|
|
|
|
#1
02-21-2007, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] TT doesn't have any first-hand knowledge of razz as it was played back when. [/ QUOTE ] Oldtimers baby.... they can be a great help when you have questions. I've become friendly with a few old-school lowball players. Plus living in Vegas has its advantages, the old guys are still around playing their old games. And when everything else fails i can always ask Mason, he is a fountain of knowledge even on games he doesn't play often - a human encyclopedia of poker pop culture. ok, enough kidding around. [ QUOTE ] I think a lot of folks around here overstate the difference between a low-ante game and a high-ante game. Especially when the game is loose, the bottom line is you have to show down the best hand in order to win. [/ QUOTE ] Excellent quote, you should add it to the FAQ. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] OK here is our own topic so we don't hijack Chipsahoya's topic anymore. For those new to this debate, I personally have no knowledge of how Razz was played back in the day. I can only go on hearsay, and what I've read in Sklansky on Poker (Razz). But I've played enough to know that ante sizes count, so let me kick off this thread with a quick calculation. Say you're a very good player playing in the old 15/30 games and you're making a healthy 6BB/100 hand profit after the rake. You're paying $1 ante per hand plus your share of the bring ins ($5 every 8 hands on average in a full ring), so your fixed costs are about $162/100 hands. Time warp to now... you're playing 15/30 on FTP with a $3 ante and $5 bring in (all bets are double those in the 30/60 game in SOR). You can play the same strategy, but now your fixed costs are $362/100 hands and now all your profit has vanished and you're losing. The question is, are you still a good player? 
|
|
#2
02-21-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
Anyone suggesting the the size of the prefop pot doesn't matter is full of it. Plain and simple.
|
|
#3
02-23-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
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.
|
|
#4
02-23-2007, 10:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] From Sklansky on Razz: "the ante and betting structure is extremely important in determining the correct strategy in the game of razz." I assume you're counting David Sklansky as one of these folks?
|
|
#6
02-23-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] That may be somewhat true. However, the difference is quite large, so some fairly bombastic statements would be required to do that.
|
|
#7
02-21-2007, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
IMO, treating antes and bring-ins as "costs" is the wrong way to look at it. While it's true that you have to put more into the pot on average with each hand, so do all of the other players. You pay more for a starting pot where you have an increased expectation, dollarwise. In general, this evens out in the end.
However, I also think that playing the same strategy in a high-ante game as you do in a low ante game is the wrong way to go.
|
|
#8
02-21-2007, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, treating antes and bring-ins as "costs" is the wrong way to look at it. While it's true that you have to put more into the pot on average with each hand, so do all of the other players. You pay more for a starting pot where you have an increased expectation, dollarwise. In general, this evens out in the end. However, I also think that playing the same strategy in a high-ante game as you do in a low ante game is the wrong way to go. [/ QUOTE ] You're right, and it was intentionally oversimplified. If you play the same very tight, premium hand strategy that earns you a steady profit with small antes, you won't collect nearly enough in the pots you do play to compensate for the antes you pay when they are large. Also, you won't be able to take as many pots uncontested since the opps will be getting better pot odds to chase you.
|
|
#9
02-21-2007, 09:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
While it's true that you have to put more into the pot on average with each hand, so do all of the other players. [/ QUOTE ] This hits the nail on the head. I stand by my statement quoted in the original post.
|
|
#10
02-22-2007, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] While it's true that you have to put more into the pot on average with each hand, so do all of the other players. [/ QUOTE ] This hits the nail on the head. I stand by my statement quoted in the original post. [/ QUOTE ] Even though it's incorrect? Fair enough - it's your statement I guess.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
