[Jim Brier]

It has come to my attention that there was a recent debate on an article I wrote last August for CardPlayer entitled "Blind Structures in $4-$8 Games". I was not aware of this debate because I was out of town and I normally don't follow the low-stakes forum as much as the middle stakes and other forums. Here is my response to some of the specific criticisms:

"Clarkmeister pointed out errors and Jim failed to make the proper edits."

I got more opinions on this article prior to writing it then from any other article I have ever written. Clarkmeister was one of over a dozen succesful low limit players who reviewed this article. While it may not reflect Clarkmeister or Dynasty's opinion, other players (including virtually all of the low limit players in our Wednesday poker discussion group) as well as one of the instructors in the "Poker School On-line" agreed fully with its contents.

"Hand #2: Calling preflop raises from behind. You are in middle position and limp in behind an early player. You have the 9c-8c. The player right next to you raises. It is folded to the early player who calls. What should you do in a $4-$8 game with a $1-$2 blind structure?"

My answer was that you should fold. Apparently, some of you thought this was an easy call. Nonsense. It costs you $2 to limp in and it is now $6 to you with only two opponents. This is the equivalent of calling a double raise from behind since your initial call was only $2 and a raise is $4. Your pot odds are only about 4-to-1.

Note that in a post below, I asked Mason under what conditions would you call a double raise from behind after simply limping in. Dynasty answered that it was correct with a pocket pair but probably wrong with a suited connector like JT suited or a hand like KQ offsuit. Mason stated that this was the correct answer. Well, if this is right, then it seems that Dynasty has contradicted himself by now claiming that it is clearly wrong to fold a suited connector when faced with a double raise and only two opponents.

"The problem I have with Jim's article was that he was creating examples in which the pot odds were just barely enough there for a call in a $2-$4 structure and just barely there for a call in a $1/$2 structure. That creates an extremely misleading perception when you read the article that folding middle pair, gutshots, and turn draws is going to be correct most of the time."

The purpose of the article was to point out the fact that there is a difference in play between a $4-$8 game with a $2-$4 blind structure and one with a $1-$2 blind structure. It would be a mistake to give players the impression that the two structures are the same when they are not. I tried to use examples that highlighted this.

"A $4-$8 game with a $1-$2 blind structure. You are in middle position with the Th-9h and limp in behind an early player. Only the small blind limps. The flop arrives: Ad-Kh-2h giving you a flush draw. The small blind bets and it is folded to you. What do you do?" If you call, the turn is the 3d, your opponent bets, What do you do?"

My answer was that in a $1-$2 blind structure there is only $12 in the pot on the flop and it costs you $4 to call giving you only 3-to-1 pot odds. I would fold because the odds are not there to try to make a flush on the next card and you probably don't have any other outs given the A-K on the table. If you call, on the turn you are faced with a similar situation after a blank arrives. The odds are not there to try to make a flush and a flush figures to be your only way to win given the board.

"I couldn't believe this. The whole point of playing T9 suited is to flop a draw. Then Jim wants to fold for one bet on the flop."

It is the ability to discriminate, not the willingness to generalize that is the operating consideration here. This is a simple pot odds versus drawing odds problem which happens to be very different in a $4-$8 game where players can limp in preflop for only $2 than in a game with a normal structure.

I will be happy to start a new thread and respond to any specific comments.