Ludicrously high ante, flat betting structure.

[Smasharoo]

Couple of quick theoretical questions I'm fairly sure I know the answers to, but not certain.

Room near where I live spreads stud with a very non standard structure. The ante and the bring in are the same amount and then all betting is done in increments 2x the bring in on every street.

So for the sake of argument, $1 ante, $1 Bring in, $2/$2.

What's optimal strategy?

It seems that raising would be correct almost always with any cards if there's much chance anyone will fold. Is this correct?

It seems folding any starting hand would be -EV. Is this correct?

Thanks.

[Andy B]

Optimal strategy might be to play hold'em.

The answer to both of your specific questions is no. If you think that you can get everyone to fold, then raising with sub-premium hands might be correct. Very low-limit games tend to be very loose, however, so you're very unlikely to steal the antes, nor are you likely to buy the pot later. This is especially true because of the high ante. You're going to have to show down the best hand in order to win.

Which leads to your second question. If the betting were to end on third street, then you might call with about anything. There are four more betting rounds, however, and you need to show down the best hand in order to win. You still need to start with decent cards. Because the bring-in is high and the future bets are low, your implied odds aren't that good. I wouldn't play many more hands than I would in a standard game. I would pump the hell out of my good draws, though.

I would talk to management. There's a reason that the standard structures became standard.

[Phat Mack]

There's a reason that the standard structures became standard.

What's the standard structure?

[Andy B]

You will note that I used the plural. I think you know what they are.

[2461Badugi]

With a typical casino rake, 10% to $4 or worse, I strongly doubt this game is worth playing in. If you feel the need to anyway:

1. Play live pairs and live flush draws.
2. Fold fourth a lot.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
You will note that I used the plural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, missed the plural. Thought there may have been a meeting of the minds in Costa Rica or Isle of Mann, or wherever the online tycoons meet.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you know what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

[Smasharoo]

Which leads to your second question. If the betting were to end on third street, then you might call with about anything. There are four more betting rounds, however, and you need to show down the best hand in order to win. You still need to start with decent cards.

Ok, so you're asserting that with marginal hands where I have, say, 10% equity, I should fold to the bring in bet when I'm getting > 11 to 1 to call?

I'm not sure I understand this. I freely admit I'm fairly ignorant of starting hand equities in stud, but is it really all that often that I'd be worse than the 16 to 1 odds I'm getting to call a bring in in last position?

[Andy B]

In order to see the showdown, you're going to have to call more than one bet. That 10:1 or 16:1 or whatever is a mirage.

[Smasharoo]

In order to see the showdown, you're going to have to call more than one bet. That 10:1 or 16:1 or whatever is a mirage.

Ok? This doesn't make sense to me, no offense. At some point in the hand the pot will be laying me the wrong odds to call and I should fold. You're saying I should fold when it's laying me the correct odds because of future betting rounds?

I appreciate your trying to help, I'm just not seeing the math behind your argument working. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, it's certainly happened before.

[Andy B]

There are different kinds of odds that you need to consider when making poker decisions. People cite pot odds a lot. They are important, and they're easy to calculate. Frequently, implied odds and reverse-implied odds are more important considerations. What I'm talking about is effective odds, which takes into account both the pot odds and your reverse-implied odds.

I'll use a simple example which is probably ridiculously unrealistic since the game likely won't be this tight, but should serve to illustrate my point. Say it's a full game and you are the low card and bring it in for a dollar. Someone completes to $2 in early position and everyone else folds to you. The pot is currently offering you 11:1 odds to call. Since you almost certainly have more than 9% equity, it may appear that you should call with literally anything. The problem is that the betting doesn't end on third street. You're probably going to call a bet on every street, or almost every street, and you're going to have to show down the best hand in order to win. Assuming that the other guy is betting all streets, which will often be the case, you're going to have to call an additional $8 on top of the dollar on third street. Your effective odds are 19:9, or about 2:1, which is significantly worse than that 11:1.

Of course, calling on third does not obligate you to call on all future streets, and some hands have the potential to develop quickly, so you can call with some hands that are more than a 2:1 dog. For example, you should play any reasonably live three-flush in this case, even though you're probably a significant dog, because your hand will be quite strong if you catch good on fourth street.

I could probably say a lot more on this topic, but hopefully this gets the idea across. If it doesn't, let me know. Part of the reason I participate in this forum is I occasionally think about writing a book, and I want to make sure that I can get my ideas across clearly.

See Theory of Poker for more on these topics.