A straddle is basically an optional blind that players can choose to post or not post. They are usually twice the BB although they can be more - the casino/gaming commission sets the straddle amount.

Normally straddles are only allowed UTG.

At 2/5, with an UTG straddle, before the cards are dealt the player to the left of the big blind (UTG) can decide to post a $10 straddle (or they can just decline to straddle and the game proceeds normally). The action starts with the player to HIS left (UTG+1) and now to call it's $10.

When you straddle your money isn't dead - if it's limped around you still have an option to raise. So if 3 people limp and the bb calls the extra $5 you can raise.

Mississippi straddles is where you can straddle in any position, but it's usually done on the button.

If you're UTG you don't have to straddle - it's up to you. But if you do straddle in a 2/5 game it basically makes it like 2/5/10 game as if there were 3 blinds.
----
Cliff notes:

Straddle is an optional 3rd blind that the UTG player can post if he chooses. So in a 2/5 game it makes the game 2/5/10.

But the PROBLEM is that the buyins don't go up, so when you straddle everyone is effectively 50bb or half whatever they were to start the game. They might not realize that, but when you straddle you'll essentially create a short stacked 5/10 game for that hand.

The whole reason for straddles is to make the game bigger if everyone is say 300bb deep and you want more money to go in. Borgata had a 100bb max buyin so that was never an issue.

Again - players wanted it and the commission allowed it so that's why they got it. I understand and Stan would be crazy not to allow it. But that doesn't mean good players should do it.

How is that any different if they just raised to $10?

Norman Chad referred to this last year as a "super blind." It is basically a 3rd blind.

If they raised the blind to $10 or added a third blind to the game, that would be mandatory; the straddle is optional.

Oops, I thought you meant if "they" (the Borgata) raised the BB to $10.
You probably meant what PokerIsFrustrating answered below.

If they blind raise 10 and everyone calls they don't have an option to raise again.

In practice, it's almost the exact same thing. The difference is people think that they can straddle UTG, a bunch of people will limp (or 1 guy raises) and they can 3b or raise from the straddle and take it down. Or they think if they blind raise AA and get a lot of callers it's going to suck, but if they straddle they can raise back.

Anyone can blind raise $10 at 2/5 at Borgata if they want, but most people don't. If you call it a straddle and make it live, all of the wannabe pros think it's cool because they saw it online, even though an UTG is always -EV.

Saying people straddling is bad for the game is ridiculous. You may be playing shorter stacked poker, but you are playing higher stakes with equally skilled fish, without having to pay the full blinds. I mean, seriously, you wouldnt want to play 2/5/10 with 2/5 fish without having to pay the $10 blind because it makes the game shorter stacked? Not to mention, it wont be short stacked for long at those stakes...

I mostly play at Del Park where they've had this rule since it opened. I don't see too many players using the straddle effectively (at least not at 1-2). There's 2 types I see most often. Someone who always straddles their button, which I guess is so they have the last option. And the second being someone who is on some sort of tilt and straddles almost every hand. Mostly I just see these players throwing money away into the pot.

Occasionally you'll get a game with a lot of small pots and in that case a straddle is a good thing to have in order to get the action going.

I see a 3-5 nl game now. The buy-in for this game is $200 -$1000. hopefully with the straddle, this game will be more common.

Stan

I like to straddle occasionally, so I like this change. This may make me want to come again occasionally. It's obviously crazy to do if you're playing with 9 sharks, but then playing with 9 sharks is crazy to begin with. Not everyone knows how to play optimally when the other guy straddles, and it's good for your image.

Playing 1-2 yesterday, only one guy straddled, and only occasionally. It was fun.

Playing 1C today, time to run well.

<3 Borgata

Saw in another thread a mention of a $450 tourn Sat August 12 ?
Not shown on the Borg poker website yet ?

Wow over 600 in the $200k so far, but that is the total. We need some fish... I mean players.

So you're saying skilled players have an advantage when stacks are as short as possible? Does that mean at a $500 max game you frequently buy in for $250 instead of $500, because being short gives you an advantage? By your logic no pro or expert would ever want to play deep vs fish. Every 5-10 pro would buyin 50bb.

Most bad players don't even buy in 500 anyway. When they lose the $300 they buyin they'll just buyin another $300. If the game gets deep straddles are ok, but you're specifically saying straddles are great <100bb deep. I think I've shown why they're not, as it almost completely eliminates our skill postflop as a good player.

Fish play each street subsequently worse. Straddles almost completely eliminate river mistakes (b/c they're basically all before that) and makes stacking off on the flop and turn a much smaller mistake. It also makes it extremely difficult to bet/fold because pots become so bloated you basically have to shove for value and you can never get away from your hand. Barreling becomes almost impossible. The game basically becomes a preflop hand strength battle.

Shortstacked 2/5/10 is not higher stakes than deep stacked 2/5 btw.

Again, I was a professional short stacker who played >10,000 hands a day at 20bb cap on stars for like 6 months, so I think I know a little about short stacking. Trust me - deep stack poker is more profitable on one table.

I don't see 3-5 games ever being super popular as long as 2-5 goes.

Random players are going to think 3-5 is some kind of different game. They'll just play 2/5 because that's what they're used to and that's what most of the games are.

I think only the better players are going to play 3-5 so you might get one or two games but it's going to be all of the skilled players and it's going to be difficult to make money. So they'll probably go back to the softer 2/5 games (even though they're short)

If you don't straddle, everytime someone doe straddle is free, though not quite dead, money in the pot that you are benefiting from.

Have you experimented with buying in short and 3bet shoving over preflop raises and compared hourlies? At 2/5/10 I'd imagine the first raise would be to 35-40, and bigger if people limped in before. Seems like there will be a ton of ideal 3bet shoving situations in those spots.

Eventually you will just be 3betting instead of 3 bet shoving, but the underlying concept that a ton of profitable situations will occur should be the same. I'll probably head to Borgata after a year or two of not playing live just to check this out .

During the brief time where I logged 70+ hours/week live at Borgata 2/5 I was always trying to play deeper and deeper because of the edge I had until I saw some skilled players buying in for 300 or so. It was clear that 3bet shoving that stack on those 40 dollar raises with 2-3 callers was ridiculously profitable and could easily net a higher hourly than mine.

They'd rarely build up 3k+ stacks that feel good to have, but honestly from an EV and hourly standpoint I really can't imagine them losing out on much more than mine. Just a different way to play poker and sounds similar to the straddle concept -- of course if that play catches on with amateurs and crappy regulars it would suck.

**And I am not talking about the crappy "regs" that buy in for 300 and wait for big pairs to get paid or shove on. I mean actual good players that will squeeze with any two in good spots.

If everyone straddles and you don't you are essentially playing 2/5/10. So take your approximate winrate at 5/10 playing 50bb deep and add $25 to that (I know it isn't 100% that simple). Do you honestly think that number will be lower than your normal 100bb 2/5 winrate? The game playing shallower at higher stakes becomes less skillful but that doesn't mean it is less profitable.

Ok think about it this way. Lets say we can setmine and we ALWAYS get their stack when we hit. If there's a straddle we have to call like $40 or $50 whereas if not we only have to call $20 or $25. That's costing us $20-25 EVERY TIME we try to setmine. Same thing when we raise with AA. We STILL stack them every time they flop top pair for $500. So why would you want to pay $25 more every time you setmine and cut their mistakes by 50bb every time they stack, just to win a piece of a $10 blind.

On the river, if you have the best hand you're 100%-0%, and villain is often calling $300 or 60bb when you have 100% equity. Why would you want to basically never get to the river with stack depth so you can engage in a shortstack shovefest where you're trying to do flips and win a small overlay in the pot.

When you play at Borgata, do you prefer to buy for the minimum or less than $250 or buyin full? If you say you buy in deep, why? You could buy in $100 at Borgata 2/5 and do the same shove strategy you're recommending. Given that you think it's more profitable to be short, I assume you buy in $100 every time.

Yes I agree with this. With the free $10 in there, it's hard to have a lower win rate if you adjust accordingly. You can't call any raise with any suited cards on the button and outplay people, but you can 3bet more or just plain play tighter and make more money imo.

$10 every hand is a lot. It's like $1 equity for you every hand someone straddles and you don't depending on position etc but you know waht i mean

There is a guy who plays 10/25 now and then who likes to open blind to thousands of dollars. I like playing with him even if I only have a few BB effective.

I dunno man something about other people putting in money dead while I don't have to usually turns out good for me. Lots of people win money in the game when he's playing and I am sure they are all complaining that they don't get to play flop turn or river spots versus him.

This is an extreme example that I am sure you agree with. Do you agree that this can be extrapolated to what is essentially a blind min raise?

In my post I said I like buying in deep but I saw merits in those buying in short for 300 or so. You are sounding like someone who likes to characterize themselves as a loose player or a tight player, when in reality a good player will play loose or tight depending on the situation.

The straddle adds $10 from UTG who is in terrible position and will rarely win the hand or lose much more money trying to defend it in the long run. The rest of the people, increasing values to the button, are chopping up that equity. Look at any hand history data base and even the best players in the world are losing hugely from sb/bb positions and making more money the closer the button is. This is no different in that the straddle is going to be losing probably ~$7-8 in equity every time he straddles. By skipping the straddle, you are are not contributing money but are collecting it.

At 20-30 hands an hour, that is a free ~200 in equity that is distributed to the table. That alone should be enough to make up for your reduced hourly from shortstacks, besides the fact that recreationals will not be making proper adjustments like 3 betting.

And about your point with set mining, then simply don't setmine or realize that as set mining becomes less profitable, it becomes more profitable to include more 3 betting and limping into your range of plays. I know you are trying to take a zing at me by characterizing me as someone who will buyin for $100 (which could not be farther from the truth), but you just seem to want to play your game and not have to change your play in any way.

Lol. You're saying that as the best player at the table I don't have a bigger advantage playing deep stacked.

Again, which is better? Getting all in pre with KK vs AQ or getting 100bb in on the river with a set vs an overpair when I have 100% equity.

That's why deepstack play is inherently more profitable than shortstack play. When the big bets go in deep stacked my opponent is dead. Why do you think pros want to play deep in the first place?

If you guys honestly can't see that I don't know what to say. All of you should buyin short at every game you ever play and you'll have the best WR's in the casino.

I really think that a lot of people posting here just don't know how to play deepstacked. Maybe you just don't know what to do on the river, don't know how to valuebet thin, and don't know how to bet/fold. So you figure - if I can just get it in pre I know I'm ahead so lets do it.

So basically you'd rather chop up a piece of $10 than give someone a stack to make a 50-100bb mistake on the river when they have 0% equity. That pretty much sums up my argument right there.

It kills my hourly from the big stacks, not the short stacks. It makes it hard to bet/fold (which is 99% of our profit). I can't try to hit vs their strong hands. And it makes their mistakes 1/2 as bad. That's my problem. Straddling at $500 max makes EVERYONE short stacked.

Lets ask this another way. Would Phil Ivey ever buy in for $300 in a $500 game vs 2/5 competition? Why or why not?

I play 5/10 for a living. I prefer Parx over borgata precisely because Parx has a $3k max instead of $2k. I understand that my edge is higher in a deepstack game. I also understand my edge is even higher when we play 5/10/20 and I get to save $50 every hour by not posting the straddle while everyone else is.

If the goal was to have the highest hourly, with all other considerations aside, then he should but I don't know if he would personally.

It doesn't really matter where your hourly is coming from as long as your hourly is higher. Are you taking notes of your hourly over a ton of hours? Are you making more than $50-75 an hour? Like I said, on paper, without even accounting for change in strategy with proper 3 betting, the added $200 of equity given by the straddle is already $20/hr per player. That is simply too huge of a benefit to argue about shallower stacks.

I know you are trying to relate a point to us, but I hope you realize that a lot of us here know exactly how you want to play, and it is our preferred styles also. It is just ridiculous to not try to see it from the other perspective and go around reducing our points to "omg go buyin for min then".

I might just create a straddle thread on another forum because I didn't really mean to hijack the thread and make it about the straddle. If you want to straddle, I can't stop you - do whatever you want. I just wanted to discuss it with other players at Borgata.

I apologize if my comments were interpreted as bashing the room. I thought I made it clear that I understand why they got the straddle and as a poker they needed to get it because people wanted it. I just don't think people should do it. It's still the best run poker room, and I understand completely why there's a 2-5 $500 max and a $3-5 1000 max to protect the 5/10 game. So I apologize if my comments came across as bashing Borgata. I honestly didn't intend that, but when I look back I see how it looks that way so I apologize to Stan - I should have thought a little more before I posted.

The only thing I meant about 3-5 is that because it doesn't go often people think it's a different game. Recreational players have asked me at the table what 3-5 is and were surprised to find it's $200-1000 $5bb NL b/c they thought it was some other game like PLO or something. It would be interesting to have 2/5 and 3/5 going at the same time, I just think most people are just going to play 2/5 or 5/10.

Anyway I'll shut up for a while. Sorry for causing a problem. That's why I should stay off the internets