The new trend at my casino

[Ryno]

Think about high limit stud - the proportionally increasing antes are done to neutralize the advantage of good players so that the game can exist. A forced straddle should have the same effect.

[elindauer]

The antes have gotten larger in relation to the future betting. Therefore, you should play looser.

Winning pots becomes more valuable, so high cards go up in value, and speculative hands like low pairs and suited connectors go down.

This is all just based on Theory of Poker concepts, I have no experience in the game myself.

-eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't even think of it anymore as a straddle, it's just a third blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fine way to look at the problem, but you still must change your strategy significantly as the betting structure is different. The first raise is not double the big blind, for example, it's just to $180 instead of $240. You can expect to get more action on your raises. You'll have fewer opportunities to protect your hand, so you should choose hands that win showdowns often.

-eric

[elindauer]

Hi TStone,

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: after rethinking with the help of tessar's post it occurs to me that playing more hands is actually wrong and tightening up is right. a few reasons for this are as follows:


[/ QUOTE ]

You were right the first time. You should have stuck to your guns. Here's a simple counter-example:

you play in another game with a forced straddle. Instead of being twice the big blind though, you it's for 50x the big blind. How do you play outside the blinds?

Well, it should be clear that when you are in the blind, you're almost always going to showdown no matter what your cards. You'll be getting huge odds to continue at all times, 100:1 to call a pfr, for example.

What about the button? Well, he knows he can't steal, but that doesn't mean he should fold all but his best hands. In fact, virtually any above average hand could be worth a play, since it just has to be a favorite against one random hand, or one random hand + whatever the SB will play but getting 2:1. That's a pretty big range I think.

The CO? Similar concept. Play anything favored at showdown against 1 random hand, 1 random hand + whatever the button plays getting 2:1, 1 random hand + whatever the button plays getting 2:1 + whatever the SB plays getting 3:1... you get the idea.


To sum up, in this structure, I'd argue, without doing any math, that raising K9 and showing it down every time will show a profit. If you were going to tighten up for a straddle, then K9 shouldn't even be remotely playable for a 50x straddle outside the blinds, right?

[ QUOTE ]
-the straddler is getting more odds on his money to make a preflop call when reraised (credit to tessar)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, so you can't steal with nothing. However, you don't have to worry about being bluffed out of the pot either, so your hands tend to win at whatever their preflop equity suggests.

[ QUOTE ]

-your implied odds go down because you are paying more money preflop to win the same amount of bets postflop. this means that preflop equity goes up and postflop equity goes down rewarding good preflop play and reprimanding good postflop play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct. However, this doesn't say much about what "good preflop play" is. It suggests that high cards go up in value, and suited connectors go down. In the 50x example, it's WAY up for high cards, and WAY down for suited connectors. Still, you play a lot of hands.

[ QUOTE ]

-the game will be more aggressive with raises and reraises preflop which dimishes the times you would have been able to see a flop for a limp with suited hands or small pairs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement. However, the starting requirements for those raises probably go down significantly, and you don't have to worry about being bluffed out of the pot with the best hand as often.



Here's another example to show the point: with the extreme big blind, you figure to lose quite a bit of money every time you post this blind. Perhaps 1/3 of that blind is lost every time, right? So you have to make this up when you're not in the blinds. If you play ultra tight, you're not going to get there. You aren't dealt those hands often enough. aces and kings have you folding away 3.3 super bets between occurrences. When you play, nobody else is going to enter, and you'll win, say, 80% of the time. Even this 80% win rate only nets a profit to you of 60% of the straddle amount. To justify this and limit yourself to aces and kings, as the tight-is-right-facing-a-straddle theory suggests, you'd have to believe that you can recover over 95% of the value of the super straddle. No way is this possible.

-eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think of the one guy who says he won't straddle?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he cares more about the money than he does about being liked. I make no value judgment about whether this is good or bad, any more than I'd judge someone for liking apples more than oranges. It is what it is.

-eric

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
most straddles in live games occur on the button, with the straddle having last option.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly:

[ QUOTE ]
Loc: ME NO SABE

[/ QUOTE ]

and FYI, its "yo" and "se"...at least you got "no" correct.

Barron

You're so arrogant. It's funny that you think the spanish that you've either learned or looked up in some dictionary is the same spanish that is spoken here in Texas. I can assure you, Senora Dcifr, esta muchacho blanco sabe spanglish mucho pinche bueno. Yo cultive subir escuchaba hasta spanglish.

And take it from my sister, who, translates english to spanish for McGraw hill publishers in New York, the two are very very different, and, spanglish is much more prevalent than true spanish.

[lapoker17]

Wow.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
most straddles in live games occur on the button, with the straddle having last option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, good old Tex.

[thekiller]

You havent got a clue what youre talking about have u.