[SGspecial]

[ 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