Antes

[Achilles517]

I'm a student, and have only been playing poker regularly for a year or so. Some thoughts on the ante structure in low limit stud -

1) I typically play 1-5 at Mohegan, .50 ante, 1 bring in. The ante and rake combined seem high for such a low limit. For a typical 3-6 Hold 'Em game, you have 1 BB and 1 SB ($4 total) every 10 hands, but $4 in antes every 8 hands in Stud (not counting forced bring ins). Does the difference between the two make Stud a harder game to earn a net profit? (everything else being equal)

2) The ante for 5-10 Stud is the same - 50 cents. IMO, this makes 5-10 a much more attractive game - same ante structure, with larger payoffs once betting limits double. Is there a catch?

These are just some initial observations, so if I'm blatantly wrong about something, please tell me.

You should consider the bring-in when you're discussing your overhead in stud. It does cost a little more per hand, assuming full games in both cases. When the game starts getting short-handed, the overhead becomes higher in hold'em than in stud. I've only played at Foxwoods once, but I have played a lot in a $2/4 fixed-limit stud game with a $.50 ante and $1 bring-in. It's similar to your game in that it has a high ante structure (ridiculously high in Canterbury Park's case) and a high rake (10% to $4.50 plus a $1 jackpot drop here). I used to beat this game pretty consistently. On the other hand, I never was able to beat the very small hold'em games, despite the smaller rake ($4). I beat $6/12, $15/30, and $30/60 hold'em games now, but never did beat the $2/4 and $3/6. I still slum in these games sometimes, and I do OK in the stud game, but I can't beat the hold'em games. Now part of the reason for this is that I'm a stronger stud player. I think that another significant factor is the extra betting round in stud. There are more $2/4 stud pots that get bigger than $45 than there are $2/4 hold'em pots that get bigger than $40. Anyway, I don't think that the overhead is the most significant factor in determining whether a game is beatable. The most important factor, by far, is the difference in ability between you and your opponents. If you're a lot better than they are, you should be a long-term winner.

You're right that the $5/10 structure is better for the good player. You can sit back and wait for decent hands. The players may be somewhat better, but they won't be good.

[Andy B]

[AlanBostick]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

1) I typically play 1-5 at Mohegan, .50 ante, 1 bring in. The ante and rake combined seem high for such a low limit. For a typical 3-6 Hold 'Em game, you have 1 BB and 1 SB ($4 total) every 10 hands, but $4 in antes every 8 hands in Stud (not counting forced bring ins). Does the difference between the two make Stud a harder game to earn a net profit? (everything else being equal)


[/ QUOTE ]

In a full game, the antes and bring-ins are going to cost each player (on average) $5 every eight hands -- $4 antes and $1 bring-in -- or $0.675 per hand.

The thing to remember is that in return for this price, each player gets in return equity in the pot. (The bring-in's equity can be thought of as less than par for that dollar, because the bring-in's hand is going to be weaker than the average hand in the deal.)

If there were no rake, then a large-ante game is in principle no more or less beatable than a small- or no-ante game. This is because all of the "costs" of the antes and bring-in charged to all players in a hand are returned to the winner of the hand.

A large-ante game is going to play differently than a small-ante game, and different strategies are required; but ignoring the rake, all the money that players put in at the beginning gets returned to them.

Why does the $5-$10 game with $0.50 antes seem more attractive to you than the $1-$5 game with $0.50 antes? (If both are raked, say, 10% to a maximum of $4, the $5-$10 game is more attractive to me because the rake, not the antes, is small compared to the bet size. The antes stay on the table one way or another; the rake goes down the slot, and that's a significant factor in whether or not a low-limit game is beatable.

Excellent post -- here's why I think the $1-5 game can be worse. Number 1: The rake -- as you point out it's higher for the lower limit. Enough said.

Number 2: The structure -- The over ante favors players who play worse cards. What I often have seen in these games is you'll have a group of losing players who (unintentionally) gang up on a good player. When you bet your pair of kings and are called by a gutshot str8 draw, a pair of sevens, a pair of threes with an ace and a baby flush draw with three dead cards you are in trouble against the field, even though each player is making a negative EV play.

In $5-10, they are so far wrong to make this play and you can punish them so severely (or force them out) when the bet increases that this kind of play can't survive. But at $1-5 with the over ante, this kind of player is playing more close to correctly (especially with all the other players coming in).

You wrote:
Number 2: The structure -- The over ante favors players who play worse cards. What I often have seen in these games is you'll have a group of losing players who (unintentionally) gang up on a good player. When you bet your pair of kings and are called by a gutshot str8 draw, a pair of sevens, a pair of threes with an ace and a baby flush draw with three dead cards you are in trouble against the field, even though each player is making a negative EV play.
-----

Two points. First, you have to adjust to the game. It may turn out that betting the kings is negative EV. So don't do it. Bet the drawing hands that have now become positive EV to bet. Second, if all the other players are making -EV moves, then where is all that EV going if not to you? Maybe the gutshot made a good, positive EV call. Maybe the guy with the gutshot has learned to play this version of stud.

[AlanBostick]

An old-time r.g.p. poster named Roy Hashimoto called the unintentional ganging up "implicit collusion." Others have called it "schooling," i.e. of lots of little fish. It's a regular feature of low-limit poker games of any stripe.

And it doesn't make the game bad; it changes the nature of the winning approach to the game.

In the Mohegan Sun game we're talking about, the front-loading of antes makes drawing hands more attractive. So play your draws. Think of that pair of kings not as "best hand" but as a draw to two pair, trips, or a boat. Your opponents play crappy draws, make sure that your own draws have redraws: your straight or flush draw is made up of live overcards; the kicker to your pair is a live overcard, preferably suited to one of your pair, or maybe a connector. And so on. That game is beatable; you just don't play it like the 10-20 at the Mirage.

I hear your points, but you have much less edge in these types of games, when you factor in the high rake. That's where a lot of the negative EV from those early calls goes, unfortunately. It also gets passed around -- as Manhattan Jac notes, these players know "how" to play this game -- stay in and wait for it to be your turn to get lucky. Sure you can overcome the rake and the "implicit collusion" effect. But I believe this structure gives relatively less edge to good play.