Defending my $4-$8 Article

[Jim Brier]

It has come to my attention that there was a recent debate on an article I wrote last August for CardPlayer entitled "Blind Structures in $4-$8 Games". I was not aware of this debate because I was out of town and I normally don't follow the low-stakes forum as much as the middle stakes and other forums. Here is my response to some of the specific criticisms:

"Clarkmeister pointed out errors and Jim failed to make the proper edits."

I got more opinions on this article prior to writing it then from any other article I have ever written. Clarkmeister was one of over a dozen succesful low limit players who reviewed this article. While it may not reflect Clarkmeister or Dynasty's opinion, other players (including virtually all of the low limit players in our Wednesday poker discussion group) as well as one of the instructors in the "Poker School On-line" agreed fully with its contents.

"Hand #2: Calling preflop raises from behind. You are in middle position and limp in behind an early player. You have the 9c-8c. The player right next to you raises. It is folded to the early player who calls. What should you do in a $4-$8 game with a $1-$2 blind structure?"

My answer was that you should fold. Apparently, some of you thought this was an easy call. Nonsense. It costs you $2 to limp in and it is now $6 to you with only two opponents. This is the equivalent of calling a double raise from behind since your initial call was only $2 and a raise is $4. Your pot odds are only about 4-to-1.

Note that in a post below, I asked Mason under what conditions would you call a double raise from behind after simply limping in. Dynasty answered that it was correct with a pocket pair but probably wrong with a suited connector like JT suited or a hand like KQ offsuit. Mason stated that this was the correct answer. Well, if this is right, then it seems that Dynasty has contradicted himself by now claiming that it is clearly wrong to fold a suited connector when faced with a double raise and only two opponents.

"The problem I have with Jim's article was that he was creating examples in which the pot odds were just barely enough there for a call in a $2-$4 structure and just barely there for a call in a $1/$2 structure. That creates an extremely misleading perception when you read the article that folding middle pair, gutshots, and turn draws is going to be correct most of the time."

The purpose of the article was to point out the fact that there is a difference in play between a $4-$8 game with a $2-$4 blind structure and one with a $1-$2 blind structure. It would be a mistake to give players the impression that the two structures are the same when they are not. I tried to use examples that highlighted this.

"A $4-$8 game with a $1-$2 blind structure. You are in middle position with the Th-9h and limp in behind an early player. Only the small blind limps. The flop arrives: Ad-Kh-2h giving you a flush draw. The small blind bets and it is folded to you. What do you do?" If you call, the turn is the 3d, your opponent bets, What do you do?"

My answer was that in a $1-$2 blind structure there is only $12 in the pot on the flop and it costs you $4 to call giving you only 3-to-1 pot odds. I would fold because the odds are not there to try to make a flush on the next card and you probably don't have any other outs given the A-K on the table. If you call, on the turn you are faced with a similar situation after a blank arrives. The odds are not there to try to make a flush and a flush figures to be your only way to win given the board.

"I couldn't believe this. The whole point of playing T9 suited is to flop a draw. Then Jim wants to fold for one bet on the flop."

It is the ability to discriminate, not the willingness to generalize that is the operating consideration here. This is a simple pot odds versus drawing odds problem which happens to be very different in a $4-$8 game where players can limp in preflop for only $2 than in a game with a normal structure.

I will be happy to start a new thread and respond to any specific comments.

[Munga30]

"It costs you $2 to limp in and it is now $6 to you with only two opponents. This is the equivalent of calling a double raise from behind since your initial call was only $2 and a raise is $4. Your pot odds are only about 4-to-1."

Your reasoning in the 98s hand hinges on this proposition of equivalence. The problem is, it's not. In the 1-2 structure, you're committing 3/4 of a big bet preflop. When you are calling a double raise after limping in a normal structure, you are committing 1.5 big bets. For a hand like 98s, I like the larger implied odds. Granted, it's not the only factor in deciding how to play, but I think it's the source of some of the disagreement between you, Dynasty, and Clarkmeister.

[Ed Miller]

Note that in a post below, I asked Mason under what conditions would you call a double raise from behind after simply limping in. Dynasty answered that it was correct with a pocket pair but probably wrong with a suited connector like JT suited or a hand like KQ offsuit. Mason stated that this was the correct answer. Well, if this is right, then it seems that Dynasty has contradicted himself by now claiming that it is clearly wrong to fold a suited connector when faced with a double raise and only two opponents.

This does not fully follow, as the implied odds are quite different in the two situations. In the situation with the full size blinds, you are calling two SB when you call a double raise. In the situation with the small blinds, you are only calling one SB. Granted, the pot odds are the same, but the implied odds are much more attractive in the latter case. This effect is exactly the same effect as one sees when it is correct to limp for half a bet in the SB, but then fold to a BB raise.

[Jim Brier]

"In the $1-$2 structure you are committing 3/4 of a big bet preflop. In a normal structure you are committing 1.5 big bets"

It is a question of pot odds not "committment of big bets". Under the circumstances outlined, in the $1-$2 game there would be $17 in the pot and it costs you $4 to call so your pot odds are 17-to-4. In a $4-$8 game, if you called for $4 behind an early limper, the next guy raised to $8, another guy made it $12, everyone folded to you including the limper, there would be $34 in the pot and it would cost you $8 so your pot odds are 34-to-8 which is also 17-to-1.

[Jim Brier]

(n/t)

[Jim Brier]

"In the situation with the full size blinds, you are calling two SB when you call a double raise."

In the normal $4-$8 structure, the small blind is $2. When you call a double raise preflop, it is costing you $8 which is four SB or two big blind bets.

"In the situation the situation with the smaller blinds, you are only calling one SB."

In the $1-$2 structure the small blind is $1. When you call a $4 raise, you are calling four small blind bets not one small blind bet. You are calling two big blind bets which is the same amount as in the first case.

"The situation is exactly the same effect as one sees when it is correct to limp for half a bet in the SB, but then fold to a BB raise."

It is not the same at all. The reason the small blind folds in this case, is because a big blind who raises is frequently showing a good hand and the small blind then re-evaluates his situation and decides to fold.

[Jim Brier]

It is true that once you limp in, then in the $1-$2 structure it only costs you 1/2 a big bet to call a raise but in the $2-$4 structure it is costing you one big bet. But in reading Dynasty's criticisms and I did not glean this out of it. You are agreeing that the current pot odds are the same but that the implied odds are better in the $1-$2 blinds. This would support the idea that you could call the $4 raise more often in this case than calling a $8 raise in the other case. But I still question whether it is correct to play under the specific conditions I outlined in my article when you have only two opponents. Dynasty made it sound like you should routinely call the $4 raise just like you would in a normal structure. I don't think this is right because the current pot odds are much worse than calling a single raise.

[bernie]

as far as the flush draw fold...i think i put in how it's the effective odds arent there to call this...as in the example of TOP. wouldnt you agree? i think with the model i put, youd need one more player to call to make this call 'technically' correct....not sure if you saw that response i put there...wondered what you thought...

i also agree on not calling a double bet back if your hand doesnt warrant it...ive been chiming about that lately in a couple threads....youre right..it IS the equivilant of a douvle bet...except arent your implied odds still a little bigger? but maybe not enough to warrant the call....i got that right?

i mean the later bets are still $8 on the turn and river...so couldnt you figure your limping hand should be strong enough to be a 1.5 hand in a 2-4 structure? meaning a different way of looking at it continuity-wise...looking at i that way, it's the same. so calling a raise behind you, you wont necesarily need as strong a hand as if you were putting $8 in total for the round. instead youre putting in $6. not sure if i asked/explained that right....

one more try...(to make sure im asking it right) calling another reraise and putting a total of $8 in (2-4) when the big bets turn to $8, youd need a stronger hand than putting $6 in (1-2) withthe same later limits...differential between early preflop bet size to bets on later rounds...arent your implied odds bigger with the 1-2 structure?

i remember that article well, and started a thread about it awhile back...it was a main point in how some LV 4-8 games differ from games outside of LV and how the plays can be different...

i thought it was a great article myself...

see ya...

b

[bernie]

if in both cases the call is 17-4...wouldnt it be better to call on the 1-2 structure? youre implied odds are higher since the higher bets ($8) are bigger in relation to the preflop action...($6) it's not a double bet in relation to the structure per se...it's only 1.5 sbs....but in relation to your initial limp $2..it's double...i think the implied odds should be weighed a little here....

b

[Robk]

I don't think that folding the heart draw is such a simple problem. I think that you have the implied odds to see the turn. You are getting immediate odds of 3-1 on the call. If your opponent will bet again if the flush draw hits on the turn then you figure to win three more big bets, or $24, don't you, giving you implied odds to make the call??
Flush card hits 9/47 for a profit of 24 + 12 = 36
Flush card misses 38/47 for a profit of -4
EV = 36*(9/47) + -4*(38/47) = 6.9 - 3.2 = 3.7 > 0
If your opponent may check when the flush card turns then it's not so clear. But if he's this timid he'll probably check the turn if you raise the flop. Then,
Flush card hits turn, you'll make 16 + 16 = 32. P=9/47=.19
Flush card misses turn, hits river you'll make 16 + 8 = 24
P = (38/47)*(9/46)= .16
Flush card misses both you'll make -8. P= (38*37/47*46)= .65
EV = 32*(.19) + 24*(.16)+ -8*.65 = 6 + 3.84 - 5.2 = 4.64 > 0
Obviously I made a bunch of simplifying assumptions (this second ev should be much lower mainly because he'll sometimes 3-bet and lead, and sometimes the 4th heart will hit the board) but I think it's still a +ev play.
Someone please set me straight if I'm wrong.