.50-1.00 7stud at PP

The structure of this game is that there is no ante and a .25 bring-in. Due to this, most of the players play extremely tight. Does this mean that it is advantageous for me to play looser and steal a bunch, or should I be trying to play tighter? Or should I just forget about it and play at limit that has an ante?


I've been playing pretty much any live pair or 2 live overcards, plus any 3 consecutive (if the str8 is live) and any 3 flush with 2 or fewer of the suit out. I've been able to steal alot of pots, as well as making my share of hands, and have therefore racked up a couple "big" wins (that is, 10+ bb). Since I've only played for a few hours, I know I can't consider my results to be indicative of my abilities, so I wanted to see what other people thought about this strategy before it got me into trouble.

Hi Lenny-


You're supposed to play much tighter...... due to the ratio of the initial raise- to the money already in the pot (in this case- only the bring-in).


As far as playing in a game- with an ante- or in the game you're playing in now. Im not sure.


I think its just a matter of adapting to whichever structure you're playing.

If theres no ante theres nothing worth stealing, and its never worth trying to steal a 25c bringin. Lose once and you have to successfully steal 20 times to get even

***Lose once and you have to successfully steal 20 times to get even ***


Well, you only have to be successful 2 to get even from a failed steal attempt (since it only cost .50 to raise), but that's not really what I was talking about. I don't play poor hands to attempt to run over the table, I play live hands which give me a good chance of improvement, but I bet them all the way if it looks my opponent hasn't caught anything. It just seems like in this game all the players are weak-tight and I can play live split 6s with a live 8 against someone with an obvious pair of jacks, because I know that I'll be able to stealf rom him on the end if neither of us improve, but that I have a decent chacne of either improving enough to win or catching a scare card to knock him out. This added equity from the successful bluffs seems to make more hands playable than I would ordinarily think, based just on the ante structure. My variance in this game is tiny, because I don't ever have to get involved with a borderline hand, and the money I make from people laying down hands against me on the later streets is easily enough to cover the unsuccessful draws and the occasional failed bluff. That leaves me hovering around even until I make a big hand and win a bunch, the I hover around that number until I make another big hand, and so on.


I believe that I'm doing the right thing in my play provided that my opponents continue to play the way they have been so far, but my results have been so ridiculously good that I worry that it's just a run of incredible cards. I've played 20 hours now and made over $200. Since 10 bb/hr is an unheard of figure, I have to assume I'm just getting lucky, but I just find it so easy to figure out when my opponent is willing to lay his hand down and when he's not that I'm beginning to believe that strategy is really not far off. Maybe the fact that my opponents are so predictable is what makes it possible for me to play more hands, despite the tiny starting pots.

I have also played .50 game and have a winning hourly rate not 10bb but good. I think that the player at this level have little experience and are just playing for fun. From your post and understanding of the game you should move up. This is a good game to try different game plan and not loss much. enjoy ron

Yeah, moving up is one thing that I'm not so sure about. I'll give it a try once I've built a bankroll I'm secure with, but I may just wait until my hourly is around 5bb or less, because I seriously doubt I'll be able to make more than 2 bb at a higher limit. I may skip the 1-2 limit altogether, since the ante structure there is crazy (.25 ante, .50 bring in 1-2). But as long as I'm making 10bb an hour I don't think moving up makes sense, since I'd have to make 2.5 bb/hr at 2-4 just to get the same income, and my variance would be increased. Anyway, thanks for your response.

The experts seem universally in line with your strategy of playing agressively at a weak tight table, as long as you don't become overly "loose" agressive.


If they lay a hand down more often than not when your scare cards are on board, why not punish their timidity by bluffing, semi bluffing, and chasing more often? It's really the only way to make money at such a table. Just release your own hand when the weak tight rocks re-raise, and you have mediocre hands, and they get very little back from you.


I would expect .50/1.00 tables to be filled with a combination of weak/tight players who have read basic 7 stud strategy books about no ante Nevada games, and loose passive players used to kitchen table poker. Ideal opponents, but I am surprised you find it mostly weak tight, with few loose passive?


I would have thought you would have more calling stations willing to call their semi weak pair/2 pair hands, flush draw against one opponent all the way to the river, regardless of your bets. I have never checked out the 7 stud on PP, I'll have to take a look.

I was talking about a pressed steal attempt, not just a third street steal. Such as your "bet all the way if it looks like your opponent hasn't improved".