Cash Game Your stance on straddles (2 Viewers)

[v1pe]

I always play to win, and in poker, that means exploiting people's mistakes.

But in games where I feel I can so brazenly exploit my opponents that a regular straddle is profitable, if I'm friends with the people (or at least want to keep the game together), I'll often avoid taking it any further than that.

For example, I won't button straddle even if it's an option, because if an UTG straddle is profitable, a button straddle is just abusive. I'll also make riskier plays, including all manner of even-money props and even crazy stuff like playing hands blind (without telling anyone) to set the variance into overdrive and occasionally throw back some of my winnings. You can't be the only big winner all the time, or no one will want to play with you.

As a host, yeah, I might eliminate some features just to protect the game. If I'm being totally honest, though, no-limit betting itself is the most abusive and exploitation-prone feature of most modern home games, and playing Hold'em that way doesn't do donators any favors. The rest is just details.

I feel the same way about UTG vs BTN straddle. I'll do the former at my home game, but I won't do the latter...even though I let others do it.

 

[TheOctagon]

If I'm being totally honest, though, no-limit betting itself is the most abusive and exploitation-prone feature of most modern home games, and playing Hold'em that way doesn't do donators any favors.

This is a huge understatement. I'm trying to get people to play more limit variants with a different spread of games to boot. The chief arguments against are, regarding lowball formats: "I don't like trying to have the losing hand." In the context of limit: "I heard that's boring. I want to be able to win or lose it all at once." Both of which are ridiculous statements for their own reasons in a home game where we're pitching nickels or quarters around.

Maybe a kill pot limit game would do something for those dissenters to make it more interesting or "exciting" the way a straddle could.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe Pot Limit-everything would be ideal for home poker (ie among socially related people) but again people are generally too lazy to be constantly and precisely calculating pot size (after having been trained enough to not splash pots that is).

 

[TheOctagon]

Maybe Pot Limit-everything would be ideal for home poker (ie among socially related people) but again people are generally too lazy to be constantly and precisely calculating pot size (after having been trained enough to not splash pots that is).

I think we're kind of hitting on a bigger topic here, and there has to be a thread or should be one, but there seems to be some genuine knowledge to spread about enhancing the home game for the casual player. Poker is a betting game, straddles and limits relate to how a player exercises control over the primary aspect of the game. Comfort levels range from "I'll try anything" to "if it smells like anything but NLHE, I'm out". I'd like to keep working new concepts into the game and allowing some experimentation. Straddles being one mode, for sure.

 

[BGinGA]

Maybe Pot Limit-everything would be ideal for home poker (ie among socially related people)

It has been my experience that pot-limit anything among casual/social players is a significantly faster way to lose your stack than no-limit.

Hardly anybody bets anything besides "POT", as if that's always the correct play (it isn't). Proper bet sizing goes out the window, subsequent pots get huge fast, and stacks get in the middle much more frequently than with a no-limit format. It's not just a non-hold'em game issue, either -- even pot-limit hold'em plays bigger than no-limit hold'em -- you just can't shove pre-flop.

If wanting to introduce Omaha to a group of hold'em players, make it either Fixed-Limit or No-Limit. Pot-limit will just encourage a bunch of bad betting habits, and people will be playing for stacks a lot more than they've been used to. It's worse when there are a mix of experienced players, too -- because the novices will take note of the (proper) pot-sized bets be made by the players "who know how to play", and emulate them.

 

[Coyote]

I 'll bow to experience!
So, to keep a home game tame, PL can only be of help pre-flop, right?

 

[BGinGA]

That actually does work, and even some of my tournament structures are pot-limit pre-flop and no-limit post-flop.

 

[MatB]

Hmmm straddles...

Personally i like them. Pretty sure anyone who has played with me knows that already.


Having someone not invited to a game because they straddle too much and people complained , is like asking someone to not to come to a game because they raise every time they have a pocket pair. I understand the social dynamics of something where a majority (even if wrong) can influence/ dictate the protocol so the game continues to be viable, having enough players to actually keep a game going. But to exclude a player who is playing within the rules of the game is pretty tough. And we are talking straddles here. If wealthy moron said "All-in" EVERY time he played a .25/.50 NLHE game because he could, i would understand. But literally to just double the big blind....(n) :thumbsdown:

I am starting think that straddle haters are more the type of player that are waiting for good cards and have little idea of the value of what they are holding pre-flop.
I dont think in ANY poker book (i have read none) you will ever find a chapter on how important it is that you get as many of the players to see a flop as possible.:

also....

I don't think 'exploiting' a situation to take a players roll, whether friends at a home game or strangers at a casino is wrong.
We are playing cards for money. We sit down and play a game and the goal is to extract the money from the other players.
I like to play that game.
I especially like to play that game with friends who can afford to play that game. I would rather play that game with my friends at a home game, drinking and having fun, than try to exploit a stranger at a casino who may or may not be playing with their children's food money.

 

[upNdown]

It has been my experience that pot-limit anything among casual/social players is a significantly faster way to lose your stack than no-limit.

Hardly anybody bets anything besides "POT", as if that's always the correct play (it isn't). Proper bet sizing goes out the window, subsequent pots get huge fast, and stacks get in the middle much more frequently than with a no-limit format. It's not just a non-hold'em game issue, either -- even pot-limit hold'em plays bigger than no-limit hold'em -- you just can't shove pre-flop.

If wanting to introduce Omaha to a group of hold'em players, make it either Fixed-Limit or No-Limit. Pot-limit will just encourage a bunch of bad betting habits, and people will be playing for stacks a lot more than they've been used to. It's worse when there are a mix of experienced players, too -- because the novices will take note of the (proper) pot-sized bets be made by the players "who know how to play", and emulate them.

So true! So ridiculous, and so true.

 

[v1pe]

Yeah it's funny how PL actually tends to breed more action. I guess it's kind of like the classic psychology of taking something away (the ability to bet without limits) and therefore increasing the desire for the very thing that's been taken away. If you can't bet all you want because there's a rule preventing it, perhaps the natural inclination is to take as much as you can get.

POT MF'ER!

 

[upNdown]

Yeah it's funny how PL actually tends to breed more action. I guess it's kind of like the classic psychology of taking something away (the ability to bet without limits) and therefore increasing the desire for the very thing that's been taken away. If you can't bet all you want because there's a rule preventing it, perhaps the natural inclination is to take as much as you can get.

POT MF'ER!

I was aghast at my first few orbits of PL games at a NH meetup. I'd never played PL before and I folded quite a few hands before I realized it was either jump in or don't play at all. I somehow managed to not lose money that weekend, but it took some adjustments and a total abandonment of my "play it tight" planned strategy.
To get back on topic though, nobody wastes their time straddling those pot limit games, because they know that no matter what happens, stacks are getting in by the turn, regardless!

 

[Mojo1312]

Moved post to maximum buy-ins.

 

[Coyote]

Poin taken @Mojo1312
I also believe in the importance of a high minimum buy-in - and might go as far as establishing a standard 100BB buy-in, or max half the big stack, if everybody agreed.
On the other hand, you can't force people on how much to risk/spend for their entertainment.
Most people won't have any further ambition than being decent players for entertainment purposes.