Spread Limit

[badvb750]

I have a couple questions about live spread limit. First, a little background on myself. I'm new to stud (converted hold'em player) and have logged about 2k hands with a 3.5bb/100 at .25/.50. I really want to give a live game a shot, but have never played in a spread limit formatt. How much different is spread limit then standard limit? Does stragedy at .25/.50 apply to a 1-5 spread game? How much should I buy in for?

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions about live spread limit. First, a little background on myself. I'm new to stud (converted hold'em player) and have logged about 2k hands with a 3.5bb/100 at .25/.50. I really want to give a live game a shot, but have never played in a spread limit formatt. How much different is spread limit then standard limit? Does stragedy at .25/.50 apply to a 1-5 spread game? How much should I buy in for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually buy in for 100 and even when I am running bad I don't feel like I am understacked.
I think there are different theories of how to play these games. There will typically be a lot of people calling the bring in....it seems to act almost like a $1 ante with not a lot of raising.
One theory is that because there is no ante, you can wait around for premium hands without cutting into my stack.
The other theory is that the implied odds are very high and you should limp in with a range of hands and fold on 4th a bet if you don't improve. I tend to go with this more becaue I get bored otherwise. you need to raise it up even if it kills some of your action when you start with premium pairs otherwise you will get drawn out on all day since there will likely be 5-8 people in every hand.

[beset7]

I aggree w/ poorlawyer (i'm going to be one of those soon by the way... these student loans. ack).

Play pairs aggressively. If it's a standard spread limit game the BI will rarely be raised. In that case I'd see fourth with small pairs/decent kicker that are all completely live as well as totally live straight draws, even w/ a gap (just be ready to fold on 4th when a bunch of your straightening cards die and you brick). the "poker is a battle for the antes" perspective would have you playing just the top 10% of starting hands but implied odds justifies playing decent, live multi-way hands as you'll get paid off big for them and you can usually see each street very cheaply.

[Nick_Foxx]

I have played $1-$5 with no ante, quarter ante, and 50 cent ante. How loose you play depends on the ante. Obviously the higher the ante, the more hands you should be playing.

In my experience, the no ante game is not worth playing because of the boredom factor. The .50 ante game is usually quite good because of the loose, passive nature of the players.

You should also find out if the game has a fourth street rule. I've played $1-$5 with a rule that a paired doorcard changes the limits to $2-$10. I've also played $1-$5 with no 4th street rule. If you like big pairs, choose a game where you can protect them with a double bet. If you like to chase, play the game without a 4th street rule.

Mike

[MRBAA]

"In my experience, the no ante game is not worth playing because of the boredom factor. The .50 ante game is usually quite good because of the loose, passive nature of the players."

Exactly.

[badvb750]

Thanks for the info guys.

[badvb750]

One more question. Is one dollar the min bet on each street, or does 5th through 7th have a bigger min bet?

[Andy B]

Minimum bet is still $1 on every street. Don't be betting $1 into a $20 pot, though. A raise must be at least as big as the previous bet or raise on that round.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
"In my experience, the no ante game is not worth playing because of the boredom factor. The .50 ante game is usually quite good because of the loose, passive nature of the players."

Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't you say that a no-ante game w/ loose passive players makes the more hands playable because of implied odds? If you have 6 people going to 7th street even without an ante, more hands become playable, no? A tight aggressive game w/ no ante would be a waste of time.

[MRBAA]

The reality of no ante games is this:

tiny starting pot not worth fighthing for, massive rake relative to pot sizes and a magnet for rocks.

I started playing casino poker in a 1-3 game with no ante and it was a nearly unbeatable game, simply because you couldn't steal (not worth it), you often couldn't get in and mix it up enough (again, nothing to fight for), the games were rock magnets and loose players who did sit down quickly got bored. And the rake ate you alive. The $1-5 game in the same poker room with a .50 ante, on the other hand, was probably the most profitable game for me in the entire casino (on a bb/hour basis). Antes give you something to fight for right from the start, and create all kinds of opportunities for good players to get into pots with the gamblers.