Cash Game Single Blind on the Button in lieu of SB and BB? (1 Viewer)

[jbutler]

Started playing a PLO game a couple months ago that uses a single blind structure. I've played the $5/0 PLO game at Parx many times, but with that game, the blind is to the immediate left of the button. In this new game, the single blind is on the button.

The basic structure of the game is alternating rounds of high and high/low and the dealer chooses: (1) 4-card or 5-card; and (2) whether the single blind is $5, $10, or $15. Action then begins to the left of the button (what would ordinarily be the small blind). Buy-in is $100 min, no max.

My only criticism of this structure is the same I have of the button straddle in other games, which is that it encourages people to play more correctly out of position. Otherwise, I have liked the structure and my concern that people will play tighter out of position has proven mostly unfounded as the game is full of people willing to limp an absurd percentage of hands from early position.

I would be curious if anyone has any thoughts on the consequences of this structure and how it should impact our strategy in the game.

 

[Jambine]

every single blind button game I have ever played had the blind post left of the button. I don't see any reason to post on the button (except maybe for a Mississippi straddle)

 

[ChaosRock]

My only criticism of this structure is the same I have of the button straddle in other games, which is that it encourages people to play more correctly out of position. Otherwise, I have liked the structure and my concern that people will play tighter out of position has proven mostly unfounded as the game is full of people willing to limp an absurd percentage of hands from early position.

That would be my first thought also Jack... In regular blind games, one is always in position trying to steal... In button blind games, one is always out of position for the steal... I would argue one's range for the later case needs to be way tighter... I'm surprised you found it isn't...

Granted, that applies more to Hold'em than PLO...

 

[jbutler]

That would be my first thought also Jack... In regular blind games, one is always in position trying to steal... In button blind games, one is always out of position for the steal... I would argue one's range for the later case needs to be way tighter... I'm surprised you found it isn't...

There are definitely a few nit regulars, but for the most part they are the bad kind of nits you'd expect: loose, passive preflop and mostly tight, polarized flop players who love to limp and will generally call any raise to see the flop once they've limped. Fortunately they have learned that they can't allow players to see the turn for free, so when they flop a nutty hand they almost always bet and let you know they have a made hand. If they're drawing they'll generally check.

That dynamic makes for some funny spots, though, because you get so much limp/calling that hands like double suited 6789T become valuable only for their straight potential and occasionally backdoor flush potential if you've thinned the field on the flop. The likelihood is just too great that people will be in there with bigger suited cards if they call a suited flop.

So I have started raising only suited AA and KK hands and hands like A789T where the ace is suited or double suited AK567. Even raising double paired hands like TTJJ5 is a losing play in this game imo. You'll end up getting 4 limp/callers and a pot of $145 on the flop so you'd better be ready to play a big one if you hit and hope the board texture is good for your set.

I guess those concerns have less to do with the button blind aspect of the game and the general loose passive pre-flop play.

 

[Rhodeman77]

That sounds a lot like the main PLO table every weekend at the JACK. The stacks get so deep that a 3 bet to $100+ is almost always called by 4+ players.

The swings can be crazy. For the most part because of it I try to only play the feeder tables where stacks are usually $300 to $500 and a 3 bet to $100+ will often take the pot down or end up heads up.

 

[Mental Nomad]

my concern that people will play tighter out of position has proven mostly unfounded

Definitely interesting. I think your experience raises an idea that might not otherwise be obvious: a structure that is better for a group of skilled poker players might not be better for a group of casual players, and vice-versa.

Among a group of sharp players, I'd definitely expect the in-position blind to tighten up the game. You'd need the out-of-position blinds to help generate action, both via the blinds and the limping. But if more casual players are involved, your experience clearly shows that's not the case. Like you said, the rule ought to tend to make people play more correctly... but only if they're good enough poker players to understand how the rule ought to be changing their play!

Perhaps it's a mistake to use some of the standard rules of high-caliber professional play in a casual environment... perhaps it's not which way is better, but rather, which way is better for this game, versus that game.

 

[12thMan]

Yeah the one time we played a single blind on the button game it seemed like the normal small and big blinds folded every hand, we didn't really like it and switched back pretty quick to left of the button blind(s). It is definitely odd that people out of position opened up with no blinds but also probably makes for an ok game.

 

[jbutler]

Definitely interesting. I think your experience raises an idea that might not otherwise be obvious: a structure that is better for a group of skilled poker players might not be better for a group of casual players, and vice-versa.

Among a group of sharp players, I'd definitely expect the in-position blind to tighten up the game. You'd need the out-of-position blinds to help generate action, both via the blinds and the limping. But if more casual players are involved, your experience clearly shows that's not the case. Like you said, the rule ought to tend to make people play more correctly... but only if they're good enough poker players to understand how the rule ought to be changing their play!

Perhaps it's a mistake to use some of the standard rules of high-caliber professional play in a casual environment... perhaps it's not which way is better, but rather, which way is better for this game, versus that game.

Honestly I think it's so rare that we would find ourselves at a table composed primarily of skilled opponents that it's not much worth worrying about. At the highest stakes that I play regularly - $5/5 big bet and $10/20 limit - the vast majority of the player pool is near clueless.

For that reason, virtually every time I think about structure it's in the context of playing against bad/casual/recreational players.

 

[12thMan]

At the highest stakes that I play regularly - $5/5 big bet and $10/20 limit - the vast majority of the player pool is near clueless.

That would be pretty nice, I don't play much higher than 3/5 nlhe and plo, and I'm not saying everybody at those tables is a pro, but the casino I play at there is a big difference between the 1/3 nlhe game and the 3/5, and even though it's not exactly the same the 4/8 O8 is much softer than the bigger plo game. Like I say, not everybody is a pro, but there are not many soft spots in those like there is in the lowest limits.