[electrical]

[ QUOTE ]
...There is no point at which the ante becomes the dominating factor, and that's really all I've been trying to say here.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "ante" you mean the sum of parts making up the structure of the game (ante amount, size of bring-in relative to ante pool, size of bring-in relative to complete bet), then I disagree. For the comparison to be meaningful, we have to assume the same opponents in each game, so reads are immaterial.

In the "tight" structure I mentioned in my first post, a completion doesn't offer significantly worse odds to a player behind you than he would get with a limp. Why do it then, except to put more money in the pot. There are only a few holdings where the sole purpose of a bet or raise is to get more money in the pot, but this is the effect of completing in the tightest structure. A raise after a completion, on the other hand, has the same effect as in a "looser" structure (forcing opponents to call two bets cold), and this creates a special class of hands: hands you would limp with in an un-raised pot, but would be correct to raise with after a complete bet.

Stealing in the "tight" structure also offers the Bring-in better odds to defend than any other wager he can make on Third. So trying to steal in this structure is generally bad unless you have a playable hand with which you're indifferent about having competition, and defending in this structure can be done somewhat liberally. It becomes correct to defend with some hands you'd never bother to limp with.

I am not mentioning specific holdings becaue I think each player's preferences on how to play hands will define which are folds, which are limps and which are completions, but the adjustment for the structure will have to be made by anyone, regardless of style or preferences.