$4/8 with 1/2 blinds? Structure and strategy Questions

[SofaCoach]

I've heard that the $4/8 games at the Bellagio and Mandalay Bay have a 1/2 blind structure and I have a few questions before I go...

1) First is this correct?

2) So if there is no raise, do subsequent players have to call the $2 big blind or pay $4 small bet to see the flop?

3) If it's just $2 to see the flop I would think there would be ALOT of limping.

3b) If the above is true it'd be wise to raise PF alot to charge the weak limpers?

4) TPTK type hands in this game not as valuable?

[Iplaydrunk]

Cardplayer article by Jim Brier
This is a good article about strategy differences in $1/2 and $2/4 blinds in a $4/8 game. I have played in these games on trips to Vegas and it seems the games appeal to locals who like to limp in for half price with suited connectors or any pocket pair hoping to make a jackpot hand.

[Barry]

The Bellagio 4/8 has a standard 2/4 blind structure. MB has the "mini-blind" structure.

Obviously, since you can see the flop for as little as $2 in the miniblind game, your implied odds are much improved. If the table is passive, as it normally is, you can play a lot more hands.

[Rumbles]

For those who don't care to read the article, it seems that the most significant factor is that you are getting much worse odds on your draws, since not as much money went into the pot PF.

Also, if you limp PF, and it is raised, it could be correct to fold to the raise (getting a much worse price on your money).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If the table is passive, as it normally is, you can play a lot more hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about that. Theory of Poker talks about poker being a battle for the blinds (or antes.) When the blinds are relatively small you should play tighter. I think the idea is that you shouldn't put in more money to win less money. When the blinds/antes are large you should play looser.

[midas]

Sofa:

I played about 25+ hrs of 1/2 4-8 at MB and Monte Carlo about 3 weeks ago - articles and book theory aside - these are my observations.

1. People play much more looser for a $2 call - anything suited or any connectors are usually limping. Ace-off and King-off with weak kickers also routinely limped.

2. Raising (another $4) rarely got the limpers to fold PF, reraising usually caused the tighter locals to fold long-shot drawing hands.

3. The SB will play any 2 cards for the extra $1 to see the flop.

4. The only shot of winning TPTK in this game is heads-up on the river.

This game can be extremely profitable or extremely frustrating - it reminded me of the 2-4 games at Foxwoods. I thought the 6-12 game at the Mirage was more fun and straightforward.

[Lost Wages]

The ratio of the blinds to the amount that you have to call is the same as it is in a standard structure.

Lost Wages

[Lost Wages]

it seems that the most significant factor is that you are getting much worse odds on your draws, since not as much money went into the pot PF.

Yea, he used about five examples when he could have just said, "double check your pot odds because the pots will be smaller than you are used to."

FWIW, I thought the article was terrible. His advice to fold a gutshot to the pure nuts on the flop against 4 opponents, getting 7:1, closing the action and having ideal position relative to the bettor is just horrible.

Lost Wages

[elwoodblues]

I see what you're saying, but because of the betting structure a raise pre-flop in both a standard game and the one described is not the same ratio.

To put it to another extreme say it is a $1000 no limit game with .01/.02 blinds. The ratio is still the same as if the blinds were 4/8. That being said, you are fighting over (with the antes/blinds) an amount that is significantly less than the total pot size after all betting rounds.

I very well might be thinking about this incorrectly, any insights would be interesting to hear.

[Lost Wages]

because of the betting structure a raise pre-flop in both a standard game and the one described is not the same ratio.

You are correct. That's why the first poster specified that the game needs to be passive. If you are likely to get raised then that is another matter.

say it is a $1000 no limit game with .01/.02 blinds. The ratio is still the same as if the blinds were 4/8.

I think perhaps you misunderstand. It is not the ratio of the blinds relative to each other, but rather the ratio of the amount of money to start the pot (be it blinds or antes) relative to the amount that you have to put in to continue. If the blinds were .01/.02 but it cost you $4 to limp in then there would be no reason to play at all.

...you are fighting over (with the antes/blinds) an amount that is significantly less than the total pot size after all betting rounds.

What you say is true but, clearly, if you could see the flop for $.01 against poor opponents in a $1000 NL game you would be foolish not to do so with any two cards.

Lost Wages