Profitability and Play change with straight 2

[CourtJester]

At the local Indian cardroom, they have only 1/2 and straight 2 (all bets $2). Im doing well at the 1/2 tables as 95% of the people go there just to have fun and lose their $100. The other people go their because they think they're good and will win playing any 2 suited, conected, ace, or 69 and 72 (yay for me). Well ive been considering playing the straight 2 now instead because its just as or even more horrible. The straight 2 tables 50% of the time go to 4 bets 90% of the preflops. So my question is what do i do with a table full of HORRIBLE LAGs (yes the vast majority of them are really horrible i have watched). What do i do with my starting hand req's (I follow SSHE loose for the 1/2 tables). Do I stop playing a lotta hands because i know its likely going to be raised and reraised before it gets back to me half the time, or do i play kinda the same because the pot or implied odds are mostly there. Also in hands like Axs when the flop comes 1 of my suit am i pretty much tied to the pot when its already 20-30 bets and ill make infinite more bets if i get my runners. Im just wondering if i should get a little tighter or just play the same i would at 1/2. Any other insights would help a lot. Thanks 2+2

[MrWookie47]

I haven't considered all of the implications of playing in a straight blind structure, but I did read one thing. I don't remember who exactly (CDC, perhaps) posted a thread in a different forum here where he he had people debate which was the optimal betting structure for AKo. The optimal one, he argued, was the straight structure, like your striaght 2. The reason for this is that that structure killed the implied odds for hands like 98s. The straight strcuture is like forcing speculative hands to call two cold preflop and then still be profitable. Consequently, if you're thinking about moving over to the straight table, I'd play tighter initially. Fewer if any speculative hands. My first inclination would be to play most pocket pairs for one bet in mid to late position, and then go looking for hands that have good high card strength. Premium holdings are going to be even more valuable because the bets are large when they have the biggest edge.

The problem is that there will be no such thing as hand protection postflop. Waiting until the turn to raise isn't going to be a factor and will only cost you money. Also, even though your opponents will have made tremendous mistakes preflop by coming in with their 65o, they'll have odds to call with just about anything on the turn. You'll have a lot of people who can rightly stick around for their gutshot or low pair draws.

If I'm mistaken about any of this, hopefully someone will correct me, so I don't lead you astray.

[UncleSalty]

Your opponents’ starting hand requirements might not be as far off as you think. Remember, starting hand strength is evaluated along three dimensions. (High card strength, Suitedness, and Connectedness.) In a game where the PF bets and Flop bets are the same size as the Turn and River bets, suitedness and connectedness will go up significantly in value. This is because you will be able to MUCH more effectively exploit an equity edge when you flop a strong draw in a multi-handed pot. Colorado has a similar straight betting structure, and I make the following adjustments when playing live:

1. Tighten up your early position requirements for unsuited hands. I generally will only play AK, AQ, AJ, and KQ from up front if they’re not suited, and will almost always play them for a raise to try and thin the field.

2. Play suited and connected hands more liberally from late position when there are several limpers ahead of you. (Which, if your game is like the ones in Blackhawk, will be almost every hand.) I will play suited 2 and 3 gap connectors much more often than in a structured game online, because your EV is higher when you flop a good draw. (Higher implied odds than in structured.)

You will still make most of your money from TPTK or TPGK hands, and your variance will go up because so many players are chasing draws. (Often, rightly so.) But, when you flop a strong draw like a 4-flush or OESD, it’s doubly important that you are getting as many bets in on the flop as you possibly can.

Good luck!

[MrWookie47]

So, OP got two opposite responses. Hmmm.

While there's a possibility I'm mistaken, I radically disagree with you when you say that your implied odds are better in a straight structure than with a typical structure. Suited connectors get their value from the big streets. That's typically when you hit your hand. Even a hand like JTs is a dog to A2o preflop, but most here people will play JTs and not A2o. JTs has to hit a huge flop or a good draw, and occasionally takes down a pot with top pair in a full ring game. If you flop a draw, however, you can only get paid off half as well if you hit relative to the big streets.

OTOH, a hand like JJ has a huge equity edge preflop against the vast majority of hands, but its edge can rapidly decrease on later streets. It will benefit more from the flat structure since it can get more money into the pot when its edge is largest. JTs prefers a typical structure so it can see the flop cheaply, and then either get out, or strike it huge.

I'm curious for your thoughts if you think I'm mistaken and want to hear your arguments so that I can revise my own.

[UncleSalty]

Well now I'm just confused. I've never considered the PF bet being similar to "calling 2 cold" for a speculative hand, but I think that argument has merit. I guess the question comes down to how much money you will get into the pot when you flop a strong draw vs. the extra money you have to put in PF every time.

I don't know if I agree that speculative hands make their money on the big streets. Obviously drawing hands are made on the turn and river, but the profit once they hit comes from the bets going in on the flop. Intuitively I have to believe that the increased flop bet size increases the overall EV of these hands, and more than makes up for the increased cost of playing them PF.

I'll have to think about this some more and do a better analysis when I get home from work. In the mean time, I'd love to hear comments from others. And, if you could find that post you mentioned, I'd love to read it.

[i]Edit: I should mention that the Colorado game I play is 2/5 spread limit, not straight 5. It has a single $2 blind and all bets can be between $2 and $5 on all streets, but generally this means that all bets on and after the flop end up being in $5 increments. This significantly affects my analysis because I wasn't considering having to pay $5 PF with weak speculative hands. (In my game you can often limp in for only $2.) I'm still not convinced that the exra PF hurdle makes these hands unplayable, but it certainly means that my strategy for Colorado $2/$5 is not necessarily correct for straight $2.

[MrWookie47]

When you flop a flush draw, your equity is roughly 35%. In a 3 way pot, that's a 2% edge, 4-way, a 10% edge. Now, I think that means that your EV for flop bets is equal to the amount of money that everyone puts in scaled by your equity edge (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do know that if you have 0 equity edge, then your EV on additional money going into the pot is 0 EV, but high variance). Thus, if you cap the flop 4 ways with a nut flush draw, that's a an EV for you of 10%*16 SB = +1.6 SB. Personally, I'd rather focus on getting BB in when I have roughly 100% equity after I hit my draw. Getting one BB in on the river when I hit has a higher EV than capping the flop 4 ways.

Edited to add: However, if you're in the straight structure, getting one one bet called on the river has a lower EV than capping the flop.

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting one BB in on the river when I hit has a higher EV than capping the flop 4 ways.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point, and pretty much proves my theory wrong. I will need to re-evaluate my strategy when I play live.

NH.

[i]Edit to say I missed your edit. BAH! Someone just give me the damn answer!!!

[MrWookie47]

The point of my edit was to further my argument, not to confuse the issue more. I should have added a few more sentences.

I was trying to compare the EV for typical and straight limits, not to argue that capping the flop in either case was right or wrong. In a typical structure, the EV when you hit is so much bigger than straight structure. The payoff for hitting in the straight structure is comparable to the payoff for capping the flop, and you don't even have a hand then. However, for a typical structure, you get paid off very well when you hit, more than making up for the equity deficit you have when you limp in with 98s and your opponents are packing, say, A2o, KJo, and 55.

What this also means is that if, for some odd reason, you're ever at a table that has something wonky like a 1-1-4-4, a 1-1-3-5 or a 1-2-3-4 structure, suited connectors go way up in value because of how cheaply you can see the flop relative to how well you can get paid off when you hit. It's like completing in the SB. You could probably even cold call preflop with some of these now, since cold calling still is about half a BB. If you're devious and underhanded, you could try implementing a system like this at a home game and seeing if your poker buddies can make the proper adjustments before you take all their money.

[UncleSalty]

Ok, I'm with you now. I think the general root of my confusion was that my $2/$5 spread games in Colorado are really much more like the "low entry fee" games you describe. The strategy I described for those games really doesn't apply to a straight $2 game.

I'm changing my advice to OP: STICK W/ THE $1/$2 GAME. THIS ONE IS TOO DAMN CONFUSING. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[MrWookie47]

Yeah, now that I read your edit about your 2-5 spread game, limping in with suited connectors is great. A structure of 2-5-5-5 is A-OK, since on the flop, you'll either flop a strong draw, or you won't. You can see the flop on the cheap, and get paid off big if you hit.