Straddle!

Played in an interesting 15-30 game on Saturday: Every hand was straddled by every player in front of the blinds -- for 6 1/2 straight hours. Furthermore, quite often the pot was capped before the flop ($75). While I worked out what I felt was the appropriate strategy and had a nice win, I'm curious what other players would consider to be the best strategy in a game such as this -- either with just a nonstop straddle or with the straddle/cap.

I'm going to play squeaky tight preflop like HPFAP recommends. So only AA-JJ, AK-Qs. Maybe TT-99 AJ-ATs and KQs if it looks like I can get in for "only" 2-3 bets.

Play very tight and realise AJ and KQ are not too good in this game. TT and better ATs and better only I think works

With a "guaranteed" pre-flop cap, it's clearly a game to play only Group 1 & 2 hands.


I hope you weren't straddling.

Sure .. when in Rome, burn Roman candles. If everyone is going to straddle, then you have effectively just changed the game. It is profitable -- for a player who can adjust -- to gamble with the gamblers (you may wish to reread one of the stories in "According to Doyle"). Particularly in a game with many weak players, it is lucrative to be able to work out a strategy on the fly. With a bunch of loose gooses, it's not a good idea to be known as someone who has no gamble in them.


Naturally, since the straddles increases the preflop stakes, this also increases the deviation significantly. While I didn't play as tight as recommended in HPFAP21, I instantly recognized that big pairs went up significantly preflop. Small pairs have almost no value since you will NEVER have the implied odds that you need (in fact, I played so few small-to-medium pairs that I never flopped a set all day). But just as importantly, big suited connectors aren't as valuable as they intuitively appear. I'm not sure about the precise math on this, but it appears that the effect of large multi-player pots preflop dilutes how much a hand such as A-J suited might be worth.


Squeaky-tight preflop might get the cheese (sans a big negative swing), but I preferred to play off of the players. When certain players were in the pot, I would be more inclined to gamble with big cards (which are definitely not to be recommended in most spots like this). In a pot that may contain $450 preflop, and a good read on the resulting action post-flop, it was often worth the investment on a more speculative hand simply for the opportunity to outplay later in the hand.

Earl-


If you're talking about a lucrative home game which you want to be invited back to, I agree with you. Get in there and give the appearance of gambling along with everyone else. Your superior skill figures to earn you more money over numerous sessions than just one or two before you're not invited back.


However, in a public card room I see much less reason to adhere to the above philosophy. When a player or players enter a game who are willing to give their money away, you have much more to gain by playing all of your hands in the most optimal fashion. IMO-

ACtually, I don't think he's giving that much up by straddling. If everyone's doing it, he's obviously not placing himself at a disadvantage, and the extra action that he generates by seeming to be "one of the boys" probably more than compensates for the straddles that he places.

The reason I totally disagree with this is that I think you WANT to be known as the locksmith in a game like this. By definition, the hands you play are the ones where you want to reduce the size of the field. Secondly, my being visibly the rock in the game you expand your chances to (selectively) steal pots.


No?

On Average, how many players usually called preflop. This kind of play really seems to be a very self defeating strategy. Do you remember how many hands were won by any of the live straddlers during this time period. I would suspect not the kind of % one would consider a profitable one.

"Secondly, my being visibly the rock in the game you expand your chances to (selectively) steal pots."


I hazard a guess from the description that 6.5 hours went by with nearly no pots stolen -- those few hands that didn't have a showdown may have ended with the best hand 'bluffing'...


I think the best argument against straddling is simply that there is an immediate edge in not paying a tax everyone else is -- where this may be sub-optimal would likely vary from player to player.

Average 5 players calling preflop. EVERYONE straddled, all the way around the table, 6.5 hours ... incredible game ;-) One guy said it was the best game he'd ever played in in his life -- and he was one of the losers.

I suspect I already had a minor tight reputation, which allowed me to check-raise bluff a fairly nice pot off of a decent player, but otherwise, stealing was very hard to come by. Once the pot hits $500, not too many people are going to be letting go of anything for a $30 bet. I agree with the person who said that, "if everyone is straddling," there is no edge lost -- and I will add, that in fact, this sets up situations where your edge may in fact be huge.

Like I said, if it's a home game which you want to be invited back to, I can see a few advantages to going with the flow.


I also wonder if you're considering that by making bigger pots at the start of the hand, bad players will more likely play "accidently" correct on later streets?


We sometimes play with a straddle button in the room I play in. I'm somewhat ambilevant towards it myself. On the one hand, people will play pretty darn bad pre-flop. On the other hand, it de-magnifies some of their more common mistakes later in the hand.


One thing's for sure.. Paying $25 in blinds every round while everyone else pays $55 is a significant edge IMO- Much more so than you'll have by simply playing pot odds poker which seems the way to get the $$ in such a game.

<blockquote>

Sure .. when in Rome, burn Roman candles. If everyone is going to straddle, then you have effectively just changed the game. It is profitable -- for a player who can adjust -- to gamble with the gamblers (you may wish to reread one of the stories in "According to Doyle"). Particularly in a game with many weak players, it is lucrative to be able to work out a strategy on the fly. With a bunch of loose gooses, it's not a good idea to be known as someone who has no gamble in them.

</blockquote>


Very well said. By not straddling you become the killjoy; the guy who doesn't want to gamble at the table, the super-serious guy. As opposed to giving the illusion of action, you've shown the reality of your inaction. Being a guy who only *ever* plays with the best of it might make you respected on internet poker forums and such, but it doesn't do much for you at the table.


<blockquote>

Naturally, since the straddles increases the preflop stakes, this also increases the deviation significantly. While I didn't play as tight as recommended in HPFAP21, I instantly recognized that big pairs went up significantly preflop. Small pairs have almost no value since you will NEVER have the implied odds that you need (in fact, I played so few small-to-medium pairs that I never flopped a set all day).

</blockquote>


Agreed on the big pairs, obviously, and disagree on the small pairs. If 5 players in for 2 bets is the norm, going by the 10-to-1 rule, an average pot size of 22 SB (+ your own contribution) is the break-even point. I'm guessing the average pot size far exceeded that. Even with something like 6 players in for the cap, I think you can show a profit with medium pairs. If it's 6 players in for the cap and many of them have absolute garbage, probably all pairs are playable.


<blockquote>

But just as importantly, big suited connectors aren't as valuable as they intuitively appear. I'm not sure about the precise math on this, but it appears that the effect of large multi-player pots preflop dilutes how much a hand such as A-J suited might be worth.

</blockquote>


This probably depends most on who's in the pot with you. If one of the guys in there firing raises absolutely has AJ destroyed, having merely AJs doesn't do you much good (I think). If people are in there gambling with 97s, any pair, any ace, any two big, why would you not play AJs?


<blockquote>

Squeaky-tight preflop might get the cheese (sans a big negative swing), but I preferred to play off of the players. When certain players were in the pot, I would be more inclined to gamble with big cards (which are definitely not to be recommended in most spots like this). In a pot that may contain $450 preflop, and a good read on the resulting action post-flop, it was often worth the investment on a more speculative hand simply for the opportunity to outplay later in the hand.

</blockquote>


Well said again. No one will argue against the idea that you can peddle the nuts (JJ/AK/AQs and up) and make a good share of money in this kind of a game, but poker should not be looked at from an ROI standpoint but an hourly rate standpoint, unless you are playing with a short bankroll.


One more thing: This crackdown on HTML is really starting to bug me. I really don't like having to use special tags to make a basic blockquote format.

use square brackets instead of "<"

Thanks for your comments. I would hope that S&M would step into this discussion a bit, particularly in regards to the small pairs and hands such as A-J suited.


Implied odds is, roughly speaking, the idea of making a large amount of money late in a hand based on a smaller investment earlier. Clearly, if a pot is jammed preflop, then the investment amount is a larger percentage of the overall investment: if you invest $75 preflop, and make bets of $15, $30, and $30 after the flop, then your implied odds have effectively vanished -- or at least seriously deteriorated. This was the nature of this game.


On the subject of A-J suited (and hands similar), I've normally agreed with the idea that these hands play very well in multi-way pots. But does this apply when the pot size is distorted so dramatically prefop with tamer action postflop? It did not appear to be a valid concept in this game, but that may be anecdotal evidence only.

<blockquote>Implied odds is, roughly speaking, the idea of making a large amount of money late in a hand based on a smaller investment earlier. Clearly, if a pot is jammed preflop, then the investment amount is a larger percentage of the overall investment: if you invest $75 preflop, and make bets of $15, $30, and $30 after the flop, then your implied odds have effectively vanished -- or at least seriously deteriorated. This was the nature of this game. </blockquote>


Right, but there is usually a tendency for there to be heavy post-flop betting/raising if there was serious multi-way jamming pre-flop. Players generally know that they have to get aggressive in big pots and will actually jam drawing thin or nearly dead to your set! For example if you had 99 and the flop came 9-5-2 and you bet, a player holding 77 would surely raise, then some guy holding something like AQ with a backdoor flush draw will call the two cold praying for something on the turn, 87 and 67 will call as well (although they are actually correct to do so), JT and even T8 might hang around, too, and so on. You can see it is not often not difficult at all to make 10 times your preflop investment on the small pair because these guys came into the pot with garbage and now the size of the pot has committed them to drawing with garbage.


Now, if it's a game where the players go buck-wild preflop but are pussycats post-flop, then it is agreed small pairs would deteriorate in value to the point of often being -EV.

Surely this is a table where patience is at a premium.


While hand reading and other skills are definately diminished in this crap shoot type of game, the patience to basically wait out big pairs and AQs or better is a skill that few possess. How many players would sit around calling a cap w/ A8s and wonder why they can't beat this game.


While I agree that it might not be the ideal game for some people, if everyone is palying crap and paying through the nose for it, I don't mind sitting there bored off my ass and waiting out a good hand, showing it down and hoping to win. My hands I go in on will be so much better than the average crap they are playing, I'll get the cheese. Now when I say show down a hand, I don't mean death-gripping every hand till the end, but generally I'd be looking to get to the show down.