung ho style because he knows that not only will it
not succeed but it could seriously backfire on them against opposition that are
their equals.
