As the ante becomes higher and...

higher in a stud game because of the increase limit structure of the game,there should be a point where the ante in relation to the betting size is so large that the game deteriorates into a "crap shoot" or "no peek game".

At what figure would U put this No. (in terms of "% of the small bet")??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

I'll say about 400%.


In practice, I think that the biggest ante you'll find is 25% of the small bet. This is the ante in my local $2/4 game, and it's also the ante at $100/200. With this big ante, the short-term luck factor is pretty large, but it is not going to win out over skill in the long run. I think the ante would have to be absurdly high before the luck factor started winning out over the skill factor. My guess above is 2 BBs, and I'd be very surprised if the real answer were less than one BB. Not that I think there's any way to calculate it. Since the ante is always a fraction of the small bet, I don't think that the game is ever a complete crapshoot. Your assertion below that a game is unbeatable because of a high ante is just plain wrong. As long as the players are bad enough and the rake isn't obscene, any structure is beatable.

that even with a 400% No.,the game is still beatable?

If"yes",let's consider the following:


For a large # of trials,let "M" be the average # of errors that U make and let "N" be the average # of errors that your opponents make.

Let N/M=K.

Do U think there is some kind of positive correlation between "K" and the "% of the small bet" figure or some approximate mathematical relation between the two??

In other words,is "K" a function of the "%of the small bet" #??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

In a 300-600 game... isn't the ante 100?

Tag in AC. In a 300-600 game,the ante is 25.00 and the forced bet is 100.00


The highest game that the floor person was aware of was 2000-4000 with an ante of 500 and a forced bet of 1000.00

So the "% of SB" ante is less than a comparable % in the 10-20 game(I believe it's 1.00)


Now does that mean that one should use approximately the same strategy in playing 300-600 that he uses in playing a 10-20 game?? In other words,is it correct to say that very little adjustment should be made when moving up from 10-20 to 300-600??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

Hello Larry and other posters,

is the number of opponents a REAL important parameter to assess in these "high antes games"?

That is: if the table is almost full (6-7 players) is better to have a tighter (a higher percentage of good opponent' starting hands) or a looser (a lot of money in the pot) approach?


Thanks


Marco

I've been playing lately a fair amount of $40-$80 stud with a $10 ante. In our book SCSFAP-21 we have a chapter on playing in high limit games with a relatively large ante, and a section on playing in loose games. The way I see it both of these apply to the game that I frequently find myself in. What's interesting is that some of the concepts between the two sections will contradict each other which makes this $40-$80 (with a $10 ante) a tough game to play well.


MM

Mason,


I don't have time right now to fully address the messy nature of the 40-80 w/ $10 ante, but I agree 100% that it is a very difficult game to figure out the correct strategy. On the one hand, it seems correct to play more hands, and play them aggressively due to the larger ante but, on the other hand, opponents are less likely to believe your bets and raises, making semi-bluffing more difficult. You are going to have to show more hands in this type of game than in a 15-30 or 30-60 structure.


The real question is, have the opponents underreacted or overreacted to the higher ante? If we can figure that question out, then it will be easier to figure out the best strategy.


I'm very interested in opinions about my above (brief) assertion.

Would you think there is a major adjustment required when moving from


$40-80 with a $5 ante (12.5%) and $15 force (37.5%)


to


$75-150 with a $15 ante (20%) and $25 force (33.3%)


I have played in a 40-80 every weekend for about two months with good success, but have yet to try the 75-150, even though many of the opponents are the same opponents I have been beating at 40-80. What adjustments should I make if I move up to $75?

I thought Mason said that the ante was $10 in which case its a 25% bite...(Slightly less than the $75-$150 ante)

I believe Mason is talking about the Mirage 40-80. I'm not in Las Vegas; in the 40-80 game in which I play, the ante is $5.

Crap Shoot...


Try the Mohegan Sun game.. $300-$600.


Here's the kicker.... $100 ante....


CJ

which place is this?


By the way, there is no better game anywhere, than a 40-80 with a $5 ante with poor players.


There is also no worse game than a 40-80 w/ $5 ante with good players.


75-150 is a completely different game.

This structure is at Foxwoods. As for the players, some are very good, and some are not as strong.


I understand 75-150 is completely different, which is why I haven't even considered jumping into that game, yet. But my question is, what changes should I make if I do decide to jump into that game?

Suppose the limit is $4-8 with a $1 ante. Wouldn't one play either limit structure

the same way? I would. The proviso is, of course, that you can readily afford the

higher limit and not be bothered if you have a bad day and drop a bundle.

"The real question is, have the opponents underreacted or overreacted to the higher ante?"


My opinion is that most players over react to it.

You're playing a $40-$80 with a $5 ante which is a pretty tight structure. I'm playing it with a $10 ante. Thus the $75-$150 game has a structure between the two forms of $40-$80.

I hate to post an ad, but we have a discussion of the appropriate adjustments in SCSFAP.

Structure as well as quality of opponents determines how you should play. So a $4-$8 with a $1 ante may play very differently from a $40-$80 game with a $10 ante.

That's what I would have guessed. And it accounts for a lot of the craziness that goes on in the betting.


In my opinion, small pairs and high cards like KQJ go up in value in that game while 3 suited lose a bit of value because semi-bluff's don't work. Small pairs go up because you will be playing against raisers who have no pair. It's not that live 3 suited is not a good hand, just that it's probably not wise to raise with this type of hand.


I haven't played this limit much at all with this structure, so I'm curious if you agree with my assessment of the game. I haven't played much recently and especially try to avoid such high variance games like 40-80 w/ $10 ante. I'd rather play 30-60 or even 75-150.

300-600 with 100 ante is a long term beatable game for U if the # of errors ,on the average,that U make is 1/2 the # of errors that your opponents,on the average,make??

If not,what about 1/3,1/4,1/5??

In your opinion,is there a # "N" such that 1/N becomes a beatable game for U?? Note that as 1/N approaches 0,U beome more and more of a favorite against this field.

Just wondering.

Sitting Bull

Hey Larry,


Well since your profit in poker is directly related to how many fewer errors you make than your opponents... I would say if you are making half as many errors as your opponents... you would be beating the game. And I would say that would probably be true of any game. I think this what the whole Fundamental Thereom of Poker is about. Now for how Much? Well that depends on how many errors your opponents are making. If your opponents are only making 2 errors and you one... Well then technically you are beating the game, but you sure as hell better be finding a different game. If not.. you really need to work on your game selection.


Now I can't specifically comment on the $300-$600 game, as I have never played that high, nor do I ever have any intentions of doing so. $300-600 with a $100 ante is a crapshoot. Plain and simple..


I think alot of it has do with the TYPE of errors in the game. Certain errors 'cost' more than others. I would also be willing to say that as the limits of the game 'Decrease' ( I.E. 1-3 and 1-5 ), You make MORE per error off your opponents than the higher limits due to the very nature of the ante structure...( I.E. in the 300-600 game.. For lack of better words.... it is almost correct to play like an idiot.... if you can understand what I am trying to say here )


To answer your question, I don't know if I have a certain "N" where the game becomes beatable. I am not really that mathmatical. I think a player just 'knows' ( or at least he should ) through experience when he/she is a favorite in the game. Of course there is several criteria in determaining if you are a favorite.


I hope I have at least somewhat touched base with what you were looking for.


Take Care,


CJ

Well, all the hands that you mention may go up in value because the starting pot is larger. You just lose more on the hands that you throw away to make up for it.


More specifically, let's look at KQJ. There's no question that it goes up in value when you can get the pot heads up or perhaps three handed. But it's clear in my mind that it drops in value once several players come in (but it may still be worth playing). So assuming that I'm right, the question is how often, campared to a more typical sturcture are you playing short handed versus multiway. I'm not sure of the answer. What do you think?

Some of U are talking about Crap Shoot.


Then Come to Denmark, and play spread limit 5-20$ with a 2$ ante and 5$ bring in. And the rake is extremly high, if U try to ante steal lets say with 5 people at the table, there is 15$ in the pot and U raise, U wil win 15$ - 6$ (in rake) = U gain 9$, with an ante steal.....ha ha ha ha.


Thats what I call a crap shoot.


Does any of U think that it is a beatable game to play ?? because I doubt.

In the brief experiences I have had at the 40-80 w/ $10 ante, there are more short handed pots because more people are shooting for the ante by raising on 3rd street. Because of this, more people are also RERAISING on 3rd street. A typical hand may be that I have split (live) jacks with a 10 and an ace raises from early/middle position. Many players are automatically reraising in this spot because of both the larger pot size and the increased likelihood that the original raiser is stealing. They are even reraising with QJ10 in this spot.


Thus, many potential calling hands will not pay a double raise where they would have paid a single raise. This further reduces the number of players who would like to play when they see more people in so one player folding a marginal holding now affects the others as well.


I know for myself (rightly or wrongly), I don't like to play a 3 flush (unless high cards)for a double raise or a buried (live) pair with suited connector. All which I probably would play for a single raise in a multiway pot. Plus, there is the potential for the Ace to 3 bet, costing me even more money. And there are many (most) players who are a lot more liberal with small pairs and always play them for a single raise but not for a double raise.


So, I believe there are more 2 and 3 handed pots in the 40-80 game, even though there are more contested pots (less ante's won with a single raise). Often, in say 15-30 games, an early raiser can get 3-5 callers, where in the 40-80, a second raise may force the pot heads up.


Just my thoughts from limited experience at this level. Of course, it always depends on the table makeup, but I believe that relative to 15-30, there are more heads up pots (assuming the same players).

to be saying that a "33% of the SB ante" is basically a "crapshoot" game and unbeatable regardless of how much of a favorite U are.

The 300-600 with 100 ante is an example.

The 1-5 stud game with a 1.00 ante is another example where the average ante is more than 33% of the average bet.

BTW, the reason I brought up this topic is that when I went on a poker cruise,there was a 1-5 stud game with a 1.00 ante.

I concluded that this game was a "crapshoot" game and didn't play more than 2 sessions.

It would also seem to me that with a .50 ante in a 1-5 game where there is a "16%-20% of the verage ante bet",U would need to steal the ante a good % of the time in order to remain viable in this game structure.

I would guess that it's more difficult to beat than the 10-20 game with the "10% of the SB" structue simply because U do not have to steal as many pots in the smaller ante game.

Of course,I'm assuming that U are one of the favorites in each game structure.


Thanks for your answer.

Happy pokering.

Sitting Bull

Denmark poker players are very desperate to play poker--given the high rake and ante.

If U are not a poker addict,don't play in these limit games.

Even if U don't have a current bankroll to play no limit or pot limit, I would try to horn my skills for these types of game only.

When I have enough of a stake to make a buy-in,I would then take "pot shots' at these structures.

Stay away fron the limit games with the high antes and rakes.


To answer your question--NO,I do not believe that the limit structure that U described IS beatable.

I just think it's a game for having some fun and socializing--NOT to earn any long-term money.

So , if U want to have some fun by having a night out with the "boys" or "girls"--(LOL!)--go for it--but don't expect to make any long-term money.


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

Hey Larry,


Wow.. 1-5 with a dollar ante. Ante is the same as the bring-in(as in that $300-$600 game I was referring ) I would probably pass on this game also. As far as the $1-5 with a 50 cent ante, this really is a great game up here. Yes you have to play looser,but you also need to play much more aggresivly than 'normal' 1-5 games. Lots of weak players in that game.


As far as ante stealing in the 10-20 game. You definately want to try it when you are able, but it still is a 'tightly' structured game so if you aren't able to do it often you still should show a nice 'proit' in the game.


Take Care,


CJ

This kind of rake & structure is obscene...


I guess thats why a lot of European players lather at mouth when they hear of what is offered in the US and when they do come over they stay for a lengthy period.


Are there many house games because of this rake?