If I were trying to do everything in one go using analytical equations then maybe you'd have a point. But i'm not. I'm empirically building the model one piece at a time with an independent variable set against various dependent variables. I will go through different independent variables and eventually I will incorporating limp ranges into whatever scenario I decide to model.

Look, lets say I want to model stealing the blinds from the BTN. Do I need the limp ranges of UTG thru CO??? Do I need the limp range of the SB and BB??? No, I only need to create a customized scenario assumming everyone folded and I'm on the BTN and then I only need the calling ranges of the SB and BB in relation to my raise. So in this scenario, why would I need the limp ranges of UTG thru CO??? I can just assume they fold because that is the scenario i'm trying to model.

I'm basically doing the same thing here so far...

Hmmm... I typed and retyped several posts but they were tl;dr

I list the assumptions and parameters of the scenario, if you don't see the utility of it then fair enough.

Basically, I don't think you understand what I'm doing, maybe its because you would approach it a different way.

We seem to be going in circles.

Would you accept that the ranges of the players who have already limped will effect there folding frequency?

V1 and V2 both call your squeeze with top 5% hands

V1 limps 100%
V2 limps 50%

Do you think they are both calling your squeeze with the same frequency.

I understand what you have done. You have shown how many random hands need to be in the pot before your chances of running into a monster negates the times you steal. This is true of all positions and not relevant to straddles.

Isn't there a fundamental difference between limping in a straddled-pot and limping in a non-straddled pot?

Intuitively, from experience, we suspect this to the case. For reasons relating to the social dimension of "gambling", players will more likely limp with a wider range simply because UTG has decided he's "donating" 2bb blind. There is an unspoken etiquette---social pressure---to likewise donate.

For example, a tight passive in MP may play J9o in a straddled pot, when normally these cards are instantly mucked. Of course being a tight passive, he's not playing 36o, because he doesn't really gamble like others. J9o has greater EV than normal as a starting hand, because the others are blind---it almost plays like QJ in the TP's mind.

However, the TP isn't going to call your squeeze with J9o, in the same way he wouldn't call your B/B raise with QJ. But say he limps in a straddled pot with AJ? Does this hand play more like AK on account of the straddle? Does this mean he might call your squeeze somewhat "lighter" than normal?

I'm not sure about this, but I sense the tight-passive might still muck AJ because he's MP in this scenario. But he may call with this hand if he were C/O or B/N.

In to read this later... looks like good theory OP.

For some reason that I cannot possibly fathom, in your head you somehow link limps with folding frequency???

The two are mutually exclusive. Me limping 100% of the time has ABSOLUTELY 100% NOTHING to do with my fold frequency PERIOD!!!!

oh wait, I think I see what you are getting at....

If I limp 50% of the time that "must" mean my range is wide and therefore i'd fold to squeezes a higher percentage of the time to someone who limps 10% of the time which means he limps with a stronger range and thus will call a 3bet a higher percentage of the time???

Even though that is logical, that isn't necessarily true. What if I decide to fold 100% of all pocket pairs because that is how I play and I raise 100% of the time whenever I have a 2 (lucky deucese never lose right) and I limp 100% of the time when I have a 3. How would you account for that?

Well, my models can BECAUSE I INPUT THE RANGES DIRECTLY and let the chips fall where they may.



This graphic illustrates where I think we may be having our disagreeance. As near as I can tell, you are trying to link limping frequency with 3bet calling frequency by using deductive logic however that is not accurate as shown by the ranges I specified above.

Not to say that deductive logic couldn't be used to link limping and 3bet calling frequency. You "could" do it that way however, as i've shown, all it takes is ANY unconventional circumstances for that model to blow up. It would be a lot more accurate to just identify the limping, calling, 3betting, 4betting, etc ranges DIRECTLY.

Which is what i'm doing.

Why on earth would any decent player ever want to simply just call a straddle from some gambling "idiot" that is doing that with 100% range since they of course do it before they see. If you have AJ+ or whatever 77+ why on earth wouldnt you raise this?

The extra money the straddle adds is massive. So play your normal poker ignoring the straddle and treating it as dead money over 80% of the time. If you play top 20-30% of hands depending on position simply wait and strike. People are afraid to raise the straddle. Why not? What on earth is say a guy calling a straddle with say 2 left to act with AQ and not raising it??? Just treat the straddle for what it really is, a forced big bet with a random hand as 3rd blind, how negative EV is this???

Lets try for now to do this;

Imagine you are the first one to act with n+1 left behind including the straddle guy. Just evaluate what hands you want to raise with and screw limping because now basically unless you are trapping there is very few limping hands that make sense to play if n is big because it gets expensive. So only raise straddles basically or do not get involved. The game will be very profitable if you let the idiots straddle and you do not or if you try to do it with 50-70% less frequency to not appear a bad sport.

To evaluate what hands to raise with simply estimate the chance of better hands in the rest n+1 and act accordingly. Unless the straddle is huge this all looks like a game with 3 blinds that each is double the one before 0.5,1,2bb typically. So play your normal raising game and reduce limping of speculative hands from early positions because its expensive now and you risk a raise very often that will no longer be a 2-3bb extra cost but far more.

It is.

I'm not arguing this anymore in this thread. I gave you a well-reasoned argument complete with an example proving exactly why you are wrong and you retort with two words. If you want, we can continue this offline and PM a response to the query I posed to you.

There is a lot of scared money at 1/2nl and 2/5nl. Every single time I play someone straddles and it amazes me how often 4, 5, 6, or even 7 players will limp.

What's even funnier is I will routinely squeeze and half the table will talk tough saying "I know you don't have anything, I know you are just stealing" and then they still proceed to fold.

Even after I squeeze with JTs and get called by a short stack's 88 and I win and the whole table sees this. I will squeeze a straddle next orbit and villains still won't call me. They huff and puff while they limp saying, "Yeah, I know you're gonna raise again" and then action gets to me and I squeeze again and they say "I knew it" and then they still fold LOL

Lastly, a lot of "rocks" and "solid" players regard squeezing as "gambling" and something only those internet-kids-who-don't-know-how-to-play-real-poker do.

Most certainly i have no doubt in weak tables of scared people that can easily be true that straddling works well, especially if the raise is not 2bb but some 5bb giant bet that will make it tough in their eyes to raise. And it will be very lucrative now to study how to play in tables that indeed you see people fail to raise and just call it indicating to you what hand they have which can be priceless in reading terms because it may easily eclipse the cost of doing the straddle. I mean if they transparently play in an easy to see manner when they face a more expensive game that in itself can be pricelss for a player that is well financed and doesnt play scared at all. So by all means lets work also such problems.


Still its an interesting topic to consider also what is a decent raising range with n+1 left to act at 100bb depth if the straddle is size m bb. I mean a typical utg n=8 case with no straddle just normal blinds is about 10% range or if n=3 maybe 25-30% etc. Its nice to re-calculate these for the case of a straddle and have an idea how to play a basic not yet very complex game theoretically but still respectful raising game.

If indeed you have say a hand like A8o or lets say J9s or 67s basically weak hands in general and then finally lets try something like 72o and you have 100bb stack and the straddle you did is 5bb (i think its often just 2bb but it depends on the agreement right?) and you get to see no raise and 4 (lets not even go to 6 or 7 ) people to call that straddle and the pot when it gets back to you now is 5+4*5+1.5-1.5/5=26.5 bb say and you suddenly decide to do something crazy like push or raise to 25bb and fold if they push here is what the funny thing is about;

The fact that they never raised and play scared implies they didnt have QQ-AA,AK (typical say tight people would have raised here even if scared) so the best they can have that may decide to follow is 77-JJ and AQ,AJ and ATs,KQs lets stay with this range. But also imagine they called with a 20%- 3% range (in fact probably minus top 10% but if they are weak they view the 5bb as a raise already and they will not reraise it with AQ or AJ etc ). Basically each one of them has the 77-JJ and AQ,AJ and ATs,KQs in their 15-20% effective net range only about 20-30% of the time. Not only that but clearly the first 2-3 to react to your push or massive reraise will be afraid to call because they do not know if their hands like 77,88 or AJ,ATs,KQs instead of AQ,JJ,TT,99 are good enough with others left to act. So model this like the 4 left to act call you with such ranges with about each in the following order of chance; 10%,15%,20%,25%.
That leaves a nice 46% chance they all fold!!!

Trust me it will get even better if your own hand has a blocker or 2 while still being a semi stupid hand like Q9s or J9s or A8o or KTs. This will force their top hands range even lower possibly a 50%+ chance of all folding.


Now take your semidecent hand vs JJ-77,AQs-ATs,KQs,AQo-AJo. You have a decent 40.5% with KTs, 37% with J9s, 34% with Q9o, 36% with T8s,32-36% with suited connectors like 56s,76s,78s,89s even 40% with JTs. Even 72o is still not dead 23% (plus bonus in a 72 challenge game).


Now in this setting if they fold 50% and you push and have equity E vs their ranges above you make a profit (ie over the 100bb starting stack to justify the straddle forced bet i mean i start with when utg) if;

E*225*0.5+0.5*126>100 or E>33% (and we have of course ignored meta game value when exposed to be so stupidly audacious or tilt value if you get lucky and kill a good hand)


Now look how many hands you may happen to have straddling blindly satisfy this push idea;22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q4s+,J7s+,T7s+,97s+,87s,ATo+,K8 o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o or 32% of hands.

Additionally imagine you raised to 26bb with full intention to fold with almost all other AXo and KX and QX not in the list above and all other suited connectors and all other suited multi gappers eg all QXs most JXs,TXs,9Xs.

And of course imagine you raised with top 5% hands for value as well.


Basically you will be pushing with 27% of hands raising with 25% and seeing a flop checking with the rest.

Well damn right then it makes sense to do this. Basically it makes sense to give them some kind of action with top 50% either as raise fold or push call or direct push anyway.

The rest 50% of the time you checked or some of the time you raised and only got called not pushed you see a flop and 5% of the time you hit it very hard and then easily one of them or the single opponent will give you action for a small recovery or more of the say 5bb cost of the straddle.


Seems like a plan then if you straddle to 5 bb and get more than 4 callers. Of course if these guys raise only something like TT-AA,AK,AQ you will face a raise about 33% of the time with 8 others at the table. Obviously not all that 33% is a loss because some of the time your hand will be a reraise or call anyway especially if the raise is late one and the others are not a threat to push later if you called with a semi decent top 20% hand.


So lets do some math along these lines on how plus EV this may prove if you straddle to 5bb say in a table of 9 that others tend to call multiway and play scared not reraising.


However realize that all the above easily collapses in a decent table where the majority are not scared money and are up to what you are doing because either they will fold or raise you instead of limping/calling back.

If you still think there are all scared or not very bright and calling stations then sure go for it.

^ Thanks for the discussion. I got a busy week ahead, but will model the above in 8 or 9 days and post the results

As I said in my first few posts, this will be something I'll be updating and tinkering with over the next couple of months...

I had not thought about this, but I tend to be a very tight player, by design, and posting straddles - not every time - could be a fairly cheap way to loosen up my table image.

Like!

I know this comment of mine doesn't add much to your model but actually, where I play, it doesn't cuts the eff. stacks by half because a straddle is treated like a min-raise, not a blind that gets doubled. So in fact guys straddle to $10, you can raise to $15. And this means a lot.

I'm giving an example:

Your common opening in $2/$5 from UTG is $20. A guy straddles to $10 and you're UTG. There's no need to open to $40 just because your common open raise is 4x because oftenly people will view it as an over-raise, so you can easily make it $30 or even $25 if you feel you're not getting the whole table calling.

This is only valid, though, for open raises. When people start limping in obviously if you're squeezing the value must be greater because of the pot size.

Limping and calling the squeeze are not mutually exclusive. The squeeze calling range is a subset of the limping range. Limping therefore narrows the players range from a completely random distribution and must be used in the calculation of how often he will call.

If you define a players limping range as top 50% hands and his squeeze calling range as 10% hands; after limping that player will hold a hand that calls your squeeze 20% of the time.

A second player with a 25% limping range and the same 10% squeeze calling range will call you 40% of the time after limping.

Holy **** tl;dr

Why would straddling & then squeezing generate any more folds than just squeezing every bb? I stop thinking about it here....Due to the straddle, all SPR's preflop are cut in 1/2 so you are effectively squeezing shallower stacks.

I'll read this later b/c of all the work you put into it looks interesting but at first glance it looks like something that can be immediately concluded as not any more profitable than squeezing every time we are in the bb

I completely agree, a squeeze calling range is a subset of the limping range since you can't call a squeeze unless you are in the hand right

I guess what I meant to say is that no matter what, the squeeze calling range and the limp calling range must be DEFINED. Once they are defined, that is all I need to know for the purposes of modeling and I don't have to figure out the relationship between the two at this point. I mean I could, but its just unnecessary at this point.

How much the straddle is makes a difference. The typical straddle is only 2bb and what i said above wont apply unless you convert the all in to a big pot bet raise say and tighten also a bit all the suggested ranges. But if you are in a game that the straddle is big like 4-5 bb and you have the callers we used then yes its possible to play like that and register a profit.

In noway however a straddle squeeze is the same as a big blind squeeze. Nowhere near close. You see the blinds that complete or check are almost never doing that in multiway pots with big hands so they are pretty much dead chips if you squeeze. In other words you definitely have much higher incentive to squeeze with straddle than with Big blind. The fact nobody raised also is another incentive. The more the people that have called is also another incentive and with the blinds included rather than partially excluded (if you are the BB) you will have even more of an incentive. So its not at all the same as big blind squeeze.

This is what I posted in the other thread.

As for squeezing, I will only squeeze when there are weak fishy players in the hand. If another nit happens to call, I will normally check. Normally if a nit calls, they usually have intent to limp reraise from experience.

Question to all. Have you played often in games that straddle is more than 2bb? Or is it pretty much always 2bb? Poker after dark format is almost always i think 2bb and of course online its nowhere to be found and rarely a standard live anyway. This is very material as 2bb is no big deal but 4-5bb is definitely exploiting weak money calling stations. Restradding is another idea also if you want to instantly create a similar effect and get to read also the first staddler. Restraddling every single time ought to be super tilting too which might be another benefit lol. It will definitely create a very loose bully image but you then need to proceed carefully to avoid wasting chips vs people that have adapted if it fails to supertilt the table or if they revolt as they should if smart.

Where I play at straddles are normally more than 2bbs. 1/2 games straddles are normally 2.5-5bbs and 2/5-5/10 are 2-4bbs. I straddle 2.5 at 1/2 and 2bb at 2/5 and 5/10.

I sometimes restraddle if I have postflop position on the straddler and only if he is a weak tight opponent.

Exactly

Yes but if the straddle is done by all involved more or less with similar frequency or even 50% variations and you try to be on the lower part of the distribution without appearing nit or about on avg level, then it will benefit the most the one that can adapt to the situation better. In fact if people are bad at adapting it will give you a massive edge suddenly.

The real advantage comes from big straddles and weak opponents that do not raise them unless they have very predictable top 5% hands only and call them with many weak hands and small pairs and then face a sudden raise and get in tough spots folding.

If its a smart table that they do not participate in the straddle in the spirit of the game then yes its a deficit. And if it gives you a stupid gambling like image combined with some ******ed at surface all in moves with semi good hands while on straddle then imagine how your AA-QQ and sets, straights and flushes will be paid when you bet them hard too. Some times the price of doing business is worth it. You just need to know when.