[Phat Mack]

First let me say that I was surprised and pleased to read your article. I had thought this format dead. I've always liked the mini-blind games--they can be very tricky, and very lucrative. At one time, they were much more common. Are they undergoing a resurgance of popularity? Are they being spread in any of the large card rooms? Online?

[ QUOTE ]
The 55 vs. KJ example was actually meant as a comparison between different starting hands within the mini blind game. This section,

[ 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 ]

was intended to show that small/medium pairs can offer a player less volatility and greater returns (than something like KJ) within this structure. Taken in that context, a set should hold up more often and win a bigger pot than top pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I take your point about reducing volatility. A player often has to show down the best hand, sometimes against multiple opponents, and should therefore play hands that can develop into big winners by fifth street, preferably by the flop. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] KJ, if it hits a K and is played as big pair, may win small or lose big. More below.

[ QUOTE ]
1. I'm assuming a MBG where people play as they do, not as they should. Lots of limpers preflop, basic disregard for odds post flop, and people paying little or no attention to others isn't too far from the norm. This is what makes the game worthwhile. In my opinion, if you happen upon a generally tight MBG, just leave. There are plenty of other games to choose from, so why sit in a game with such a small pot/rake ratio.

2. All things being equal, pots in the MBG are smaller when compared to a normal game. Thats just a function of the blind structure.

3. Because the pots are smaller, you'll find fewer opportunities to draw past the flop. Your immediate and effective odds will be comparatively less than in a NG. Your implied odds after the flop are the same in either game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematically, I see your point. All things being equal, there should be less money in the pot due to the smaller blinds.

Generally speaking, I think many players in these games are aware of pot odds-- "sort of." They aren't counting the money in the pot though, they're counting the players. In a good game, since it's cheaper to get in, there will be more players, and since there are more players they will asume they have "pot odds" to keep calling to later streets. You can even hear them say "pot odds" when they call. This can skew the implied odds to favor certain draws, more so than in similarly-populated NG's. It can also lead to bigger pots than NG's.

Currently, the only MBG's that are available to me are a 10-20 and a 20-40, both of them very good; both of them have bigger avg. pots than NG's with similar players. There was a post on RGP a year or two ago, I believe by Speedracer, about an MBG he happened upon in Vegas. It was a 4-8 game populated by locals (in this case, I believe the technical term is nits) who had figured out that they could get a hand for $.30, and were sitting on AA. No action. I agree that these games should be avoided.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The majority of players that I have come across do not adjust their style.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Anytime there's a difference in format, there's an opportunity against players slow, or unable, to adjust.

Thanks again for your article.