The new trend at my casino

some of these folks dont know that.

[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]

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

[felson]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This should only apply in the hands where you actually have posted an ante -- your blinds and straddle.

HPAFP recommends playing tighter in straddled pots.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
(playing looser) should only apply in the hands where you actually have posted an ante -- your blinds and straddle.

HPAFP recommends playing tighter in straddled pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you should be much looser from the blinds. As far as HPFAP's claim that you should play tight facing a straddle, well, the logic given is not convincing. I certainly agree that you can play tight and win, provided you are not forced to straddle yourself.

In this game though, you are forced to straddle, so I'll need more than DS's assertion that tight is right outside the blinds to be convinced.

my 2 cents.
eric

[felson]

I'm not going to try to defend David's argument as I think he may have assumed that you are not also posting a straddle. But I don't understand this comment.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in 7 stud or in NL tournaments when actual antes are used, because the antes create favorable preflop pot odds. But in a straddled game, your pot odds are the exactly the same as they would have been in a non-straddled game (with the minor difference that there are three forced posts in the straddled game). So this is not a reason to play looser.

You should play looser postflop, because the pot is bloated. But that reasoning doesn't apply preflop.

In addition, your implied odds are worse in straddled pots. So starting hand requirements should be slanted towards hands likely to win at showdown and away from implied odds-type hands -- as your K9 example suggests (I wonder whether this is profitable in EP - this would be useful knowledge in shortstacked situations). But I don't see why it would increase the proportion of hands played.

[tessarji]

I agree that the 'tighter facing a straddle' argument is only applicable if you are not also straddling.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
You should play looser postflop, because the pot is bloated. But that reasoning doesn't apply preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, you're right. Perhaps it's only the mix of hands that changes. I'll have to think about it some more.

thanks,
eric

[tessarji]

Eric, thanks for your post.

I used a rather poor choice of words in my strategy post. 'Tighter' is not really what I meant. I agree that your hand selection should be skewed differently as everyone described, but the number of hands will not change much. It will be actually somewhat more hands than before, but a different set.

A 2x straddle is not enough to completely obliviate considerations such as position. So I think my recommendations are in the right neighborhood, but perhaps simulations would show differently. I would definitely not fold a hand like KJo in such a game.

The 50x BB example you described is useful, but in the final analysis (reductio ad absurdum) reduces to a ten handed game with one blind, and no preflop or postflop betting at all. You may call or fold preflop. In such a game, all players play their hands according to strict preflop equity.

K9 would _perhaps_ be a play in that game. According to my simulation, K9s,K9o wins approx 11.8% of the time against 9 random hands. However, in general those who call will hold slightly better than average hands. Some hands are still folds; 32 wins in the neighborhood of 6.5% in that game; T4 wins 7%. So I can't say for sure regarding your proposition.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
The 50x BB example you described is useful, but in the final analysis (reductio ad absurdum) reduces to a ten handed game with one blind, and no preflop or postflop betting at all. You may call or fold preflop. In such a game, all players play their hands according to strict preflop equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it. Great analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
K9 would _perhaps_ be a play in that game. According to my simulation, K9s,K9o wins approx 11.8% of the time against 9 random hands. However, in general those who call will hold slightly better than average hands. Some hands are still folds; 32 wins in the neighborhood of 6.5% in that game; T4 wins 7%. So I can't say for sure regarding your proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about playing K9 from all positions, merely from the button after it's folded to you.

-eric