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]