Posters who think we button straddlers are taking a -EV line are right.

We are dumb asses.

Play wider, raise more, take our money, we don't have a clue about what we are doing.

Better get it in now before the other Villains stack us first.

Like said many times ITT before, BT straddle is good(ish) for the straddler, but for the overall dynamic of the table, it is rarely as good as UTG straddling table's dynamic.

It's not -EV. The question is whether or not it's more +EV than not straddling. Good luck out-performing the best position at the table while putting money in blind.

What do you mean by the second sentence, especially "while putting money in blind"? You make it sound like it's harder to play against them since their money is in blind. As if it's harder to play against them because they could have anything.

And I don't see how you can flatly say it's not -EV. Perhaps there are some players that are skilled enough to take advantage of people trying to raise wider against them, etc., but in general it's difficult to make up for the fact that you're putting in more blind money than anyone with worse cards on average than anyone who stays in the pot.

When you look at people's won/lost results by position, people lose by far more money out of the BB than anywhere else, and it's not just because of position because they have better position than the SB but lose more. And UTG has only slightly better position than the BB but loses a lot less or even wins because they're not putting any blind money in and can play a tight range. BB is the biggest losing spot because it's putting money in with any two cards, and the straddle is even more blind money with any two cards.

I don’t know why interpreted my post this way but I do not think BU straddle is the best play. I think it is +EV. I think it is less +EV than not straddling.

I have never been at a table where I wasn't happy that someone started straddling. Even on the button I think it's great for the game. Loose gamblers get looser and tight nits get nittier. Nothing better as far as I'm concerned. I usually play in a "closed" player pool, though, so I know my opponents well. However, when I'm in Vegas and playing NLHE (PLO is my game of choice) I'll search for tables with straddlers.

I, personally, don't straddle unless everyone else is and I want to keep people happy. The only place I will straddle is the button, though.

That is the definition of -EV. You expect to make less money (have a lower EV) by straddling than not straddling, which means the act of straddling is a -EV move.

So I take it that you mean you still expect to make money in the long run on the button when you straddle, just not as much as when you don’t. If that’s the case, I suppose the motivation for straddling is to “liven up the game” at the expense of profits to make it more fun to play, which is fine if that’s the goal.

It's a matter of semantics (does -EV mean "less EV" or "negative EV"), but the most common definition IMO is "negative EV".

EV is your expected return on taking an action. -EV means you will, over time, lose money doing it.

It does not mean you make money, but make less money doing it than you would some other thing. If it did, there could only ever be one +EV action to take. This is not what the term means.

If you want to say "less EV", then either write it out, or maybe say <EV. IMO.

If we're isolating the act of straddling itself, it's -EV. You could say that playing a hand from the button while straddling is +EV, but the act of straddling itself loses you money compared to not doing it (if that's what you believe, which is what he stated) and is by definition -EV.

I guess you could say it's semantics of whether we're talking about the EV of playing the hand under those conditions or the impact of the act of straddling. But by definition, something that causes less EV is -EV. Straddling is a -EV move if you believe you make less money by straddling than if you don't. There's no ambiguity in that.

Not "by definition," no. The expected value is the weighted average of all possible future outcomes. If you can expect on average to get more money in return for the money you are putting in you have a positive expected outcome/value.

Your conception of EV is not standard.

I agree that that there is an EV of straddling and an EV of not straddling which is higher (and both positive, if that's what you assume). I say that the EV of taking the line of straddling (which was the point made by Nozsr that started this) is -EV (under those that assumptions). If you don't want to agree that that is a valid way of looking at it, that's fine with me. But if you want to isolate the EV of a certain decision within a hand, you have to compare it to the alternate outcome (comparing the EV of each outcome). This example perhaps is more clear:

Let's say you have the nuts on the river in a limit hold'em game and are first to act. You may want to know if checking to induce a bluff (or what he may think is a value bet) is a +EV move. Whether you check or bet is going to net you more chips on average, but depending on the frequency he would bet vs. check behind, you will make more chips with one decision than the other. If you make less by checking, then deciding to check is a -EV move be even though you are making money by doing it. Yes, there is the EV of checking itself, and there is the EV of betting itself and both are positive, but if you are asking the question checking is +EV move, you have to determine what the result is relative to the alternative (betting), similar to the decision to straddle vs not.

Edit: Basically, we're saying the same thing by taking the weighted value of all future outcomes. It's just the difference in how we're defining "all" outcomes. You're drawing the dotted line around the hand in which you straddle and determining the weighted value of all outcomes, and I'm choosing to draw the dotted line around the hand in which you straddle and a hand in which you don't and determining the weighted value of all outcomes. In that sense, I think we agree and it's just a matter of what what you're deciding to measure.

Ep nails it. Btn straddle vs no straddle is -EV. Playing btn with and without straddle is +EV but that is a different analysis than if the act of a btn straddle.

Then there is also the question of meta value a btn straddle May have on the game or your image. Every decision or choice made has an EV; wearing sun glasses, shuffling chips or even how many, folding aces preflop to a five bet, etc.

I've never been in a game with this rule; which rooms in Vegas have it? When I played 1/2 NL at the Venetian several years ago they had an UTG straddle, where UTG can raise before the cards are dealt. I saw it as a way to increase aggression in a NL game, though it would make zero sense in limit games. And no, I didn't do it once; I got my ass handed to me in that game by a middle aged Asian lady with a Unabomber hood, and at least one other likely pro at the table.

In 2012, I played 1/2 at the Venetian and they allowed Button straddle.

Weird, that would have been right about the time I played.

Terrible for the game. I do it every time.

I am surprised at the consensus here. I always thought they were great for the game, but I agree it puts SB and BB in an impossible spot. An adjustment i'm making this year though is to fold as much as possible in SB.

Limping is a key differentiator for why it makes Mississippi straddles bad... more players are willing to limp when they have UTG straddle hung up even if they raise they will be bloating the pot oop. But limping against a button straddle is worse because you can get raised and be out of position.

So by disincentivizing limping you’ve in essence put an end to one easy way to make money in poker which is attacking the limpers w iso raises in position. Now people are forced to limp stronger or not at all to combat this. Which is bad for game.

Golden Nugget 1/2 Las Vegas last night (Saturday night).

Four players consistently doing the button straddle.

More action by far with the button straddle than not, for hours.

Yes, this is anecdotal only, one bird does not a spring season make, but it was good for the game.

Despite there being some nits at the table.

YMMV.

If you are a solid player and agressive button straddle is great for your game but may not be for others. I work very hard at the tables I am at to get button staddles going. Builds better pots, picks on weak tight platers, and isolates players.

^ Sort of missing the point. If you can get everyone at the table to straddle, then the EV should be neutral when you do choose to straddle.

Point not missed. If the rest of the table isn't into the straddle you should wind up +EV over a years sample size. It is a debate neither of us can convince the other of, however as every region is different, we don't play the same, etc, etc.

I agree I have a different view than you. Hope everyone on the boards had a great weekend...

get them to do an utg straddle it's even better

I work very hard to annoy players like you by creating smaller pots and making it harder to isolate players.

I'm very much opposed to allowing button straddles.

They tend make everyone else afraid of limping marginal hands, because they assume the button straddler is going to raise. I've generally found that when someone straddles the button, you almost never see a multi-way flop; the hand usually just ends up heads-up between the button and one other player. Games with lots of multi-way limped pots are generally great games, and the button straddle forces players who would otherwise play this way to play better.

I also think button straddles are terrible because if only some people are doing it, they make the game unfair by putting certain seats at the table (specifically those in the blinds during a button straddle) at structural disadvantage relative to other players.

FWIW, I would always choose a game that doesn't allow button straddles over one that allows them. But if forced to play in a game that allows button straddles, I -will- straddle the button, because I think it is a +EV play. I will also actively choose to try to change seats to avoid being in the blinds during a straddle.