This business of adjusting to the ante structure

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
I've found that MM nailed it when he said you can be a winner at stud but the variance is beyond ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement i've read is mostly applicable to the higher limit games, where you don't even average 1 big bet per hour.

in the smaller games you don't need to be playing marginal hands to make considerable profit.

the more marginal hands you play, the larger your variance. in the smaller games there isn't much incentive to play a (Ks-Qs)4c, because you're not giving up much when you'll do quite well just waiting for higher quality hands. in a 75-150 game that fraction of a bet you're giving up is magnified, where as you'de pass on it in a smaller game. obviously, that'll increase your variance.

playing is a style with bigger upswings AND downswings (as long as you play well) will win more money in the long run than a tighter style but that tigher style won't have those huge downswings.

i'm skeptical of those players in the $1-$2 games online here saying they are suffering 300 big bet downswings because i'm thinking something is VERY wrong, and they have major leaks. in a small game like that, i think a 100 big bet like that should prompt you to question what's going on - if you're a serious player.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
that statement i've read is mostly applicable to the higher limit games, where you don't even average 1 big bet per hour.

in the smaller games you don't need to be playing marginal hands to make considerable profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

What limits do you play and is it mostly live or online?

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
What limits do you play and is it mostly live or online?

[/ QUOTE ]

$1-$3 spread limit, $1 bring in with a 50 cent ante @ Foxwoods.

[King Yao]

Andy, thanks for the interesting post!

As far as trying to steal the antes, it seems there are two forces at work that may cancel themselves off to some degree. In the higher limit games, the antes are bigger. So it seems like it pays to try to steal them because you don't need as high a success rate to make the steal worthwhile. This factor increases the amount you should steal.

But at the same time, most players understand the pots are bigger and it is more worthwhile to play on. They also probably understand others are more eager to steal the antes. These factors makes it less worthwhile to try to steal the antes since it is more likely the stealer will get called.

The relevant questions to answer (which I don't have the answers due to my inexperience) seem to be:
Which factor is stronger?
How do different players adjust their play based on the antes?

[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.

[SplawnDarts]

[ 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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Which in turn requires that you adjust your willingness to call with small pairs against an apparent steal, and voila - you've had to adjust to the new structure and aren't playing at all like you were before.

In other words, both you and Andy are completely wrong. have a nice day [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Red_Diamond]

Some more thoughts on ante. Different stud games have different ante, and often I"ll hear phrases like high ante, or low ante, or med ante. To be honest I haven't seen any official chart that labels what structure as high or low, and it may be quite large to take into effect EVERY structure.

Ante itself is related to the Bring-in. However different structures sometimes alter the size of the Bring-in which also has its effects.

I wonder, is there such a variable as an Ante Factor? Some sort of mathematical function that takes into effect the size of the ante PLUS bring-in to give a constant value? Thus instead of saying... I'm playing a mid-to-high ante game.. and leaving someone to wonder, you could say I'm playing a 4.8 ante game.

If such a thing already has been worked out and exists in print then I've missed it as I just have not come across this in literature common.

[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.

[Andy B]

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

[electrical]

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.