[daveT]

I think that in the games that are bieng discussd, we should further break this down to two different kinds of games. Show-down, and no showdown.

Obv, in the higher limits, we are looking at a no showdown game, so it would probably behoove the good player to play in the higher ante, as steeling them becomes more correct.

But to discuss this further, I would like to compare more extremes. Consider Live 1/2 and OL 1/2.

OL has a .25 ante and a .50 brind in. Live has a .50 ante and a .50 bring in comparing 8 hands I am implying one rotation where every thing is equal. You win one hand, you bring in once, and you ante 8 times.

OL equals 2.50 in total antes.
Live equal 4.50 in total antes.

Other features are inherent in a smaller game like this. The main being that you are pretty much forced to showdown the best hand. You going to face more completions. You will have to raise more often. Already, here we are guaranteed a 9-1 odds in the live structure. Thinking that maybe five players to each hand with one completion bieng typical, I am now going to be recieving 9.5-1 odds if the bring-in folds. Incidently, I am recieving better odds. Also note that I am now pretty much obligated to seeing fifth street no matter what comes my way, as I would be getting 14-1 odds.

Incedentally, as the pot gets bigger the high pairs drop dramatically in value. If I raise with my Aces, I am not going to convince many players to fold. Now, if Ithink about this from a TOP stand-point, I am supposed to be glad that they called, but the reality is that I am not. Although I may have the best hand right now, my opponents are definitely going to have better multi-way pot hands such as straight or flushes.

Compare this to the 1/2 OL game where I am recieving a 10-1 immediate odds to call, but the difference may be here that now I am looking a 3 players instead of five, and probably are only raising with the stuff the book says to raise with. So, now with me calling a completion, I am recieving about 3.8-1 to call, a dramatic difference. I this game, I clearly want my opposition to call with good multi-way hands because they are getting priced out, and I am getting the better of them.

So, in all, the more players there are, the better odds you get, the less the worst you get, The above example dictates I sould be more inclined to loosen up at a loose table and play tighter at a tight table, this is implyig showdown, of coarse.

If the OL game had a .10 ante with a .25 ante, then the oddds would dramatically swing to playing tighter still, if you know that there will always be a completion. Now I am getting about 2.1-1 odds on my call of a completion, I think that this reflects the higher stakes games.

What's interesting to note in the three above examples, is that the smaller ante games have less deviation from each other than does the small to highest ante game. I think that most of the critical desisions are pronounced on fourth street, and so on. The trend dictates that the lower the ante, the more severe each mistake becomes on each progressive street. The higher ante dictates less folding on later streets.