[Phat Mack]

I was thinking of starting half a dozen threads about this article if there was enough interest, and you've brought up several more interesting points.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a flopped set of 5s would hold up more often- unless people adjusted to the different structure. The pot is smaller on the flop in a $2 game- assuming the same number of people are in, so theoretically you need a better hand/draw to call the flop bet than you would if the blinds were normal. Theoretically you should fold more often on the flop, so a set would get cracked less often by someone who had a hand like the case five against your set of 5s who catches runner runner to his higher kicker.

This is theoretical however, most people don't change their fold frequency on the flop because there is only $10 in the pot on the flop rather than $20.

The biggest adjustment most make in the 1-2 blind game is to play more hands, which might be a good adjustment if they were not already playing crap in the $4 game that they shouldn't even play for $2


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'd have to know whether he was talking about mini-blind games where people play as they do, or mini-blind games where people play as the should (as prescribed by the article). Remember, he is giving examples of a 4-8 game.

If people did increase their fold frequency on the flop, it might not be enough to compensate for the fact that more people see the flop in the first place. Also, if there were increased folds, we'd have to know which hands were being folded. My guess is that the non-threatening hands would drop, and that the draws would stay in there, including the draws that didn't know they were drawing (over-pairs, etc.).

I would find a discussion of the playing of more/fewer hands in M-B games very interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
On another topic-


Quote:

3. Win a larger pot in those instances where you improve.


I don't think that you would not win a larger pot in absolute terms, but a larger amount realitive to your $2 (as opposed to $4) investment.

Your implied odds are simply larger, you should actually win a smaller pot assuming you are playing the same players and they play the same on the flop, turn and river as they would in the regular game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether the pots could be assumed to be bigger in an M-B game might make for another interesting discussion. We'd have to stipulate stakes and players.

When our implied odds are bigger, everybody's implied odds are bigger, and this might pump the pots. Although I think a lot of statements made in the article are worthy of discussion, one thing I immediately agreed with was the concept that these are big-hand games.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way I don't know if 2 and 3 can both be true:


Quote:

In the long run, the fives will

1. Cost less to play (you release almost every time you don't flop a set).

2. Hold up through the river more often when you do flop a set. And

3. Win a larger pot in those instances where you improve.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me neither.