As the ante becomes higher and...

higher in a stud game because of the increase limit structure of the game,there should be a point where the ante in relation to the betting size is so large that the game deteriorates into a "crap shoot" or "no peek game".

At what figure would U put this No. (in terms of "% of the small bet")??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

I'll say about 400%.


In practice, I think that the biggest ante you'll find is 25% of the small bet. This is the ante in my local $2/4 game, and it's also the ante at $100/200. With this big ante, the short-term luck factor is pretty large, but it is not going to win out over skill in the long run. I think the ante would have to be absurdly high before the luck factor started winning out over the skill factor. My guess above is 2 BBs, and I'd be very surprised if the real answer were less than one BB. Not that I think there's any way to calculate it. Since the ante is always a fraction of the small bet, I don't think that the game is ever a complete crapshoot. Your assertion below that a game is unbeatable because of a high ante is just plain wrong. As long as the players are bad enough and the rake isn't obscene, any structure is beatable.

that even with a 400% No.,the game is still beatable?

If"yes",let's consider the following:


For a large # of trials,let "M" be the average # of errors that U make and let "N" be the average # of errors that your opponents make.

Let N/M=K.

Do U think there is some kind of positive correlation between "K" and the "% of the small bet" figure or some approximate mathematical relation between the two??

In other words,is "K" a function of the "%of the small bet" #??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

In a 300-600 game... isn't the ante 100?

Tag in AC. In a 300-600 game,the ante is 25.00 and the forced bet is 100.00


The highest game that the floor person was aware of was 2000-4000 with an ante of 500 and a forced bet of 1000.00

So the "% of SB" ante is less than a comparable % in the 10-20 game(I believe it's 1.00)


Now does that mean that one should use approximately the same strategy in playing 300-600 that he uses in playing a 10-20 game?? In other words,is it correct to say that very little adjustment should be made when moving up from 10-20 to 300-600??


Happy pokering,

Sitting Bull

Hello Larry and other posters,

is the number of opponents a REAL important parameter to assess in these "high antes games"?

That is: if the table is almost full (6-7 players) is better to have a tighter (a higher percentage of good opponent' starting hands) or a looser (a lot of money in the pot) approach?


Thanks


Marco

I've been playing lately a fair amount of $40-$80 stud with a $10 ante. In our book SCSFAP-21 we have a chapter on playing in high limit games with a relatively large ante, and a section on playing in loose games. The way I see it both of these apply to the game that I frequently find myself in. What's interesting is that some of the concepts between the two sections will contradict each other which makes this $40-$80 (with a $10 ante) a tough game to play well.


MM

Mason,


I don't have time right now to fully address the messy nature of the 40-80 w/ $10 ante, but I agree 100% that it is a very difficult game to figure out the correct strategy. On the one hand, it seems correct to play more hands, and play them aggressively due to the larger ante but, on the other hand, opponents are less likely to believe your bets and raises, making semi-bluffing more difficult. You are going to have to show more hands in this type of game than in a 15-30 or 30-60 structure.


The real question is, have the opponents underreacted or overreacted to the higher ante? If we can figure that question out, then it will be easier to figure out the best strategy.


I'm very interested in opinions about my above (brief) assertion.

"The real question is, have the opponents underreacted or overreacted to the higher ante?"


My opinion is that most players over react to it.

That's what I would have guessed. And it accounts for a lot of the craziness that goes on in the betting.


In my opinion, small pairs and high cards like KQJ go up in value in that game while 3 suited lose a bit of value because semi-bluff's don't work. Small pairs go up because you will be playing against raisers who have no pair. It's not that live 3 suited is not a good hand, just that it's probably not wise to raise with this type of hand.


I haven't played this limit much at all with this structure, so I'm curious if you agree with my assessment of the game. I haven't played much recently and especially try to avoid such high variance games like 40-80 w/ $10 ante. I'd rather play 30-60 or even 75-150.