Razz past and present

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your mistake is thinking that all 15/30 games will be the same structure,when we cant even find matching structures online between poker sites let alone common structures between live poker rooms - and Sklansky properly explains how to adjust.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point exactly, that a 15/30 game today is VERY different from the 15/30 game in SOR because the ante has tripled in size. You correctly state that the increased ante will induce more action, but a player who was successful waiting for premium hands in the old structure will be leaking money if he DOESN'T adjust.

As for Sklansky's advice on adjustments, he does show many cases where the strategies for the 15/30 game and the 30/60 game should differ, and we can extrapolate these structures to a more general "high ante" or "low ante" one at any level. There are some places tho where he gives blanket advice without considering the ante sizes or the action they may generate. I'll have to check my copy to cite you some page numbers. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

BTW... what took you so long finding this thread??

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont visit stud every day.

As for his "blanket advice", I don't recall a scenario where his advice didn't make sense if the pot was too small or reversed. As I said in the prior thread, show examples - so far you have not. People love to take pot shots at 2+2's work because its an easy way to make themselves look better in their own eyes or in the eyes of others. But to say that the book doesn't apply to todays games is ridiculous.

TT[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

That was my point exactly, that a 15/30 game today is VERY different from the 15/30 game in SOR because the ante has tripled in size. You correctly state that the increased ante will induce more action, but a player who was successful waiting for premium hands in the old structure will be leaking money if he DOESN'T adjust.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, is your assumption that the +6bb/100 players that you cite above were complete nits?

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was my point exactly, that a 15/30 game today is VERY different from the 15/30 game in SOR because the ante has tripled in size. You correctly state that the increased ante will induce more action, but a player who was successful waiting for premium hands in the old structure will be leaking money if he DOESN'T adjust.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, is your assumption that the +6bb/100 players that you cite above were complete nits?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to "Tournament Poker" by Tom McEvoy, a "nit" is a very tight player, or one who waits patiently for a playable hand. I'm not sure what a "complete nit" would play like, but the +6BB/100 players I was referring to would have to play very tight in a structure with microscopic antes unless they were playing against complete donks. So they would indeed be nits, and would be correct to do so. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That was my point exactly, that a 15/30 game today is VERY different from the 15/30 game in SOR because the ante has tripled in size. You correctly state that the increased ante will induce more action, but a player who was successful waiting for premium hands in the old structure will be leaking money if he DOESN'T adjust.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, is your assumption that the +6bb/100 players that you cite above were complete nits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think those players existed. They didnt have poker tracker back then [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also I dont think there are many 6bb/100 players now. To my knowledge I was only one of two people here that shared a BB/100 in the high 4's/early 5's. Mine has since dropped to a low 4 number which is still ridiculously high for a limit game. Since I'll never play Razz as much as I play hold'em I'll also never see a true convergence of my standard deviation. Luckily Razz is a game thats easier to judge if your running hot, or playing well.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
According to "Tournament Poker" by Tom McEvoy, a "nit" is a very tight player, or one who waits patiently for a playable hand. I'm not sure what a "complete nit" would play like, but the +6BB/100 players I was referring to would have to play very tight in a structure with microscopic antes unless they were playing against complete donks. So they would indeed be nits, and would be correct to do so. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have it backwards. The nits rarely show huge profits. You gotta have some gamble in you, take calculated risks to show huge profits. Know when to get in while its cheep, where to inflate the pot, when to control the size of the pot, and where to get out early. Thats the sign of a player who wins big.

PS: I cant wait for the WSOP Razz games, the last longer prop bets are gonna rule.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, is your assumption that the +6bb/100 players that you cite above were complete nits?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to "Tournament Poker" by Tom McEvoy, a "nit" is a very tight player, or one who waits patiently for a playable hand. I'm not sure what a "complete nit" would play like, but the +6BB/100 players I was referring to would have to play very tight in a structure with microscopic antes unless they were playing against complete donks. So they would indeed be nits, and would be correct to do so. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The term "nit" seems to be tossed around as a description of opponents more on the O8 and PLO forums. It is generally used to refer to nut peddlers, often a bit on the weak-tight. A complete nit probably wouldn't make some of the plays that Sklansky writes about, such as capping on third with a seven showing against a player who holds a wheel draw.

The scenario you describe, of a tight, old-school who can't win in current games, sounds a lot like a tight hold em player whining about being unable to beat no-fold-em hold em games. Whether the structure of a game is relatively tight or loose, you make your money off of people playing too loose for that structure, but the tight player may just be playing incorrectly when faced with additional multi-way situations (especially beyond third street), not because he is playing inherently incorrectly for the looser structure that contributes to more multi-way situations. One example of nitty behavior in multi-way pots is failing to jam and whip-saw loose players when the nit probably has the second-best hand.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
As for his "blanket advice", I don't recall a scenario where his advice didn't make sense if the pot was too small or reversed. As I said in the prior thread, show examples - so far you have not. People love to take pot shots at 2+2's work because its an easy way to make themselves look better in their own eyes or in the eyes of others. But to say that the book doesn't apply to todays games is ridiculous.

TT[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't post this comment as a personal insult or as an ego trip, just as a word of advice to players looking to play Razz today, not in the 1970's. There are many concepts in Sklansky on Razz that apply to today's games, but the book is far from infallible. Let's take a look at some examples from the first few pages:

<u>Structure</u>
On p. 105 (in the third edition of "Sklansky on Poker" which is the copy I have) the author discusses the two extremes of Razz structure playing in Vegas in the 1970's. The 15/30 game is described as having a $1 ante/$5 bring-in/$15 SB/$30 BB and the 30/60 game as having a 5/10/30/60 structure. He even warns us right up front that "the ante and betting structure is extremely important in determining the correct strategy in the game of razz." I wholeheartedly agree. So for an 8-handed game (which is assumed in all his examples) the ratio of the "juice" (antes + bring-in) to the small bet in the low ante 15/30 game is about 0.9 but is about 1.7 in the high ante 30/60 game.

<u>Ante Stealing</u>
In this section, the difference between the 15/30 and 30/60 games is usually considered, but with some notable exceptions. On p. 108 the author states "When I am reraised on third street and have been trying to steal the ante, I will generally fold. In order to call in this particular spot, you usually need about a three-card nine." He then lists several factors that could cause him to adjust this strategy, but the size of the antes is NOT one of them. In a HU 15/30 game, your odds to call the reraise are 3.5:1, but in a full ring 30/60 games you're getting 4.7:1. Couldn't the difference affect how bad a hand you call with?

On p. 109, item 5 of his summary advises players to steal with a three-card nine even with 3 or 4 low cards behind you. In order to consider this play a "steal" there has to be a reasonable chance that all the low cards behind you will fold, but when was the last time you played at a razz table with that many low cards out and not ONE player willing to call you? In fact, most razz games today are so loose that if you raise with a smooth three-card 9, it's more of a value bet than a steal! He's obviously assuming a very rocky game which I've heard used to be the norm.

In fact, there are several other examples of advice that disregards how the pot odds created by high antes should change your starting requirements. Like on p. 116 when the author categorizes a 752 starting hand as "weak" if three other babies are gone. On p. 117, when talking about the hands you need to call a single raise, he says that you can loosen up a little in the 30/60 game and MOST three-card sevens can be played unless a lot of your outs are dead. How often would you fold a live three-card seven to a single raise? Clearly he hadn't seen a lot of the hole cards turned over at online razz tables when he wrote this (or even at the 2006 WSOP).

Maybe we can understand his tight play a little better by considering that he's figuring his odds to call a single raise in the 15/30 game as 28:15 and in the 30/60 games as 70:30. This is only a 25% increase, but it's also mathematically wrong since he completely neglects the bring-in in the 30/60 game! The actual pot odds are 80:30 in the 30/60 game for a 43% increase over the 15/30 game. It's a natural mistake though since he makes the same error on p. 107 in claiming that an ante steal at 30/60 is risking $30 to win $40 (should be $50), and again on p. 112 when calculating the odds to defend your bring-in. Here he states that when you're only getting 2.8:1 in the 15/30 game, you'd be correct to fold 100% of the time against a probable steal but the 7:2 odds you get in the 30/60 game could swing it to a call if you hold the best possible hole cards. Except that your pot odds in this spot are actually 4:1 in the 30/60 game. Might this change the correct strategy a little?

I'm tired. I'll post some more later when I go over it in more depth. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Andy B]

No one is suggesting that the size of the initial pot doesn't matter. I'm just saying that a lot of folks overstate the difference between low-ante games and higher-ante games.

[Andy B]

If you're going to make posts like this, you should explain what was wrong with my original statement and why.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]


<u>Ante Stealing</u>
In this section, the difference between the 15/30 and 30/60 games is usually considered, but with some notable exceptions. On p. 108 the author states "When I am reraised on third street and have been trying to steal the ante, I will generally fold. In order to call in this particular spot, you usually need about a three-card nine." He then lists several factors that could cause him to adjust this strategy, but the size of the antes is NOT one of them. In a HU 15/30 game, your odds to call the reraise are 3.5:1, but in a full ring 30/60 games you're getting 4.7:1. Couldn't the difference affect how bad a hand you call with?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not factoring reverse implied odds. 4.7:1 isn't big enough when your probably going to have to see 2 streets to know where you stand and by then you might be crushed. You have to think beyond 3rd street, its a clear fold (HU or 3-handed the play must be adjusted, or vs a chronic maniac/bluffer/re-stealer but thats a bit beyond the scope of the book). In short, nothing has changed in the game here.

[ QUOTE ]
On p. 109, item 5 of his summary advises players to steal with a three-card nine even with 3 or 4 low cards behind you. In order to consider this play a "steal" there has to be a reasonable chance that all the low cards behind you will fold, but when was the last time you played at a razz table with that many low cards out and not ONE player willing to call you? In fact, most razz games today are so loose that if you raise with a smooth three-card 9, it's more of a value bet than a steal! He's obviously assuming a very rocky game which I've heard used to be the norm.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even back then you could find loose tables, and tight tables. Vegas games where known to be far rockier than LA games for example which were known to be quite juicy (some things never change). Even in a loose game its correct to attempt a steal with a 3 card 9 (clean 3-card 9 is obviously far superior over a dirty 3 card 9) because if you get one or two limp low cards calling you always know where you stand. Often if the correct cards are out your opponents may be starting at an equity deficit - a very adventitious thing for you. Once again, not much has changed. Same game. Only advantage now is our understanding of equity thanks to simulators like 2dimes.


[ QUOTE ]
In fact, there are several other examples of advice that disregards how the pot odds created by high antes should change your starting requirements. Like on p. 116 when the author categorizes a 752 starting hand as "weak" if three other babies are gone.

[/ QUOTE ] and he is right regardless of the size of the pot, its a weak hand.

[ QUOTE ]
On p. 117, when talking about the hands you need to call a single raise, he says that you can loosen up a little in the 30/60 game and MOST three-card sevens can be played unless a lot of your outs are dead. How often would you fold a live three-card seven to a single raise?

[/ QUOTE ] depending on your hand reading skills in some situations its a very easy fold, others its not. Again nothing has changed - he always advocates adjusting to the game, the players, the structure etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly he hadn't seen a lot of the hole cards turned over at online razz tables when he wrote this (or even at the 2006 WSOP).

[/ QUOTE ] Or clearly your overcompensating? I think thats the single biggest flaw I have seen here from otherwise good players, taking the hand too far because they assume their opponents never hold premium hands. I think my hand reading skills earned me a higher than average win rate mostly because I find folds in the right place compared to some of the other posters here. Perhaps not, thats just my educated opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we can understand his tight play a little better by considering that he's figuring his odds to call a single raise in the 15/30 game as 28:15 and in the 30/60 games as 70:30. This is only a 25% increase, but it's also mathematically wrong since he completely neglects the bring-in in the 30/60 game! The actual pot odds are 80:30 in the 30/60 game for a 43% increase over the 15/30 game. It's a natural mistake though since he makes the same error on p. 107 in claiming that an ante steal at 30/60 is risking $30 to win $40 (should be $50), and again on p. 112 when calculating the odds to defend your bring-in. Here he states that when you're only getting 2.8:1 in the 15/30 game, you'd be correct to fold 100% of the time against a probable steal but the 7:2 odds you get in the 30/60 game could swing it to a call if you hold the best possible hole cards. Except that your pot odds in this spot are actually 4:1 in the 30/60 game. Might this change the correct strategy a little?


[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]