This business of adjusting to the ante structure

[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.

[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.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

and I wonder why this forum is going down hill........

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Red I think you've found your chart, or at least a very good starting point for the upper and lower bounds. Steve makes an excellent point that we shouldn't FORGET about the bring-in and it's importance in optimal decision making. We should however all agree on terms here since saying "the low ante and high bring-in structure" all the time will be a pain in the ass. IMHO we should say "low/high structure" for the above case, and vice versa for high antes and low bring-in. If either one is in the middle of the range use "mid". As for defining the adjectives, I propose:

Term______Ante________Bring-in
--------------------------------
High____>= 0.16 SB____>= 0.4 SB
Low_____<= 0.1 SB____<= 0.25 SB
Mid everything in between

[Red_Diamond]

Alright this looks good enough. SO if I were to talk about crypto's 1-2 stud game, I could also just say "I was playing the POINT-25-50 stud game." As long as people don't confuse my ante-bringin values with the sb-bb values. I suppose a better way to say it is:: "I was playing the 25-50-ante game..."

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

and I wonder why this forum is going down hill........

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, factually incorrect information from your friendly local moderator might be one of the causes...

[Beavis68]

or maybe people that make 1000 posts in 50 some days.

you don't seem to have an argurment, telling people they are wrong and you are right is not an argument.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright this looks good enough. SO if I were to talk about crypto's 1-2 stud game, I could also just say "I was playing the POINT-25-50 stud game." As long as people don't confuse my ante-bringin values with the sb-bb values. I suppose a better way to say it is:: "I was playing the 25-50-ante game..."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not exactly what I meant. If the game is 1/2 stud with a .25 ante and .50 bring-in, it would qualify as a "high/high structure" since both the antes and bring-in are well above average. If you want to be specific, you'd say a ".25/.50/1/2 stud game"...