$10-$20 w/ $5 bring in - How to play 3rd st...

[DoctorK]

I jumped into a $10-$20 Stud game on Party Poker over the weekend. Its structure is a little strange, and left me questioning whether I was playing optimally.

The ante is $1 (as per usual) but the bring-in is $5. I understand it's usually $3 in most casinos (the structure of the 5-10 at Party Poker is $0.50 ante and $2 bring in -- "normal" at most B&M cardrooms).

I figure I'm better off playing very tight on 3rd, since the bring in is so high compared to the size of the pot, and also since to complete to $10 on 3rd is very small proportionally, so I would be very likely to have to end up putting $10 into the pot on 3rd. In fact, the pot was almost always raised (completed to $10) on 3rd.

As a correllary, as the $5 bring in, I think I should be MORE willing to call the extra $5 from a potential ante-steal, since I'm getting such good odds.

What do you think? Anyone else have any insight on this kind of structure (50% bring-in)?

Thanks,

Doc.

[Ginogino]

Doc:
It seems to me that the answer depends (doesn't it always!) on your position, the amount of money in the pot, and the number (and playing style) of the players already in or remaining to bet. In early position don't play a hand that you won't be happy to play for a full bet -- and if you are happy to do so you might want to make the completion bet yourself (especially if that will eliminate players or get extra money from awful players), but then that's good advice in all but the most passive games.

In late position you are correct to be aware of the increased potential for ante-stealing (and you should be trying to do so yourself in proper circumstances), and it seems to me that this loosens things up somewhat. In a sense, some of the hands you can't bet in early position come back in late position -- depending on the pot size and the number and nature of the players still in or yet to be heard from. But again, this is good advice in most games.

Gino

[DanZ]

Your ideas are all good ones, you can sandbag more if it will work, since it is so expensive to play - it depends on the opponents.

But the 2 basic "universal" adjustments you have right on -

play marginal hands less, esp. draws, since it's so expensive to limp, and the pots will be more short-handed.

defend your bring in more - take a card off more liberally, and defend against stealers more often.

Good luck!

[SittingBull]

live medium pairs and live draws on 3rd if the field becomes "short", your stack will be diminished quite rapidly if someone is almost ALWAYS completing the bet on 3rd.
So if U sit back and wait for preminum hands to play,U will be given up too much if U do not play against a small field on 4th with a marginal hand on 3rd or with a draw.
I would play more liberally on 3rd and 4th but be prepared to fold on the more expensive Str. with no improvement.
However,I do expect large "swings" in my stack if I do decide to play this way.
But all I need is a big buy-in and a good "psychological Bankroll" to successfully compete over time with a small risk of going broke.
I realize that players completing their bets on 3rd will do so with a wide variety of legitimate hands. Their objective is to "knock out" players who might connect with their drawing hands or other better hands.
They do not want my "limping in" cheaply for a 4th or 5th card without punishing me for trying to improve on 4th or 5th.
But if I consistently fold these marginal or 3rd Str. drawing hands,the ante will"eat up" my stack.
I would bring enough "ammunition" to go to war!
I would EXPECT hugh losing sessions but MORE hugh WINNING ONES.
Another reason for taking a more liberal stand on 3rd---players who notice my folding often on 3rd will tend to run all over me.
And if I play according to your strategy,I WILL be folding a lot of hands on 3rd,my stack will be depleting, players will tend to run all over me,AND I WILL RECEIVE LITTLE OR NO ACTION when I DO enter pots and continue playing beyond 3rd.
Because of all of the above reasons,it is more advisable to play more liberally on the early rounds.
Of course,if one can find a table where the players are NOT frequently completing the betting on 3rd,then his SD would be a lot smaller--however,his profits would be smaller too--UNLESS he is in a loose passive game or if the players are "tied on" to their hands when he completes his potentially winning drawing hands. In other words,if there is implied odds,then his profis will be substantial--but NOT in a TIGHT-Passive game.
Happy pokewring,
Sitting Bull

[DanZ]

no one said these hands are marginal. What was meant by marginal hands are dead draws, 2 high cards in the hole with a 2 flush, and dead and/or kickerless pairs against bigger live upcards.

Of course, I was not trying to rewrite stud FAP, just saying that hands that were on the border before, are often no longer profitable since you have to pay $5 instead of $3 to play them, while this initial pot is not that much larger and the future bets are the same. Also, others paying $5 to limp are doing so with better hands on average than they would for $3, just as you are.

[Andy B]

For a long time my main game was $4/8 stud with a $.50 ante and $2 bring-in. Basically, I don't think you should be limping in with too many hands you wouldn't call a full bet with. In a three chip/six chip game, there will be situations where you limp in for one chip and then fold when someone completes the bet. You're never going to do that in this type of structure. Yes, defend your bring-in more liberally, but don't get carried away with it.

Whether the bring-in is half a bet or a quarter of a bet, if the bet is being completed on almost every hand, only limp in with hands that won't mind when someone completes.