Am I a psychopath or is this completely normal?

A little awkward socially, I’m the quiet guy in the background. Sure, if everyone wants to straddle or whatever, not going to rock the boat.

But it’s never like that. A couple guys might straddle. I might straddle coming back in after a walk, but as a rule, I don’t do it. Is it a leak that I don’t sit out & wait for the bb?

I don’t mind short stacks. Some guys just keep rebuying short. Obviously, you’ve got to be aware of all stack sizes, but it can be easier to get the short stack’s 100, then prying it from a deep stack.

Banana is my favorite
Always good v descriptions, always unpredictable play - good for discussion

I wouldn't shove turn here without a set, straight, flush, A♦x or an overpair with a diamond.

I agree regarding the Ad being way better. The Kd also blocks way fewer combos of flushes compared to the Ad, which is highly significant. You should probably mostly only be bluffing all in on this board with the Ad.

My point bringing up the Kd hands was that if you're going to get out of line on this flop because you think your opponent is a nit who will overfold, there are so many better hands to do it with than A6s. Kdx is better. Qdx is even better. Admittedly I will mix in some straight draws as bluffs on 3 flush flops, but it's mainly just so that when a fourth diamond hits I still have a few bluff combos. Those weak straight draw combos are the hands that I'm mainly one and done bluffing with. Like I might check raise the flop but I'm giving up if I get called, and I don't love this exact combo even in that scenario. I would prefer something like 86s that has no showdown value, unblocks offsuit Ax folds, and has potential to make a better straight against other 6x.

No surprise the players who are bad for the game take offense at the notion of pointing out someone is bad for the game.

You'll have to show me the math that demonstrates why having more money on the table is bad for the game.

"Berate" is a strong word and unfair characterization of what I've described. If everyone else at the table is straddling, it seems well within bounds to point out when one player isn't, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who does it.

If offering to put up half the straddle for another player makes me the bad guy, I guess I'm the bad guy.

The attitude on display by some here is indicative of narcissism and a mercenary approach to playing "a game". Instead of trusting enough in one's own skill to accommodate the recreational players, the short-stacking, non-straddling nit demonstrates his own myopic self-centeredness by seizing every advantage, not only hurting his own win rate, but hurting all regs' win rates, by way of making the game less fun for the recs upon whom the nasty nits prey.

I don't know if something is being lost in the translation / it's a you-had-to-be-there-moment or what, but these are your quotes. It's coming across as very douchey.

The more of a winning player you are, the more you are terrible for the game. The more of a losing player you are, the more you are great for the game. If there's two people moving towards an empty seat at your table, in terms of being better for the game you'd always prefer the losing player to sit down (with the only possible exception being that they're such a cancer for the game that they'll cause the other losing players to leave the table). To think otherwise, or that we (as a winning player) are somehow "good for the game", is completely delusional.

And of course all of this is completely irrelevant with regards to how people should be treated in a public card game simply playing their game at their desired within-the-rules stack size.

GcluelesspokerecosystemnoobG

Not a good environment for amateurs to have regs being nasty to each other.

You need to expand your circle.

Your frame of reference for douchey behavior is basically any behavior you don't like.