This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

There have been a number of posts over the years in which people have said that you have to adjust for the big ante in this game or the small ante in that game. No one, however, seems to be willing or able to quantify this adjustment. I have maintained all along that the adjustments needed are pretty subtle and will attempt to back that assertion here.

There are basically four kinds of playable hands:

Rolled-up trips
Three-card flushes
Three-card straights
Pairs

With rolled-up trips, you're going to play every time. Well, someone posted a hand several years ago where he folded rolled-up trips on third street, but I'm guessing that no one reading this has ever even considered folding rolled-up trips on third. Your decision to play this hand is independent of the ante structure. How you play this hand is dependent mostly on game conditions, not on the ante structure. If the game is loose, you should be raising early and often. If it's tight, you should probably wait until fifth or sixth street to pull the trigger. This is true whether the ante is big or small.

With three-card straights and flushes, if your cards are live, you're going to play for at least the bring-in, probably for one bet, and maybe for two bets. This has little to do with the ante structure. These hands are dependent upon implied odds, which are not closely tied to the ante structure.

That leaves us with pairs. Even here, I don't think that you're going to adjust much from one structure to another. You have Aces, you raise. Maybe you slow-play big pairs in a tight, no-ante game, but in most games, you're best off raising right away.

You have (J8)8 and the bring-in is on your immediate left. He gets called by a Q, a 7, and a 4. You're last to act. You're calling whether this is a standard $75/150 game or a standard $5/10 game, right? The difference in structure doesn't change your decision.

You have (QQ)8. Low card brings it in, two players fold, an Ace completes, and it's on you. What do you do? If it's ol' Max who always has it, you quietly fold and never let anyone know that you're capable of folding a big pair. If the player is loose and aggressive, you raise in the hopes of getting it heads-up. Again, you'll do this whether it's $10/20 or $75/150.

Now it might well be true that the Ace is more likely to be on a steal at $75/150 than at $10/20, and that is in part a function of the ante structure. The point I'm trying to make is that your reaction to this scenario is not a function of the ante structure, but of your particular opponent. If it's ol' Max, you react one way, and if it's a loose-aggressive guy, you react another way.

This is by no means exhaustive. Those of you who maintain that there are huge adjustments to be made between high-ante and low-ante games should be able to come up with lots of distinct counterexamples. If you are not, please stop talking about all these huge adjustments that need to be made between the two games.

I maintain that if you win, say 3BB/100 at a $1/2 game with a $.10 ante and then move to a $1/2 game with a $.25 ante and make no adjustments, you will still be a significant winner in the high-ante game. And the reverse is true as well.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

The key thing about high ante structures as i see them is not with the superior hands but with the medicore hands.

if you are playing in a $40/$80 game with a $10 ante, you are practically forced to play any pair, any flush any strt, regardless of the strenth of that holding. You cannot sit and wait for premium hands casue the antes will eat you up.

in a tight structure, if i have a pair or jacks with a 4 kicker, no matching suits and a king in early position raises, i am likely gonna fold this hand in a $1 ante 10/20 or a $2 ante $15/30, but in the $40/80 game i will have to call there. One doesn't have the luxury to lay down the hand in this game.

There are countless more medocre hands than solid hands that one gets. And in this $40/80 game, one needs to pretty much be calling all of them, but in the $10/$20 game, it is likely best to fold most of these medicocre holdings.

So as described above, doesn't this say to you that big adjustments are required, especially on 3rd?

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have (QQ)8. Low card brings it in, two players fold, an Ace completes, and it's on you. What do you do? If it's ol' Max who always has it, you quietly fold and never let anyone know that you're capable of folding a big pair. If the player is loose and aggressive, you raise in the hopes of getting it heads-up. Again, you'll do this whether it's $10/20 or $75/150.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think an instant fold would be wrong here (against ol' Max). if you see another ace (or aces) is/are dead, and you have live queens and eights, especially with a two-flush i don't think seeing 4th street would be wrong here. or maybe i'm way off?

i've never played in a 20/40 game or 75/150 game so if i made a bad deduction please forgive me.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.

Ante structure determines the starting pot size.

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)

In other words, ante structure is the critical factor in determing how to play any kind of mediocre hand in a stud game.

To be more specific here are three common scenarios:

1. When you have a hand that is mediocre relative to the board.

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).

With a small ante structure you should definitely just fold. With something like a 30-60 structure you might want to limp.

With a Bellagio 300-600 structure, where you will be getting 7:3 or 2.33:1 you have no choice but to complete.

2. When you have total garbage but a scarecard in the door.

Same scenario as above but you have (7s2c)Ad, four cards remaining behind you, and no aces exposed.

Again you should fold in a small or moderate ante game, imo. In a Bellagio 300-600 structure game you may have to complete purely for your steal equity.

3. When you are facing someone in any kind of semi-steal position and you would be incorrect to play versus the holding they are 'representing'.

Say you have (45)4 and a T raises into you, a J, and a deuce bring-in.

Because the T's distribution should be greatly influenced by the ante structure in small ante game you fold without hesitation. In 30-60 you probably still fold. In the 200-400 again you are probably forced to play.

Note that I have not even mentioned the effect of the increased pot size on 4th and beyond.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Having actually read your post now I think the reason you do not perceive the importance of ante structure is that you are probably playing in games that are too loose for steal equity to be a significant factor in your decisions.

Take your comment about the value of draws being in their implied odds. In a low ante game or a game where you will rarely take down the pot on 3rd street your statement is true.

In a reasonably tight game or a high ante game, when you are in a pretty good steal position (e.g. only one upcard behind you and none of your doorcard duplicated), the steal equity of your hand greatly outweighs implied odds.

Likewise in a high ante game if you are last to act before the bring-in and the person to your immediate completes with a K up, you should be reraising with something like (56)7 if your upcard is unduplicated. Again your immediate resteal equity greatly outweighs the improved implied odds you would get by flat-calling.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

I do not think you have to make major adjustments, but little weaknesses in your 4th and 5th street play will eat you up. For some reason players think you have to play more hands, thus you are rarely have HU action. You have to be right on top of your handreading skills in order to max on other players looseness and/or fishy play.

Another item is game selection. With higher antes, your cost is greater, thus you need to have the fish plus weak/tight players. I find playing against aggressive semi-loose players in high ante games to be difficult, especially 2 players who play like "ONTHERAGG". One is fine, but 2 can be a problem. In low antes situations, the whole table could be "ONTHERAGG" types, I could care less. My cost is low, I can relax and just wait. If I miss an exposed card, no big deal. But the higher the cost, you can't miss things. The need to play against players who are easy to read and/or passive is critical for a winning % in high ante games.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

No clue what changes should be made in a Stud game, but in Stud 8 I play a lot more hands at 30/60 than 10/20. 30/60 I steal antes way more often and with pretty much pure steal hands with no useful prospects once I get action that are worthless IMO at 10/20 since successful steals don't give so much back. I also try to play all my split/buried small pair with a 1 gap/no gap connector and quite a few buried small pair small kicker, and my 22-66 A kicker. I fold all of those at 10/20 except steal or in multiway limped pots. I'm also more likely to come in with 8 low gutshot type hands.

I make similar adjustments for Razz. 10/20 I basically don't bother defending 2 card hands ever. On any FTP game or Stars 30 I defend more/steal more and play looser in EP. I'm also more likely to complete any hand I play since the pot is already decent size on 4th for the opponent's peeling not be a horrible play when I limp, so I may as well build the pot while I think I'm ahead. At 10/20 the pot is tiny so their peel is bad, so I open limp in EP everything I'm going to play.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

This is good. Basically I open wider in the back, and loosen up raises vs steal positions with legitimate hands, and defend BI vs steals a little more. I don't think you should be loosening your calling standards in middle or late position, or loosening your bi vs any nonsteal position.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are basically four kinds of playable hands:

Rolled-up trips
Three-card flushes
Three-card straights
Pairs

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the premise of the thread is an excellent one for discussion on thoughts for differnt ways of playing the game. I disagree with only those hands being playable.

Wise men like Ray have said that, if you start from the foundation of believing in the TAG way, the amount of hands you play starts to correspond with the degree of your believed improvement. The better you think you are, the more hands you start playing. It's said that for most it's -EV. Hence his excellent "The 3 stages of a poker player".

I think that belief is much less the case in stud than in holdem. The reason being the odds for chasing in stud are much better and therefore better players are able to play a wider range of marginal hands for profit.

I've found that MM nailed it when he said you can be a winner at stud but the variance is beyond ridiculous. I believe that in games full of bad players, very good stud players can play many more hands that those listed above. It's impossible to try and list what they are. I just believe the pot odds lay a price that leaves the good player a pretty wide range of hands to play against the right opponenets in the right spots.

It's not necessarily a case of outplaying them directly. Rather it's playing your marginal hand in the right spots better than they do.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
There have been a number of posts over the years in which people have said that you have to adjust for the big ante in this game or the small ante in that game. No one, however, seems to be willing or able to quantify this adjustment. I have maintained all along that the adjustments needed are pretty subtle and will attempt to back that assertion here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy is correct when it comes to the core of the game. The ante size does however influence the optimal stealing frequency in all stud format games.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've found that MM nailed it when he said you can be a winner at stud but the variance is beyond ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement i've read is mostly applicable to the higher limit games, where you don't even average 1 big bet per hour.

in the smaller games you don't need to be playing marginal hands to make considerable profit.

the more marginal hands you play, the larger your variance. in the smaller games there isn't much incentive to play a (Ks-Qs)4c, because you're not giving up much when you'll do quite well just waiting for higher quality hands. in a 75-150 game that fraction of a bet you're giving up is magnified, where as you'de pass on it in a smaller game. obviously, that'll increase your variance.

playing is a style with bigger upswings AND downswings (as long as you play well) will win more money in the long run than a tighter style but that tigher style won't have those huge downswings.

i'm skeptical of those players in the $1-$2 games online here saying they are suffering 300 big bet downswings because i'm thinking something is VERY wrong, and they have major leaks. in a small game like that, i think a 100 big bet like that should prompt you to question what's going on - if you're a serious player.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
that statement i've read is mostly applicable to the higher limit games, where you don't even average 1 big bet per hour.

in the smaller games you don't need to be playing marginal hands to make considerable profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

What limits do you play and is it mostly live or online?

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
What limits do you play and is it mostly live or online?

[/ QUOTE ]

$1-$3 spread limit, $1 bring in with a 50 cent ante @ Foxwoods.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Andy, thanks for the interesting post!

As far as trying to steal the antes, it seems there are two forces at work that may cancel themselves off to some degree. In the higher limit games, the antes are bigger. So it seems like it pays to try to steal them because you don't need as high a success rate to make the steal worthwhile. This factor increases the amount you should steal.

But at the same time, most players understand the pots are bigger and it is more worthwhile to play on. They also probably understand others are more eager to steal the antes. These factors makes it less worthwhile to try to steal the antes since it is more likely the stealer will get called.

The relevant questions to answer (which I don't have the answers due to my inexperience) seem to be:
Which factor is stronger?
How do different players adjust their play based on the antes?

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you are playing in a $40/$80 game with a $10 ante, you are practically forced to play any pair, any flush any strt, regardless of the strenth of that holding. You cannot sit and wait for premium hands casue the antes will eat you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is probably an issue of semantics. However, I do not see it as a matter of "antes will eat you up". Instead, it is more of a matter of playing more hands because they are positive EV due to the bigger starting pot. Those same hands with a smaller pot to begin with (smaller antes) may not be positive EV in the lower limits.

Playing more hands does not necessarily solve the problem of the antes you lose on the hands you don't play. Otherwise, one would say to play every single hand, then you don't have to worry about losing any antes. So I'd like to look at it in terms of playing more hands in the higher limits because the pot is bigger and the EV is there to make it right to do so.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]


Andy is correct when it comes to the core of the game. The ante size does however influence the optimal stealing frequency in all stud format games.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Which in turn requires that you adjust your willingness to call with small pairs against an apparent steal, and voila - you've had to adjust to the new structure and aren't playing at all like you were before.

In other words, both you and Andy are completely wrong. have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Some more thoughts on ante. Different stud games have different ante, and often I"ll hear phrases like high ante, or low ante, or med ante. To be honest I haven't seen any official chart that labels what structure as high or low, and it may be quite large to take into effect EVERY structure.

Ante itself is related to the Bring-in. However different structures sometimes alter the size of the Bring-in which also has its effects.

I wonder, is there such a variable as an Ante Factor? Some sort of mathematical function that takes into effect the size of the ante PLUS bring-in to give a constant value? Thus instead of saying... I'm playing a mid-to-high ante game.. and leaving someone to wonder, you could say I'm playing a 4.8 ante game.

If such a thing already has been worked out and exists in print then I've missed it as I just have not come across this in literature common.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you are playing in a $40/$80 game with a $10 ante, you are practically forced to play any pair, any flush any strt, regardless of the strenth of that holding. You cannot sit and wait for premium hands casue the antes will eat you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play that way in a $40/80 game, you're going to get eaten up by more than the antes. If you really play as you suggest, then yes, this is a big adjustment from my usual strategy. I am suggesting that the necessary adjustments are less extreme.

Even in the high-ante game, if the King is held by a very straightforward player, you're probably best off folding (J4)J. The $90 initial pot does not justify risking $320 or so when you're almost a 2:1 dog.

It's true that a $40/80 player is a lot less likely to be that straightforward. Against many of those folks, (J4)J is going to be strong enough that you should at least call the $40. But even in a $10/20 game, if a loose, wild player raises with a King door card, you're going to play against him as well. So whether or not you play when the bigger door card raises depends heavily on how likely it is that the other guy is raising light. This is not completely unrelated to the ante size, of course, but most of your decisions are going to be the same whether the ante is $5 or $10.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Aces are live, you don't have a two-flush, and Max always has it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

The reference to "ante structure" is a little misleading, as there is another (I think more significant) aspect to the structure: the ratio of bring-in to complete bet.

Let's discuss two structures: Game A is the $10-$20 from the pokerroom skins and game B is the $15-$30 on Full Tilt.

Game A has an ante of $1, a bring-in of $5 and a complete small bet of $10. Game B has an ante of $3, a bring-in of $5 and a complete small bet of $15. Look at the various Third street odds being offered in each game:

Game A
First-in limp: 2.6:1
First Overlimp: 3.6:1
Cold-call a completion: 2.3:1
Bring-in Defense: 4.6:1

Game B
First-in limp: 5.9:1
First Overlimp: 6.8:1
Cold-call a completion: 2.8:1
Bring-in Defense: 4.4:1

Notice that game A should be played generally tighter than game B, but the huge range of odds offered in game B means that limping loosely is correct, but cold-calling less so. Notice also that the thinning effect of a completion (degree of decrease in odds for a cold-caller) is less pronounced in game A. Also notice the "telescoping" of odds in game B, such that despite the "ante" structure being "looser," the odds offered on a bring-in defense are actually worse than in the "Tighter" game A.

The structure also dictates some strategic Third-street differences between the two games. In game B, raising and re-raising to kick players out of the hand on Third will have a greater effect, and should be done liberally. In game A, if starting hand selection is generally tighter, calling such raises will not necessarily be a mistake, so raises should sometimes be reserved for later streets, and calling raises yourself should be considered more liberally once you have chosen to enter a pot.

The odds being offered to a bring-in defense are effectively the same, so the tendency to defend more liberally in the "looser" structure must be avoided.

Game A requires a generally tight Third street strategy but if a hand meets these "tight" criteria, it is probably good enough to cold-call with as well. In game B, there are lots of hands that are good enough to limp with but must be folded facing a completion, and even more hands that can limp last into a multi-way pot.

Game A actually rewards tight-passive play on Third, while game B rewards limp-loose/raise-tight/aggressive play on Third.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

I find it somewhat incredible that you wrote a fairly substantial response, apparently before reading my initial post. I don't know whether to be insulted or amused. I choose to be amused.

You are correct that I am unaccustomed to playing in stud games where stealing is an important factor. I have been very successful in avoiding such games. Thing is, most of the folks who post here are also unaccustomed to such games. Jeffage plays about as high as anyone who posts here regularly. Many of his $75/150 opponents are loose/passive. Now some online games are on the tight side, so stealing is more of a factor. A lot of the people who say you have to make these huge adjustments aren't playing these tight games, either.

Party doesn't welcome American players anymore, but people used to say that you had play pretty much everything in the $.50/1.00 game because of the $.25 ante. While you probably should loosen up some, the bottom line is that you're going to have to show down the best hand in order to win. As you suggest, part of the reason that you shouldn't go overboard when it comes to loosening up is that you don't have any steal equity in that game.

Bellagio's $300/600 game has a $75 ante? I deduced that from your odds figures, but please do spell that out for the benefit of the people who have never played in that game, which I'm guessing is everyone on this board except perhaps you.

[ QUOTE ]
Say you have (45)4 and a T raises into you, a J, and a deuce bring-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is still a fold in a $200/400 game. That the Ten is raising into a higher up-card suggests that there is a better-than-usual chance that he has the goods. I also don't agree with your assertion that you should open with this hand in middle position in the $300/600 Bellagio game.

I find it a little hard to believe that it's correct to raise with 765 against a possible stealer. Is it common for people to complete and then fold to a raise? If he doesn't fold third, then you're hoping he folds fifth. You'll have invested quite a bit of money by then. The risk/reward ratio doesn't strike me as favorable, but I don't play these games.

Right or wrong, I raise in late position with (72)A in a $10/20 game unless the bring-in is very loose.

Good posts. This was actually more substantial than I was expecting.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Yes the Bellagio 3-6 has a $75 ante.

As for your specific points of disagreement I don't care to argue them further, but this is what it boils down to:

In one game you are getting 2.33:1 on a steal (Bellagio 3-6).

In the other you are getting 1.3:1 (the Pokeroom 10-20 someone mentioned).

I don't see how anyone who understands gambling can deny that this plainly has a big impact on optimal* 3rd street play.

*(Optimal play is the critical point here. If people are playing significantly too loose then it no longer makes sense to speak of optimal play).

Also my comment about actually reading your post meant that the first time I just skimmed it briefly because I knew from your topic sentence exactly what my answer would be.

Oh and one final thing. Even if everyone is playing in loose games steal equity always becomes significant on occasion - when everyone has folded to you in a late position.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a point. Ante structure is a strong factor in optimal 3rd street play. Excluding stealing and defending against stealing, Andy B pretty much summed it up well. The structure of the game doesn't shift very many hands into playable vs not playable. It has a greater effect on which hands you prefer to limp with or complete with on third, and whether you raise someone or just call if they complete. I don't think that ante structure has a huge effect on the number of hands you play outside of stealing situations, and I think some people are vastly overestimating what percentage of one's profits come from steals.

[ QUOTE ]

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of "steal equity"? I can't think of one that doesn't involve the calling ranges of people left to act. Starting pot size is one factor, but it isn't the sole factor.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this further?

[ QUOTE ]

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).


[/ QUOTE ]

That you need to assume generic solid opponents just helps prove Andy B's point that the particular players in your game is an important variable.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a point. Ante structure is a strong factor in optimal 3rd street play. Excluding stealing and defending against stealing, Andy B pretty much summed it up well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are excluding two very common and very important situations, especially in tough or short-handed games.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of "steal equity"? I can't think of one that doesn't involve the calling ranges of people left to act. Starting pot size is one factor, but it isn't the sole factor.



[/ QUOTE ]

Your steal equity is a function of how big the pot is and how often you will steal. If you are getting 2.33:1 and you will steal 35% of the time, your immediate steal equity is .17 small bets.

How often you will steal, again assuming optimal opponents, is itself a function of pot size. So there is a tendency for pot size to both increase and reduce your steal equity. However the former effect trumps the latter. (I.e. you should steal more rather than less when the pot is larger.)

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this further?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a high ante game you have a much bigger incentive to play a marginal hand rather than fold it, and if you are going to play it you have a much bigger incentive to try to steal rather than just limp.

Even with a strong draw like 9s8s7s it steal may be more profitable to complete and try to steal rather than limp and maximize your implied odds, if the ante is big enough.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).


[/ QUOTE ]

That you need to assume generic solid opponents just helps prove Andy B's point that the particular players in your game is an important variable.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point that the particular players in the game are important is completely self-evident. Everyone knows that. It was never in contention.

The question is what the impact of the ante is. To illustrate that point we must hold the quality of the players constant.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]


In other words, both you and Andy are completely wrong. have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

and I wonder why this forum is going down hill........

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reference to "ante structure" is a little misleading, as there is another (I think more significant) aspect to the structure: the ratio of bring-in to complete bet.

Let's discuss two structures: Game A is the $10-$20 from the pokerroom skins and game B is the $15-$30 on Full Tilt.

Game A has an ante of $1, a bring-in of $5 and a complete small bet of $10. Game B has an ante of $3, a bring-in of $5 and a complete small bet of $15. Look at the various Third street odds being offered in each game:

Game A
First-in limp: 2.6:1
First Overlimp: 3.6:1
Cold-call a completion: 2.3:1
Bring-in Defense: 4.6:1

Game B
First-in limp: 5.9:1
First Overlimp: 6.8:1
Cold-call a completion: 2.8:1
Bring-in Defense: 4.4:1

Notice that game A should be played generally tighter than game B, but the huge range of odds offered in game B means that limping loosely is correct, but cold-calling less so. Notice also that the thinning effect of a completion (degree of decrease in odds for a cold-caller) is less pronounced in game A. Also notice the "telescoping" of odds in game B, such that despite the "ante" structure being "looser," the odds offered on a bring-in defense are actually worse than in the "Tighter" game A.

The structure also dictates some strategic Third-street differences between the two games. In game B, raising and re-raising to kick players out of the hand on Third will have a greater effect, and should be done liberally. In game A, if starting hand selection is generally tighter, calling such raises will not necessarily be a mistake, so raises should sometimes be reserved for later streets, and calling raises yourself should be considered more liberally once you have chosen to enter a pot.

The odds being offered to a bring-in defense are effectively the same, so the tendency to defend more liberally in the "looser" structure must be avoided.

Game A requires a generally tight Third street strategy but if a hand meets these "tight" criteria, it is probably good enough to cold-call with as well. In game B, there are lots of hands that are good enough to limp with but must be folded facing a completion, and even more hands that can limp last into a multi-way pot.

Game A actually rewards tight-passive play on Third, while game B rewards limp-loose/raise-tight/aggressive play on Third.

[/ QUOTE ]

Red I think you've found your chart, or at least a very good starting point for the upper and lower bounds. Steve makes an excellent point that we shouldn't FORGET about the bring-in and it's importance in optimal decision making. We should however all agree on terms here since saying "the low ante and high bring-in structure" all the time will be a pain in the ass. IMHO we should say "low/high structure" for the above case, and vice versa for high antes and low bring-in. If either one is in the middle of the range use "mid". As for defining the adjectives, I propose:

Term______Ante________Bring-in
--------------------------------
High____>= 0.16 SB____>= 0.4 SB
Low_____<= 0.1 SB____<= 0.25 SB
Mid everything in between

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Alright this looks good enough. SO if I were to talk about crypto's 1-2 stud game, I could also just say "I was playing the POINT-25-50 stud game." As long as people don't confuse my ante-bringin values with the sb-bb values. I suppose a better way to say it is:: "I was playing the 25-50-ante game..."

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In other words, both you and Andy are completely wrong. have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

and I wonder why this forum is going down hill........

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, factually incorrect information from your friendly local moderator might be one of the causes...

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

or maybe people that make 1000 posts in 50 some days.

you don't seem to have an argurment, telling people they are wrong and you are right is not an argument.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alright this looks good enough. SO if I were to talk about crypto's 1-2 stud game, I could also just say "I was playing the POINT-25-50 stud game." As long as people don't confuse my ante-bringin values with the sb-bb values. I suppose a better way to say it is:: "I was playing the 25-50-ante game..."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not exactly what I meant. If the game is 1/2 stud with a .25 ante and .50 bring-in, it would qualify as a "high/high structure" since both the antes and bring-in are well above average. If you want to be specific, you'd say a ".25/.50/1/2 stud game"...

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

As you say the adjustments needed are subtle but they are there and not adjusting to the ante structure is not correct.

To take a couple of extremes. If you are playing a 1-2 game with a tight ante structure and I walk up and offer a $1000 to the winner of the next hand, you look down and see A-7-6 rainbow, I think you may well consider playing the hand.

The 1-5 games spread in places with no ante at all, I certainly am not inclined to play drawing hands of anykind.

In the middle the adjustments are as you say subtle but they are there and substantial. However, a person successful at $10-20 at Foxwoods better be willing to make adjustments when he goes to the $75-$150 game (and not just becuase the players are better). Between the reduction in the pot due to the rake and lower ante oddds playing a strategy of "fold if you have any doubt" works in 10-20 and will never work at the 75-150.

I think the arguments of Micturation Man are on point and I am generally in agreement.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

Small pair with an overcard kicker vs a bigger pair (known bigger pair) is one scenario you might want to look at. Depending on the ante and your apponents skill this hand can become playable or unplayable. 40/80 with a $5 ante and apponent just a little better than you and you are loosing money while the same situation with a $10 ante becomes a lock to make $ per hand unless hero is a very bad.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]

The point that the particular players in the game are important is completely self-evident. Everyone knows that. It was never in contention.

The question is what the impact of the ante is. To illustrate that point we must hold the quality of the players constant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question as I see it is what the impact of the ante is relative to the impact of the quality of opposition. The impression that I am getting is that some people are arguing that the ante structure is of much more relative importance than is actually the case. Adjusting to opponents who are looser or tighter than average is more important than adjusting to a structure that has smaller or larger antes than average. Both are clearly non-negligible, but one seems to be much more important than the other.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

There is way too much support for loosening calling standards here vs people who aren't in a steal position. Calling loose vs someone in a steal position is completely different than calling/raising with a mediocre hand in middle position vs an early completion.

There is no debate you need to steal more or defend vs steals more, but where people go wrong is taking this thinking too far. I really don't think there are that many hands you should be adding to your cold calling list.

If you were playing a tough 10 handed holdem game with double sized blinds and UTG opens, is AQo a cold calling hand UTG+1?

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is probably an issue of semantics. However, I do not see it as a matter of "antes will eat you up". Instead, it is more of a matter of playing more hands because they are positive EV due to the bigger starting pot. Those same hands with a smaller pot to begin with (smaller antes) may not be positive EV in the lower limits.

Playing more hands does not necessarily solve the problem of the antes you lose on the hands you don't play. Otherwise, one would say to play every single hand, then you don't have to worry about losing any antes. So I'd like to look at it in terms of playing more hands in the higher limits because the pot is bigger and the EV is there to make it right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately King, this whole thread seems do be an issue of "semantics". No rational player would claim that the size of the antes shouldn't change your strategy AT ALL early in hands, but most of the disagreement is on the DEGREE of difference. I like the way you look at the situation, since your pot odds (or more specifically your implied pot odds) always tell you if you're getting the right price or not. The larger the pot, the more correct it is to chase if you think you don't have the best hand, or to raise out possible chasers if you think you may have the best hand. In fact, if your skill is so far above the others at your table, then you should be willing to play a little on the loose side and take slightly the worst of it vs. the starting pot in order to stay in more hands and give your opponents more chances to make horrible mistakes against you. Otherwise, they will just end up pushing chips back and forth among themselves until they're all raked away.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

No, AQo would be a 3-betting hand there.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately King, this whole thread seems do be an issue of "semantics". No rational player would claim that the size of the antes shouldn't change your strategy AT ALL early in hands, but most of the disagreement is on the DEGREE of difference. I like the way you look at the situation, since your pot odds (or more specifically your implied pot odds) always tell you if you're getting the right price or not. The larger the pot, the more correct it is to chase if you think you don't have the best hand, or to raise out possible chasers if you think you may have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The conversation I tried to start with my odds post above is not part of a semantic dispute. Third street simply plays differently in different structures. That's it.

Completing to drive out players behind you (probably the most fundamental Third-street tool) is not necessarily either effective or a good idea if you can't offer them worse odds than they need to continue, and that is the case in one of the games I described. Later in the hand bets and raises will have more of an effect (in the sense that they have the potential to create opponent mistakes), and those streets play very much the same in all common structures.

When the discussion centers exclusively on the couple of chips you have to throw in every round as antes, it misses the principle distinction between the games. Playing a hand (one you shouldn't play) as far as Fifth street in either game is a money cost that outweighs the ante cost of folding a few extra hands an hour, and the idea that one or the other game should be played more loosely than the other on all streets is a mistake.

Each street needs to be played according to the money in the pot and the effect your bets will have on your opponents. The different structures change this effect radically on third street, but after that, you have to count the money and play the man.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

So Andy what are your conclusions after reading all the discussions of this subject????

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
The conversation I tried to start with my odds post above is not part of a semantic dispute. Third street simply plays differently in different structures. That's it.

The different structures change this effect radically on third street, but after that, you have to count the money and play the man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I should have excepted Steve's post and its replies from my statement about semantics. The more precise we are mathematically, the less likely it is we will confuse or mislead people with semantics.

Re: This business of adjusting to the ante structure
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, AQo would be a 3-betting hand there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, horrible brain dead example on my part (I suck at coming up with these). I WAS trying to show that cold calling in these spots was worthless either because you're too big of a dog, or because if you're not you really want to knock everyone else out. It seems most people will just call in these spots all day long when they try to adjust to a bigger ante.