This business of adjusting to the ante structure

[Andy B]

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.

[iamastud]

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?

[Poker CPA]

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.

[King Yao]

[ 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.

[SGspecial]

[ 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.

[electrical]

[ 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.

[SGspecial]

[ 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.

[Andy B]

[ 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.

[ill rich]

[ 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.

[Andy B]

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