April's mini-blind hold 'em

[Phat Mack]

[ 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 ]


Can anyone tell me why a flopped set of fives would hold up more often in a mini-blind game?

[StoneAge]

I was going to post this (and I guess I am still posting it):

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

On another topic-

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

[/ QUOTE ]
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.




But after previewing my post I thought about this:

[ QUOTE ]
. . . 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this-

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

So maybe this means that the player who's starting hands now include 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and flops 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] might stick around to catch his 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Maybe you do win a bigger pot when you win.

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 ]

[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.

[morebets]

This might help clear things up a little.

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.

That being said you guys bring up some good points.

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.

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

[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.