Cash Game Pros and cons of setting blinds equal? (1 Viewer)

[NotLilShrimp]

I have usually played with the standard .5x small blind 1x big blind setup, but I've been thinking about just playing with both blinds being the same. Are there real big differences between this setup? Would it be fine for starting stacks to still be 100 blinds?

 

[Eriks]

Yeah, it plays the same

 

[abby99]

Depending on the denominations, having equal blinds could eliminate the need for one chip denomination. For example, playing .25/.25 instead of .10/.25 eliminates the need for dimes, and playing 1/1 instead of .50/1 eliminates the need for any frac at all. Now, is that a pro or a con? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. . . .

Yeah, it plays the same

This.

 

[allforcharity]

It's good for small stakes PLO. Easier to calculate pots and betting limits.

 

[Nine_high]

Pros:

- Less small chips/denominations needed
- pots easy to calculate
- plays the same size
- plays faster
- less change making
- no stupid $6.25 bets

Cons:

- less chips needed

I swapped out my quarters for fiddies last game and played .50/.50 since we were mixing in a bunch of pot limit games (instead of .25/.50). So much easier and the crew loved it. Not sure I can go back.

Probably goes without saying but I would only recommend it if your blinds are both a single chip. For instance playing .50/.50 with quarters seems strange to me.

 

[JustinInMN]

It plays largely the same. There are a couple minor strategic differences to consider, In theory.

1) Preflop sizing should be a little bigger with 2 BB in the starting pot instead of 1.5 BB.
2) The SB is also going to be able to defend a little looser with 1 BB live in the pot instead of 0.5 BB.

But the adjustments are minor. Causal players may not even notice.

As for as pot limit games, most games now just count the SB as "complete" for simplicity whether or not it is 0.5 BB or 1 BB.

So totally up to you and your game and what denominations you have available.

But I know @merkong loves the change to 0.25-0.25 blinds in his game .

 

[BGinGA]

It plays largely the same. There are a couple minor strategic differences to consider, In theory.

1) Preflop sizing should be a little bigger with 2 BB in the starting pot instead of 1.5 BB.
2) The SB is also going to be able to defend a little looser with 1 BB live in the pot instead of 0.5 BB.

But the adjustments are minor. Causal players may not even notice.

As for as pot limit games, most games now just count the SB as "complete" for simplicity whether or not it is 0.5 BB or 1 BB.

So totally up to you and your game and what denominations you have available.

But I know @merkong loves the change to 0.25-0.25 blinds in his game .

Totally agree re: cash games. But this thread got me wondering about how the question might apply to tournaments..... would equal-value blinds significantly alter game play and/or strategy?

A number of existing tourney blind structures include an opening 25/25, 100/100, or 500/500 level, but I don't recall the practice being expanded beyond the beginning level:

200/200
300/300
400/400
600/600
800/800
etc.

So why or why not?

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Depending on the denominations, having equal blinds could eliminate the need for one chip denomination. For example, playing .25/.25 instead of .10/.25 eliminates the need for dimes, and playing 1/1 instead of .50/1 eliminates the need for any frac at all. Now, is that a pro or a con? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. . . .

This.

Another option is a single blind.

I think $1 single blind plays very similarly to most .25/.50 home games, and it eliminates the need for fracs. Bad for chippers, but good for hosts who have sets without fracs and want to keep things simple.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Totally agree re: cash games. But this thread got me wondering about how the question might apply to tournaments..... would equal-value blinds significantly alter game play and/or strategy?

A number of existing tourney blind structures include an opening 25/25, 100/100, or 500/500 level, but I don't recall the practice being expanded beyond the beginning level:

200/200
300/300
400/400
600/600
800/800
etc.

So why or why not?

Feels like these rounds would require stronger defense from the SB position, and would increase preflop 3!/4! from the blinds. I'd expect more BB 4! because the SB is more incentivized to 3! LP raises with a wider range.

For the SB, a 200/200 round is very comparable to 400/200, so he's going to be defending wider, 3! wider, but also maybe calling raises wider since it's cheaper to call a 3x to 600 (200/200) than a 3x to 1200 (400/200). But, there's also a good reason to just move those hands into a 3! range since you don't want BB to flat behind in position or squeeze.

I dunno, I suck at tourneys.

 

[Nine_high]

Totally agree re: cash games. But this thread got me wondering about how the question might apply to tournaments..... would equal-value blinds significantly alter game play and/or strategy?

IDK, but I would think so, especially in the later stages. When the blind can be such a huge chunk of your stack getting half off in the small seems pretty significant.

A number of existing tourney blind structures include an opening 25/25, 100/100, or 500/500 level, but I don't recall the practice being expanded beyond the beginning level:

200/200
300/300
400/400
600/600
800/800
etc.

So why or why not?

I guess you could, but it would seem weird to me because you have the chips to make the small blind smaller after that opening level. I always looked at it as, set the big where you want it, then use what you have to make the small close to half (like 1/3, 2/3, 2/5, or 3/5 depending on the denominations). Or just make them equal if the big blind is your smallest chip.

 

[moose]

 

[allforcharity]

Playing $1/$1 or higher saves money on chips, because you can avoid buying or making expensive fracs. My bankroll still prefers 0 25/0.50 though!

 

[RagingAZN]

 

[grebe]

A half a blind in a cash game is nothing when most have 100 plus blinds in their stack.

A half a blind in a 10 blind tournament stack is huge.

I would jump into any 1/1 cash game. I probably wouldn't play (I would, but I'd bitch about it) in a tourney with equal blinds

 

[BGinGA]

A half a blind in a cash game is nothing when most have 100 plus blinds in their stack.

A half a blind in a 10 blind tournament stack is huge.

I would jump into any 1/1 cash game. I probably wouldn't play (I would, but I'd bitch about it) in a tourney with equal blinds

So maybe equal blinds early when stacks are larger, but transition to traditional blinds as stacks get smaller.....

 

[JustinInMN]

Another option is a single blind.

I think $1 single blind plays very similarly to most .25/.50 home games, and it eliminates the need for fracs. Bad for chippers, but good for hosts who have sets without fracs and want to keep things simple.

My concern with single blind is that "raise-it take -it" becomes a little too frequent with only one hand having live money in the pot instead of two.

That would alter gameplay way more significantly than manipulating the small blind relative to the big blind.

That said, I do believe ante + single blind was a common format for draw games in the 60s and 70s.

 

[andrebttx]

We switched to 25¢/25¢ at my home game because I did not want to go through the process of finding a nickel / dime for my first set of Paulsons (IG), especially when the quarter was already going to be the most expensive chip on the felt. Just felt like a bad ROI.

Folks got completely used to it within a single session. Ultimately did not change how the game played. There were probably fractionally more family pots just by sheer probability but that’s it.

 

[JustinInMN]

So maybe equal blinds early when stacks are larger, but transition to traditional blinds as stacks get smaller.....

Which when you think about it, is how most structures work in the BBA-era.

The only "1-1" level has to be at the start of the tournament. After that, it should always be possible to generate 1-2 levels.