Cash Game Your stance on straddles (3 Viewers)

In favor of straddling?

  • -EV, you're basically throwing money away

    Votes: 19 28.4%
  • It's great for building pots

    Votes: 24 35.8%
  • Situational

    Votes: 24 35.8%

  • Total voters
    67
Yup. I've won over $200 playing .25/.50 only 5 or 6 handed.

I have seen players lose and win over a thousand big blinds at those stakes. However, I have never seen a player cash out over someone straddling in said games. Then again, I play with a bunch of Honey Badgers, and everyone knows they don't give a shit.
 
Last edited:
Yup. I've won over $200 playing .25/.50 only 5 or 6 handed.

$200 would be a very good night at those stakes and would probably require lots of sub par play among the group. $1500 is a head scratcher.

I guess I just don’t get the super deep stack super small bling games. A $1500 night is normally an extremely good $1/2 night and more likely a good $2/5 session.

To the OP, drop the straddle and raise the blinds IMHO.
 
I guess I just don’t get the super deep stack super small bling games.
It's pretty simple. You've got a group of guys who want to play cards - good, deep stack poker. But to do that at 1/2, you're looking at $300 buy-ins. And you need to be ready willing and able to fire a few bullets. There are a lot of guys who aren't excited about the idea of blowing a grand on poker night. But at .25/.50, you're only into it for $200-$300 for the night, tops.
Believe it or not, I'm a terrible $1/$2 player, but I'm a pretty good .25/.50 player.
 
$200 would be a very good night at those stakes and would probably require lots of sub par play among the group. $1500 is a head scratcher.

I guess I just don’t get the super deep stack super small bling games. A $1500 night is normally an extremely good $1/2 night and more likely a good $2/5 session.

My favorite game is $0.25/$0.50 blinds with $125 initial maximum buy-in, progressing to half the biggest stack as players exceed $250. Mixed game, usually dealer's choice, basically all circus games. We play every month or two, usually 8–12 hours from first to last hand. Frequent straddling and re-straddling.

Within a few hours, average stacks are in the $400–600 range. Depending on the player lineup, $1,000–2,000 stacks are eventually within the realm of possibility. Obscene numbers of chips make it onto the table, which is part of the fun. It's a good night if we get all of the $5 chips in play (and it's a lot). A great night sees all of the $20s and some hundos in play.

We joke that it's really a modest $2/$5 game masquerading as $0.25/$0.50. It does sometimes scare off new players who come expecting an actual baby-stakes game, but that's just part of the deal. It's not intended to cater to baby-stakes NLHE players. It's a very different kind of game.

I believe I may be talking about the same game @gopherblue was quoted about in @Mojo1312's earlier comment.

It's pretty simple. You've got a group of guys who want to play cards - good, deep stack poker. But to do that at 1/2, you're looking at $300 buy-ins. And you need to be ready willing and able to fire a few bullets. There are a lot of guys who aren't excited about the idea of blowing a grand on poker night. But at .25/.50, you're only into it for $200-$300 for the night, tops.
Believe it or not, I'm a terrible $1/$2 player, but I'm a pretty good .25/.50 player.

Yeah, this is part of it. And there's something to be said for the novelty of talking strategy about a hand later on, and mentioning that it started 2,500 BB effective. It's almost hilariously deep. Really makes you have to think hard about a lot of decisions, though, particularly in some of the wilder games.
 
The max buy-in is another huge issue which deserves its own topic.
A game is determined at least as much by the max buy-in as by the blinds (especially in NL).
I think you can't name a game after the blinds if the max buy-in doesn't stay south of 150BB.
A supposed .25/.50 game with $100 max buy-in is in fact a .50/$1 game if you want a true player's role, not a premium spectator's seat.
 
The max buy-in is another huge issue which deserves its own topic.
A game is determined at least as much by the max buy-in as by the blinds (especially in NL).
I think you can't name a game after the blinds if the max buy-in doesn't stay south of 150BB.
A supposed .25/.50 game with $100 max buy-in is in fact a .50/$1 game if you want a true player's role, not a premium spectator's seat.

This.
 
I think you can't name a game after the blinds if the max buy-in doesn't stay south of 150BB.
A supposed .25/.50 game with $100 max buy-in is in fact a .50/$1 game if you want a true player's role, not a premium spectator's seat.

Why? Where does this rule come from? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. And what do you mean by "premium spectator's seat"?
 
I wouldn't call it a rule. Players are free to agree to any combination of stakes & max buy-in that makes everyone of them happy.
It' about describing a game precisely, when inviting someone or when trying to agree with others to a game. I pointed out that the stakes are just half the game's name.
By "premium spectator's seat" I mean being forced to play ultra-tight (to an actually unplayable -and unpaying- degree) because the betting is disproportionately superior to the blinds, and outside the comfort level of a person prepared to play at the specific supposed stakes.
 
By "premium spectator's seat" I mean being forced to play ultra-tight (to an actually unplayable -and unpaying- degree) because the betting is disproportionately superior to the blinds, and outside the comfort level of a person prepared to play at the specific supposed stakes.
You've made an assumption that doesn't apply to the deep deep stack games I've played in. People do not routinely bet disproportionate to the blinds, just because they have a deep stack in front of them. If they did, I wouldn't be playing.
 
Why? Where does this rule come from? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. And what do you mean by "premium spectator's seat"?

Poker blinds were established for a purpose. I never heard of “deep stack” in reference to a cash game until I joined this forum and most poker books uses 100BB as a standard buyin in their hypotheticals. Even most casinos keep it under 200BBs. The $1/2 at Borgata is $300 max for example.

$.25/.50 games with a $400- 500 buyin seems to only encourage more wild gambling than poker. Lots of people seeing a flop with the hope that their suited 5 3 flushes out against some wacky straight. Then maybe they can double up in one hand. At least that is what has been talked about here before; how great the implied odds are.

If that is the kind of poker you like, by all means do it. I would imagine straddles are very popular in that type of game.
 
People do not routinely bet disproportionate to the blinds, just because they have a deep stack in front of them.

This is exactly what happened in our $1/2 when we raised the max buyin from $200 to 300 (a modest increase compared to what people here reference). The game became looser and wild with 5-7 people seeing a flop trying to get lucky.
 
You've made an assumption that doesn't apply to the deep deep stack games I've played in. People do not routinely bet disproportionate to the blinds, just because they have a deep stack in front of them. If they did, I wouldn't be playing.

Same here. The game I play in is an action game, for sure, and it does sometimes develop massive pots, but it's not like people are making $40 opening raises. It's almost exclusively pot-limit games. Max opening raise is $2 with no limpers. Even with a straddle in play, it's $4, or $8 with a double straddle. For the betting to get stack-threatening, there has to be pretty wild action.

But what the deep stacks do mean is that a lot of hands go all the way to the last round with significant betting still possible, and that in turn means that you have to make thoughtful decisions from beginning to end. That's what I like about it, and what a lot of the players in that game like too. Playing 100 BB NLHE is comparatively much simpler. The relatively short stacks limit the range of reasonable actions you can take. It only takes a couple raises for you to be facing an all-in decision by the flop or turn, whereas that's very rare if you're sitting 1,000 BB deep.
 
On my personal play: I straddle two times. If the table agrees to a mandatory straddle, I go along. This almost never happens, with the exception of the rock being in play. I also believe in a catch & release policy regarding straddles - i.e. if I win a pot where someone straddled, then I post a straddle when it is my turn.

As for my games . . . I limit straddles to a single 2bb straddle from UTG in the lower stakes games but allow any sort of crazy bets in the $1/$2 game. I do this based on the interested of the game. The players coming to the low stakes games come there for the financial safety of a small blind / small buy-in game. I have one player on a life ban from the $0.25/$0.50 because he just wouldn't quit betting $6.25 blind trying to juice the game. (While I was personally happy to take his money, the "old lady" regulars complained loudly enough to get a change made.)

And in reference to buy-in vs blinds . . . . the buy-in limits are pivotal in controlling how a game runs. Big buy-ins relative to the blinds greatly favor the better players vs the weaker players. Weak players who buy in big quickly become former players. Weak players who don't buy-in big might control their losses but their chance to score a big win are greatly diminished unless they adopt a hit-n-run plan for what to do when they get lucky.

In general big buy-ins are bad for a regular game if the host cares about keeping the lesser skilled players happy. Short stacked play favors the weaker players. I have lost one or two players from my $0.25/$0.50 - $20 max buy in game due to losses in 15+ years of hosting that game. I have lost ~50 players from my $1/$2 - match the big stack buy-in game due to loss rates. I still run or play in the $20 game 5-6 times a month, I rarely get in more than 10 $1/$2 games a year now.

Deep games are more intellectually challenging. I like them myself. But they aren't good for my games from the point of view of the host. I host something like 60 games a year and play in another 25 within a small player pool. The losing players have pain points that will end their participation if the winners get greedy. My job as the host is to keep the games healthy - if the players want a short stacked game, that is what they get.
 
Poker blinds were established for a purpose. I never heard of “deep stack” in reference to a cash game until I joined this forum and most poker books uses 100BB as a standard buyin in their hypotheticals. Even most casinos keep it under 200BBs. The $1/2 at Borgata is $300 max for example.

$.25/.50 games with a $400- 500 buyin seems to only encourage more wild gambling than poker. Lots of people seeing a flop with the hope that their suited 5 3 flushes out against some wacky straight. Then maybe they can double up in one hand. At least that is what has been talked about here before; how great the implied odds are.

If that is the kind of poker you like, by all means do it. I would imagine straddles are very popular in that type of game.

The implied odds are great, but it requires a lot of judgment. If you frequently play weak cards hoping to get lucky, you will get lucky once in a while, but you'll also often donk off copious amounts of money with second-best hands. Just like "normal" poker with the buy-in limits you're talking about, but magnified.

Honestly, if you're sitting 1,500 BB deep, how much action can you stand with a 5-high flush? You think the straight is going to want to risk that much with a flush on board, or will you be up against a bigger flush? Do you really want to get all-in frequently in that spot? It's the same approximate series of considerations, except that you can't relieve yourself of later decisions by getting all-in early in the hand.

This is exactly what happened in our $1/2 when we raised the max buyin from $200 to 300 (a modest increase compared to what people here reference). The game became looser and wild with 5-7 people seeing a flop trying to get lucky.

Sounds like it turned a possibly nitty game into a great game. Unless people are ripping through rebuys every other hand, a 150 BB max does not warrant playing so loosely.
 
$.25/.50 games with a $400- 500 buyin seems to only encourage more wild gambling than poker.
I never suggested anything close to that. But I’ve seen great $100 buy-in .25/.50 games. That’s 200 bigs, and while it’s a bit higher than the casinos typically allow, I think it’s gteeat for big bet games and almost necessary for pot limit games
 
Straddles are not always -ev. As with everything in poker....depends on the situation and players.

Can you provide a situation where a straddle is +EV compared to simply raising normally? You may be correct, but I don't understand how blindly min raising can every be considered better than actually looking at your cards first and then choosing to raise.
 
On my personal play: I straddle two times. If the table agrees to a mandatory straddle, I go along. This almost never happens, with the exception of the rock being in play. I also believe in a catch & release policy regarding straddles - i.e. if I win a pot where someone straddled, then I post a straddle when it is my turn.

As for my games . . . I limit straddles to a single 2bb straddle from UTG in the lower stakes games but allow any sort of crazy bets in the $1/$2 game. I do this based on the interested of the game. The players coming to the low stakes games come there for the financial safety of a small blind / small buy-in game. I have one player on a life ban from the $0.25/$0.50 because he just wouldn't quit betting $6.25 blind trying to juice the game. (While I was personally happy to take his money, the "old lady" regulars complained loudly enough to get a change made.)

And in reference to buy-in vs blinds . . . . the buy-in limits are pivotal in controlling how a game runs. Big buy-ins relative to the blinds greatly favor the better players vs the weaker players. Weak players who buy in big quickly become former players. Weak players who don't buy-in big might control their losses but their chance to score a big win are greatly diminished unless they adopt a hit-n-run plan for what to do when they get lucky.

In general big buy-ins are bad for a regular game if the host cares about keeping the lesser skilled players happy. Short stacked play favors the weaker players. I have lost one or two players from my $0.25/$0.50 - $20 max buy in game due to losses in 15+ years of hosting that game. I have lost ~50 players from my $1/$2 - match the big stack buy-in game due to loss rates. I still run or play in the $20 game 5-6 times a month, I rarely get in more than 10 $1/$2 games a year now.

Deep games are more intellectually challenging. I like them myself. But they aren't good for my games from the point of view of the host. I host something like 60 games a year and play in another 25 within a small player pool. The losing players have pain points that will end their participation if the winners get greedy. My job as the host is to keep the games healthy - if the players want a short stacked game, that is what they get.

Great analysis.

As much as I love playing deep-stacked games, I also play in a weekly $0.25/$0.50 NLHE-only game with what I consider very short stacks, $20 max buy-in. The upside is that there are frequent rebuys, so the game often ends up playing fairly deep by the end of the night. It only runs about 5–6 hours, and I think that's the sweet spot. It gives everyone enough time to scratch their poker itch, and there are plenty of opportunities to bank a nice win, but generally no one gets hurt too badly. Very recreational type of game.

In contrast, it used to be $0.50/$1 NLHE with a $20/$40/$60 buy-in that progressed with stack sizes. On a slow night, it barely played bigger than $0.25/$0.50, but if the action got pushed a little early on (by, say, me), stacks could grow quickly, and people were soon stacking multiple $40 rebuys in the first hour or two. Players would bust faster, and going into the 4th and 5th hours, we'd be pretty deep-stacked and short-handed. We'd sometimes even play into the wee hours of the morning (6 or 7 hours game time), usually because I had a different work schedule and could stick around long enough to keep the game alive. Often, less experienced players who'd done well earlier in the night would give a lot of their wins back, if not bust out.

The $0.50/$1 format was really hurting the game after a while. The host decided to knock it down to the $0.25/$0.50 format to keep a few key players in the game because it was playing out of their comfort levels, and their leaving would threaten the game. (It's also been going 10+ years, so it's important to keep the core players happy, even if the game might survive without them.) In the end, I think it was a smart move, and I'm glad for it even if I don't win as much as I used to. The game is more fun and less contentious.

Straddles and re-straddles are allowed in both formats, BTW. I avail myself more than anyone else, but I've gotten a few other players to do it as well. Some people whine once in a while, but it's mostly received good-naturedly.
 
UTG straddle - don't care - they could bet it blind anyhow

Button straddle - think it's a little too much of an advantage to the button

Multiple straddles always seems kind of silly

Buy in to blind ratio is probably more important. Always a challenge to keep a home game friendly yet competitive with players of varying skill levels and wealth.
 
Can you provide a situation where a straddle is +EV compared to simply raising normally? You may be correct, but I don't understand how blindly min raising can every be considered better than actually looking at your cards first and then choosing to raise.

If players are drunk or on tilt...

If you have a skill advantage that warrants getting in big hands.

it also helps build an image of being willing to gamble.
 
If players are drunk or on tilt...

If you have a skill advantage that warrants getting in big hands.

it also helps build an image of being willing to gamble.

I'll grant you the third one, but the first two I'd still disagree with.
 
I'll grant you the third one, but the first two I'd still disagree with.

The second one can absolutely be true in the right circumstances.

Put yourself in a short-handed game with players who frequently defend their blinds, who call raises preflop and get weak on the flop, and other exploitable tendencies of that sort. They leave tons of money on the table post-flop. By bloating the pot preflop, you increase the sizes of the pots they so readily abandon.

Granted, it requires specific game conditions and player tendencies, but doesn't everything?
 
The implied odds are great, but it requires a lot of judgment. If you frequently play weak cards hoping to get lucky, you will get lucky once in a while, but you'll also often donk off copious amounts of money with second-best hands. Just like "normal" poker with the buy-in limits you're talking about, but magnified.

Honestly, if you're sitting 1,500 BB deep, how much action can you stand with a 5-high flush? You think the straight is going to want to risk that much with a flush on board, or will you be up against a bigger flush? Do you really want to get all-in frequently in that spot? It's the same approximate series of considerations, except that you can't relieve yourself of later decisions by getting all-in early in the hand.



Sounds like it turned a possibly nitty game into a great game. Unless people are ripping through rebuys every other hand, a 150 BB max does not warrant playing so loosely.

Nitty? Haha, you should meet my $1/2-$2/5 crew. 70% are borderline degenerate gamblers. The only thing that keeps them somewhat on the level is their competitive streak and fear of being mocked for losing
 
Nitty? Haha, you should meet my $1/2-$2/5 crew. 70% are borderline degenerate gamblers. The only thing that keeps them somewhat on the level is their competitive streak and fear of being mocked for losing

What was the game like with a $200 max, then? For your description, it sounded like 5–7 people seeing a flop hoping to get lucky was a big change that came with $300 max.
 
What was the game like with a $200 max, then? For your description, it sounded like 5–7 people seeing a flop hoping to get lucky was a big change that came with $300 max.

Didn’t think it would make a difference but it did. The game was always moderately loose and aggressive. More preflop raising with lower buyin. Higher buyin encouraged more limping. People think, “I can see a flop pretty cheap compared to my stack...might as well. “
 
UTG straddle - don't care - they could bet it blind anyhow

Button straddle - think it's a little too much of an advantage to the button

Multiple straddles always seems kind of silly
You overlook the importance of acting last.

While you won't see me initiate a straddle, I will triple straddle (or larger). This is because the price to limp with questionable cards is now a high-risk situation, and not only do I get to get an idea of hand strengths if they call, but I get to act last pre-flop, and then I'm in at least middle to late position for the rest of the hand.

If players are drunk or on tilt...

If you have a skill advantage that warrants getting in big hands.

it also helps build an image of being willing to gamble.
The second one can absolutely be true in the right circumstances.

Put yourself in a short-handed game with players who frequently defend their blinds, who call raises preflop and get weak on the flop, and other exploitable tendencies of that sort. They leave tons of money on the table post-flop. By bloating the pot preflop, you increase the sizes of the pots they so readily abandon.

Jimulacrum is right here. If you really dislike the people you play cards against, you absolutely must "exploit" their weakness. If you are playing with friends, you should eliminate straddles or deep stack play, because only the dirtiest asshole would ever invite their friends over to "exploit" them.

You should always play to win, but as a host, you can adjust the rules to make sure your friends aren't being exploited.
 
Jimulacrum is right here. If you really dislike the people you play cards against, you absolutely must "exploit" their weakness. If you are playing with friends, you should eliminate straddles or deep stack play, because only the dirtiest asshole would ever invite their friends over to "exploit" them.

You should always play to win, but as a host, you can adjust the rules to make sure your friends aren't being exploited.

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'll grant you the third one, but the first two I'd still disagree with.

We can test this. You drink 6 beers and then we play 100 NL heads up. I will straddle every other button.
 
Funny story: I used to play heads-up with a friend who was insatiably competitive when it came to poker. Being totally objective, he was very outmatched playing with me, so I insisted that our HU matches be limited to $5 and $10 at a time, but with unlimited straddles and re-straddles allowed (since we both liked doing it).

On his button, he'd straddle, and generally I'd just leave it at that. On my button, I'd straddle, and he'd re-straddle out of position. If I re-straddled again, he'd re-straddle right back, indefinitely, until I stopped. He couldn't resist. This was obviously super-exploitable. I only did it a few times before I took him aside and explained why it was such a bad move.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom