This business of adjusting to the ante structure

[Micturition Man]

Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.

Ante structure determines the starting pot size.

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)

In other words, ante structure is the critical factor in determing how to play any kind of mediocre hand in a stud game.

To be more specific here are three common scenarios:

1. When you have a hand that is mediocre relative to the board.

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).

With a small ante structure you should definitely just fold. With something like a 30-60 structure you might want to limp.

With a Bellagio 300-600 structure, where you will be getting 7:3 or 2.33:1 you have no choice but to complete.

2. When you have total garbage but a scarecard in the door.

Same scenario as above but you have (7s2c)Ad, four cards remaining behind you, and no aces exposed.

Again you should fold in a small or moderate ante game, imo. In a Bellagio 300-600 structure game you may have to complete purely for your steal equity.

3. When you are facing someone in any kind of semi-steal position and you would be incorrect to play versus the holding they are 'representing'.

Say you have (45)4 and a T raises into you, a J, and a deuce bring-in.

Because the T's distribution should be greatly influenced by the ante structure in small ante game you fold without hesitation. In 30-60 you probably still fold. In the 200-400 again you are probably forced to play.

Note that I have not even mentioned the effect of the increased pot size on 4th and beyond.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a point. Ante structure is a strong factor in optimal 3rd street play. Excluding stealing and defending against stealing, Andy B pretty much summed it up well. The structure of the game doesn't shift very many hands into playable vs not playable. It has a greater effect on which hands you prefer to limp with or complete with on third, and whether you raise someone or just call if they complete. I don't think that ante structure has a huge effect on the number of hands you play outside of stealing situations, and I think some people are vastly overestimating what percentage of one's profits come from steals.

[ QUOTE ]

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of "steal equity"? I can't think of one that doesn't involve the calling ranges of people left to act. Starting pot size is one factor, but it isn't the sole factor.

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this further?

[ QUOTE ]

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).


[/ QUOTE ]

That you need to assume generic solid opponents just helps prove Andy B's point that the particular players in your game is an important variable.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ante structure is critically important in determining optimal 3rd street play.


[/ QUOTE ]

To a point. Ante structure is a strong factor in optimal 3rd street play. Excluding stealing and defending against stealing, Andy B pretty much summed it up well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are excluding two very common and very important situations, especially in tough or short-handed games.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Starting pot size determines the value of your steal equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your definition of "steal equity"? I can't think of one that doesn't involve the calling ranges of people left to act. Starting pot size is one factor, but it isn't the sole factor.



[/ QUOTE ]

Your steal equity is a function of how big the pot is and how often you will steal. If you are getting 2.33:1 and you will steal 35% of the time, your immediate steal equity is .17 small bets.

How often you will steal, again assuming optimal opponents, is itself a function of pot size. So there is a tendency for pot size to both increase and reduce your steal equity. However the former effect trumps the latter. (I.e. you should steal more rather than less when the pot is larger.)

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you have a hand that is a clear favorite to the board, the EV of folding versus limping versus completing
is a function of reverse implied odds and steal equity. (If you have a draw the decision is a function of implied odds versus steal equity.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this further?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a high ante game you have a much bigger incentive to play a marginal hand rather than fold it, and if you are going to play it you have a much bigger incentive to try to steal rather than just limp.

Even with a strong draw like 9s8s7s it steal may be more profitable to complete and try to steal rather than limp and maximize your implied odds, if the ante is big enough.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If you have something like (5s4s)4c and there are three overcards behind you, your decision between folding, limping or completing is purely a function of pot size (obviously I am holding the exposed cards constant and assuming generic solid opponents).


[/ QUOTE ]

That you need to assume generic solid opponents just helps prove Andy B's point that the particular players in your game is an important variable.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point that the particular players in the game are important is completely self-evident. Everyone knows that. It was never in contention.

The question is what the impact of the ante is. To illustrate that point we must hold the quality of the players constant.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

The point that the particular players in the game are important is completely self-evident. Everyone knows that. It was never in contention.

The question is what the impact of the ante is. To illustrate that point we must hold the quality of the players constant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question as I see it is what the impact of the ante is relative to the impact of the quality of opposition. The impression that I am getting is that some people are arguing that the ante structure is of much more relative importance than is actually the case. Adjusting to opponents who are looser or tighter than average is more important than adjusting to a structure that has smaller or larger antes than average. Both are clearly non-negligible, but one seems to be much more important than the other.

[Micturition Man]

Having actually read your post now I think the reason you do not perceive the importance of ante structure is that you are probably playing in games that are too loose for steal equity to be a significant factor in your decisions.

Take your comment about the value of draws being in their implied odds. In a low ante game or a game where you will rarely take down the pot on 3rd street your statement is true.

In a reasonably tight game or a high ante game, when you are in a pretty good steal position (e.g. only one upcard behind you and none of your doorcard duplicated), the steal equity of your hand greatly outweighs implied odds.

Likewise in a high ante game if you are last to act before the bring-in and the person to your immediate completes with a K up, you should be reraising with something like (56)7 if your upcard is unduplicated. Again your immediate resteal equity greatly outweighs the improved implied odds you would get by flat-calling.

[Andy B]

I find it somewhat incredible that you wrote a fairly substantial response, apparently before reading my initial post. I don't know whether to be insulted or amused. I choose to be amused.

You are correct that I am unaccustomed to playing in stud games where stealing is an important factor. I have been very successful in avoiding such games. Thing is, most of the folks who post here are also unaccustomed to such games. Jeffage plays about as high as anyone who posts here regularly. Many of his $75/150 opponents are loose/passive. Now some online games are on the tight side, so stealing is more of a factor. A lot of the people who say you have to make these huge adjustments aren't playing these tight games, either.

Party doesn't welcome American players anymore, but people used to say that you had play pretty much everything in the $.50/1.00 game because of the $.25 ante. While you probably should loosen up some, the bottom line is that you're going to have to show down the best hand in order to win. As you suggest, part of the reason that you shouldn't go overboard when it comes to loosening up is that you don't have any steal equity in that game.

Bellagio's $300/600 game has a $75 ante? I deduced that from your odds figures, but please do spell that out for the benefit of the people who have never played in that game, which I'm guessing is everyone on this board except perhaps you.

[ QUOTE ]
Say you have (45)4 and a T raises into you, a J, and a deuce bring-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is still a fold in a $200/400 game. That the Ten is raising into a higher up-card suggests that there is a better-than-usual chance that he has the goods. I also don't agree with your assertion that you should open with this hand in middle position in the $300/600 Bellagio game.

I find it a little hard to believe that it's correct to raise with 765 against a possible stealer. Is it common for people to complete and then fold to a raise? If he doesn't fold third, then you're hoping he folds fifth. You'll have invested quite a bit of money by then. The risk/reward ratio doesn't strike me as favorable, but I don't play these games.

Right or wrong, I raise in late position with (72)A in a $10/20 game unless the bring-in is very loose.

Good posts. This was actually more substantial than I was expecting.

[Micturition Man]

Yes the Bellagio 3-6 has a $75 ante.

As for your specific points of disagreement I don't care to argue them further, but this is what it boils down to:

In one game you are getting 2.33:1 on a steal (Bellagio 3-6).

In the other you are getting 1.3:1 (the Pokeroom 10-20 someone mentioned).

I don't see how anyone who understands gambling can deny that this plainly has a big impact on optimal* 3rd street play.

*(Optimal play is the critical point here. If people are playing significantly too loose then it no longer makes sense to speak of optimal play).

Also my comment about actually reading your post meant that the first time I just skimmed it briefly because I knew from your topic sentence exactly what my answer would be.

Oh and one final thing. Even if everyone is playing in loose games steal equity always becomes significant on occasion - when everyone has folded to you in a late position.

[HOWMANY]

No clue what changes should be made in a Stud game, but in Stud 8 I play a lot more hands at 30/60 than 10/20. 30/60 I steal antes way more often and with pretty much pure steal hands with no useful prospects once I get action that are worthless IMO at 10/20 since successful steals don't give so much back. I also try to play all my split/buried small pair with a 1 gap/no gap connector and quite a few buried small pair small kicker, and my 22-66 A kicker. I fold all of those at 10/20 except steal or in multiway limped pots. I'm also more likely to come in with 8 low gutshot type hands.

I make similar adjustments for Razz. 10/20 I basically don't bother defending 2 card hands ever. On any FTP game or Stars 30 I defend more/steal more and play looser in EP. I'm also more likely to complete any hand I play since the pot is already decent size on 4th for the opponent's peeling not be a horrible play when I limp, so I may as well build the pot while I think I'm ahead. At 10/20 the pot is tiny so their peel is bad, so I open limp in EP everything I'm going to play.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

This is good. Basically I open wider in the back, and loosen up raises vs steal positions with legitimate hands, and defend BI vs steals a little more. I don't think you should be loosening your calling standards in middle or late position, or loosening your bi vs any nonsteal position.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
There are basically four kinds of playable hands:

Rolled-up trips
Three-card flushes
Three-card straights
Pairs

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the premise of the thread is an excellent one for discussion on thoughts for differnt ways of playing the game. I disagree with only those hands being playable.

Wise men like Ray have said that, if you start from the foundation of believing in the TAG way, the amount of hands you play starts to correspond with the degree of your believed improvement. The better you think you are, the more hands you start playing. It's said that for most it's -EV. Hence his excellent "The 3 stages of a poker player".

I think that belief is much less the case in stud than in holdem. The reason being the odds for chasing in stud are much better and therefore better players are able to play a wider range of marginal hands for profit.

I've found that MM nailed it when he said you can be a winner at stud but the variance is beyond ridiculous. I believe that in games full of bad players, very good stud players can play many more hands that those listed above. It's impossible to try and list what they are. I just believe the pot odds lay a price that leaves the good player a pretty wide range of hands to play against the right opponenets in the right spots.

It's not necessarily a case of outplaying them directly. Rather it's playing your marginal hand in the right spots better than they do.