Mini Blinds

[Chris Daddy Cool]

Suppose you're playing 4/8 hold'em with 1/2 blinds, but preflop raises come in increments of 4.

How does your preflop strategy change if at all?

[Kenshin]

I tighten up dramatically and fold every marginal hand without second thought. I believe TOP advocates a strategy along these lines. I am interested in hearing how people play pocket small/medium pocket pairs in this situation.

Kenshin

[mosch]

How to adjust really depends on what the other players are doing.

If you're getting multi-way unraised pots, then you're getting huge value looking to flop a set, or look for a big draw, so I start playing small pairs from any position, and play more suited connectors.

If most hands are small and raised, then tightening up becomes correct, since you're now raising to $6 to steal $3.

Honestly, like so many things in poker, I think the answer here is 'depends on who you're playing'.

[GuyOnTilt]

I tighten up dramatically and fold every marginal hand without second thought. I believe TOP advocates a strategy along these lines.

It's been a while since I last went through TOP so I don't remember it talking about half-blind games, but your strategy is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. The half-blind structure makes many, many more hands limpable (especially suited hands) because of the very high implied odds that the game has. I'd limp with all sorts of stuff in LP in this game, any pocket pair from any position, any medium suited connector or ace from EP, etc. These games are generally very passive and very loose preflop.

GoT

[miamikid]

[ QUOTE ]
I tighten up dramatically and fold every marginal hand without second thought. I believe TOP advocates a strategy along these lines. I am interested in hearing how people play pocket small/medium pocket pairs in this situation.

Kenshin

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Kenshin, you should tighten up. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes" "The lower the ante in comparison to future bets, the fewer hands you should play; the higher the ante, the more hands you should play." -Theory of poker.

Meaning... you should play tighter.

miamikid

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
I tighten up dramatically and fold every marginal hand without second thought. I believe TOP advocates a strategy along these lines. I am interested in hearing how people play pocket small/medium pocket pairs in this situation.

Kenshin

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is backwards here. You can limp with many more marginal hands, not the other way around.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tighten up dramatically and fold every marginal hand without second thought. I believe TOP advocates a strategy along these lines. I am interested in hearing how people play pocket small/medium pocket pairs in this situation.

Kenshin

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Kenshin, you should tighten up. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes" "The lower the ante in comparison to future bets, the fewer hands you should play; the higher the ante, the more hands you should play." -Theory of poker.

Meaning... you should play tighter.

miamikid

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about this. It costs you half as much to limp with a hand yet you still get paid off the same amounts when you hit.

[miamikid]

I'm not familiar with the mini blind structure.

If the structure is such that the blinds are 1$ 2$ but it is 4$ to call, then what I said before holds true... You should tighten up.

If it only cost you 2$ to see the flop, it depends on the texture of the game, particularly how much raising is going on. If you can get in for 2$ routinely.. you can loosen up.

miamikid

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
If the structure is such that the blinds are 1$ 2$ but it is 4$ to call, then what I said before holds true... You should tighten up.



[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does it cost $4 to call a $2 bet/blind? C'mon man think logically about it.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

It costs 2 dollars to call. 4 more dollars to raise, i.e. 6 to go.

I played this half blind structure an hour or so for the first time yesterday (my casino is adding in all sorts of crazy things nowdays). I quickly realized that I can be much looser preflop and limp in with all sorts of hands, as practically nothing was getting raised and the huge implied odds I'd be getting if I hit a hand.

Case in point I limped in with J6s in the CO after 6 other limpers and ended up winning a nice pot with trip J's.

However, post flop strategy changes a little bit as it sometimes becomes less correct to call gutshots and 5 outers or whatnot on the flop because the pot is a little smaller. I found myself accidently calling what I thought were 8-1 pots when it was actually 6-1 because I miscounted the pre-flop bets.

[miamikid]

Kenshin and I are assuming, that the blinds are 1$ and 2$... but it still cost you 4$ to see a flop.

If it is only 2$ to see the flop, then it correct to loosen up as long as the game is passive.

miamikid

[miamikid]

Okay, I had misunderstood the structure originally. If it is 2$ to call... so long as the game is passive, you can loosen up.

miamikid

[Kenshin]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about this. It costs you half as much to limp with a hand yet you still get paid off the same amounts when you hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversely, it costs you only half as much to wait for a premium hand and your will receive a large payoff when your hand holds up. I see little reason to include weak hands without the threat of the blind eating me alive. By no means do I enjoy playing like a rock; however, I still consider it the correct tactic in mini-blind games.

Can anyone expose a flaw in my logic or a misinterpretation of the TOP passage miamikid quoted?

[astroglide]

advocating (or even considering) tight play here is patently wrong unless you're dealing with raised pots every hand, which is not typical for a 4/8 game. you can get in early with weaker hands and easily release to a raise. you can punish weak limps with raises when they still call. it's a very profitable structure.