But you're not the typical player at the top of the eco-system in a particular cardroom who wouldn't be there if they couldn't win. You're there to have fun, win or lose. A lot of this discussion is about those guys at or near the top who want their game structured to suit themselves without regard to other winning players with differing financial constraints.

Fair enough...I'll go find my sports talk elsewhere...

Most limit games I played in have a kill or maybe a half kill. Would be kinda weird to think that’s ok but straddles aren’t.

You aren't winning "as much as possible" if the fish aren't showing up. If they aren't having fun they won't show up. Thats what you nits don't understand and whybyou are bad for the game.

I don't mind straddles at all I just dislike the button straddle. Imagine if the blinds were positioned in the CO and HJ lol

I don't really like kills either, who said I did? I don't exactly think they're not OK, but I would prefer not to have either.

How many times have you heard the fish complain about one guy not straddling? Maybe it happens often, but we have been talking about you reg nits who don't want to pay more time charge complaining about it.

If bigger games play bigger time-charges then getting the straddle on allows the players to play the game of the size they want while paying less rake.

3 blinds ie mandatory utg straddles is a fairly common blind structure in private plo games. Sometimes even 4 blinds.

Good deeper stacked pros want to encourage a bigger game because it makes it easier to get others' deep stacks. If they think they have a reciprocal tilt control advantage they'll want a bigger game with more blinds. Giving loose, gambly types what they commonly want and ask for i.e. a straddle both enables you to make more money off them and makes them happier about it. They know what the score is, they make 6 figures in the city and know we're all much better than them at poker, but he's got money to burn and wants to have a fun gamble at high stakes for a couple of hours to avoid the wife while he pretends he's at the office the 3 nights a week he's not shtupping his secretary. A tight player who refuses to straddle under such conditions is not doing their job very well, of course barring potentially legit reasons. Under similar conditions a good, deep-stacked pro wants to force the nitty players to undergo variance they're clearly uncomfortable with otherwise they'd be buying in deeper and agreeing to straddle. A great live pro will be just as friendly with the reg fish as he is with the reg pros, and are in some sense colluding to make things more difficult for the nitty parasite and just want to get on with getting their gamble on without having to worry about that annoying nitty shortstack that's Slotbooming. It doesn't much surprise me that Mason is against them. I can't exactly imagine him ever getting to the table, smiling at or hugging or saying hi and introducing himself to everyone and then suggesting a round of straddles after pulling up to cover everyone.

Lastly, there's the old straddle bluff, where you really don't want this game to turn into a straddled game, or even really have a round of straddles, because you're taking a shot, but you don't want them to know that, and you're confident enough of them will say no and you come across as the gambly type, that is until you inevitably fold 5 hands in a row.

I suspect pokerrooms dislike the straddle for a lot of the reasons mentioned so far in this thread, but they allow them because they recognise the power of the player to just say yes one of the times they get invited to a private game that allows them.

I'll preface this by saying I don't play nearly as much as a I used to, so I'm not apart of conversations you see many regs having when they get dinner together, etc.

For the following examples well use mediocre regs who split time playing 2/5nl and 5/10nl. Playing the bigger game when it looks good, but defaulting to 2/5. Poker is their main income.

1) seems some people are implying they get a scummy edge by not straddling in a straddle game. Are you guys trying to say a strategy employed nowadays is something like.. when reg tells his friend, "hey , they are now playing with a mandatory straddle in the 5/10nl , I'm going to now get on that waitlist" just so they can take advantage of that straddle situation? When they wouldn't be trying to get in that game if they were no straddling. I would totally agree that is scummy.


2) what if they are playing their 2/5 and notice the 5/10 looks good now. Or maybe they are stuck and want to switch to the bigger game. They get on the list, get called, and pick up f rom the 2/5. Sit down at the 5/10 having no idea whether they were playing with a straddle or not. Turns out they were playing mandatory straddle, but the reg says "no, I'm not straddling, I just don't like straddling or I didn't bring that much money" Are they then being scummy by playing in that game? I get the feeling some here would say "yes". Personally I have no problem with that, it's listed as 5/10 and thats what he wants to post. He's not trying to make a deal to post smaller blinds, just the blinds as advertised.

1) isn't scummy, scummy is a pretty strong term, they're playing within the rules, and if the straddle is optional no-one's putting a gun to the other players' heads and saying 'you must keep straddling'. I've seen it happen that a new player comes to a table that's got an established straddle going and he refuses to straddle and then most or all of the rest of the table stops the straddle because they're not happy giving away EV like that. And they might be a bit sore about it, but no-one's being deceived or getting cheated in any way, and a casino should not be catering to regs by stepping in here.

2) isn't scummy either but it's on you to scout out the game you're moving to in order to ensure you've got a better risk/reward and that includes asking the table if the straddle is mandatory before you put your name on the list let alone sit down.

I feel like we should reserve 'scummy' for people who don't pay debts, or find some other clearly underhand way to cheat the other players (I'm totally cool with people who want to cheat the casino though). It loses its value if we just apply it to a guy who doesn't want to straddle when everyone else is straddling. He's allowed to do that. He's not angling, he's not marking cards, he's not being an a$$hole at the table, he just doesn't want to play as big stakes as the rest do.

So, nitty pros are 'parasites', but rich gambly pros aren't? Interesting theory.

I'm not saying that's how they are, I'm saying that's how they're painted. And in terms of bang for their buck, the loose gambly types will generally get more enjoyment out of gambling with a good loose deep player than a tight short-stacked non-straddling player. In live poker moresothan online pros should think about the service they're providing and how to provide a good one, not just from the obvious 'don't berate the fish' all the way up to 'as long as you get your edge, provide whatever conditions they're happiest with' and so you accomodate their requests for the option to gamble more and in a fair way because it benefits you and they get more pleasure out of it. Note in case you want to paint me as saying something I'm not saying, I'm also not claiming that all losing players are loosey-goosey deep-stacked gamblers who want to straddle. But some of them do, and often at the highest stakes they're the ones with the deepest pockets.

This should only be to their advantage if they're not good at deep stack play but are good at short-stack play.

Of course, they could go to the next higher stakes and always buy-in short.

Mason

It's true tat the pros will lose some of their advantage. But I suspect the poker room that wants this is hoping it'll stop the bad player from losing all his money to quick.

But if it causes the better players to lose much of their advantage, they won't make enough money to help start games and keep games going.

Mason

Winning 6 straddles an hour is better than 10big blinds an hour.

The next stake up is even more likely to have straddles

What you say is true but if you lower the win rate of the marginal winners they may not be able to win enough to help keep games going and to help start games. So, it can be a two-way street for the poker room.

Mason

No, it isn't. There are so many misconceptions.

If the game is 100BB deep and you half the stacks to 50BB, your win rate also drops, usually... by half.

If your win rate goes from 30BB/100 in 2/5 to 15BB/100 in 2/5/10, you still make $150 per 100.

To show how absurd this logic is, let's take it to its logical extreme. Let's say we take a 100BB game and we make it 10BB deep. Do people think they are going to be making more money? Well, if they do, they are sorely mistaken.

If they are as good shortstacked as they are at 100BB poker -and a lot of live poker regs aren't- they would be making 2-3BB/100 which is the equivalent of a fifth to a third of the effective stack which in turn ranslates to the same win rate in terms of money had they been playing 100BB deep.

To me the straddle makes sense if games are really deep. Then, it cuts down average stacks from 400 and 200BB to 200 and 100BB. That to me is an advantage, because it's easier to get stacks in - at least the way I play. The flip side of this is that there are some regs who are better at playing deep than the rest of the pool. Those people have a skill advantage in a particular area of the game and they are hurt by the straddle. Is this fair by any stretch of the imagination? No, it isn't, but it's drowned by the nonsense about nit regs and the good of the game.

Other than that, straddling is a mostly meaningless concession to the people who ask for it.

Oh and btw, 9 out of the last 10 times people asked for straddles in my games, they were regs, not whales. And that's conservative, because over the past few months, I frankly can't remember a whale who asked for it.

As far as the button straddle is concerned, I 've written about it in the live section.

The button straddler takes what is the most profitable position in poker and makes it at best .. less profitable for him. In all likelihood, the buttons straddler takes the most profitable position and makes it neutral or minus EV.

Let's do some math. When you are on the button, you are expected to make 30-40BB/100 . But that's when you are playing an optimally-exploitative range that depending on the rake structure can vary from 40-55% of hands.

Once you decide to button straddle, you start off with a minus 200BB/100 disadvantage. In order for the button straddle to be more profitable than not straddling, you need to be making at least 230 to 240BB/100! Even once you take into account the fact that by doubling the blinds, you are now earning 60-80BB/100 on the range you would play without the straddle, if you want to just break even, you still need to win an extra 120-140BB/100 with the 45-60% of hands you aren't supposed to play because both poker theory and practice says they are losing hands! How the hell is the Button straddle supposed to be a powerful money making move?

But that's not all. The cherry on the **** sundae is that by moving them two positions earlier, you maximize the positional disadvantage of the blinds, you take away one thing going for them which was to act last preflop and you then give them worse pot odds to call.

So, thanks to your poker idiocy, you are costing the blinds money without them having done anything wrong, while you redistribute your losses and their losses to the rest of the table.

The button straddle is murder-suicide is what it is.

That doesn't make sense. A good deep stack pro who has an edge when 300BB deep doesn't want to make the game 150BB deep. He would want to make it a 600BB deep game! He would want to halve the stakes not double them!

This makes sense as an argument, but isn't necessarily true. The idea isn't that people want to get opponents in deep stacked situations. The idea is they want a game in which there are more situations that put a stack in play, so that people with vulnerable bankrolls either make mistakes out of pressure or don't play it in the first place.

This maybe true with some people - regs or recs. But we don't know if it's true for the majority of the people. I don't believe it's true in my case. Like, if I sit down with a $1000 in a 5/10 game and you add a $25 straddle, I won't fold AK preflop to an all in regardless of my level of comfort. If anything getting it all in with AK is easier 40BB deep bankroll consequences be damned. I would feel far more uncomfortable however if we are $3000 deep in a 5/10 game and you put me all in while I am holding bottom set.

In other words, when you make the stacks shallower, it's harder to force people to make mistakes. And that's the point of the game. That's how people make money.

But therein lies the rub. If the purpose of straddling is as a psychological tactic aimed at intimidating opponents you don't want at the game, then don't complain if the same opponents refuse to accept your terms and insist on table stakes.

If they were concerned with their bb/100, you'd be correct, but they're concerned with $/hour, which goes up when you add a straddle even when you keep the same absolute stack size

I'm not claiming any of my arguments apply to even most let alone all people, nor even that the arguments are good, rather, these are the arguments these people make when they want a straddle. The point here is that if you're playing say $500 to shortstack a $5/10 game, it's in part because you want to reduce the variance, because your roll can't take the variance of buying in full, or buying in for the same $ amount to a bigger game; if the blinds go to $5/10/25, now your skill edge goes down and variance goes up. Good for the deep-stacked pro because that maximises the chance the shortstack loses his roll for the night and goes home on average earlier, leaving them more wiggle room to swashbuckle deeper stacked with the deep gambly fish.

Nitty pros taking a bunch of small edges like seat hopping fish not straddle etc to eek out small wins are adding nothing to the game and pissing off recs. Pros who give action,play fast, are fun to talk to etc are giving recs something for their money. If you don't understand the difference you don't understand live poker.

If you're going to take money out of the poker economy at least give the losing players something for their money.

Losing players, especially the ones who can afford to lose a lot don't all say I have x dollars to lose at poker for the month ,year whatever then I stop playing. They have disposable income they can spend on all sorts of different entertainment. Some of them even have basically unlimited money for the stakes they play. They're not saying "oh I lost 5,000 dollars in poker this month no poker until next month". They're playing poker because they enjoy playing and enjoy gambling. When they get nothing for their money they stop playing poker or play a lot less. Many of these same people are happy to dump piles in the pit bc in the pit they get treated well and get all the action they want even though the house has an edge. Yes most losing players have an amount they can afford to lose but that's not a special poker fund,it's essentially an entertainment fund.

If you have that mindset you'll have more fun at the table,games will be a lot better and more sustainable and you'll make more money in the long run.

Save the small edge parasite **** for online poker where it's needed. Online poker has long been about about small edges and mass volume. Live poker done right is about massive edges long term while passing on lots of small edges to keep games fun friendly and sustainable.

I think you're overestimating the reaction of recs to "Nitty pros" seat hopping or not straddling. Most are oblivious to the what and why of other player's actions. It's mostly the regs who might have a problem with it.

As for giving recs something for their money, this is what some pros like to tell themselves to feel better about taking the money of players who don't have a clue. I'm not buying that the pros are providing an entertainment service, I'm not buying that casinos are providing an entertainment service, and I'm not buying that cigarette manufacturers and providing a product for the smoking pleasure of its customers. It's all about the Benjamins.

It doesn't matter whether you buy these ideas or not. Their correctness or falsitude is not based on your opinion. If you don't class gambling as entertainment but you do class {other things we spend our time and money on in order not to survive but to enjoy our downtime} as entertainment then you're just arbitrarily deciding that it's not in the same class. It can be all about the benjamins at the same time as being concerned with giving people a good time, because if you don't give people a good time, you don't get the benjamins. Though in the UK we would now call it the Turings.

You've arbitrarily decided I was being arbitrary.

Seriously, I've been playing poker for several decades and have observed the behavior of both regs and recs. And I'm not claiming that people aren't being entertained by gambling. Just that the so-called providers aren't really in the business of providing entertainment. They're in the business of taking you money as fast as possible.

This idea that recs dont understand what "pros" are doing (table changing, seat hopping, dodging straddles) is so wrong. Nit pros seem to think that "recs" are stupid droolers simply because they are better than them at a single game - poker. In fact most recs are much more successful, socially smarter and generally huge winners at the game of life compared to boring nit regs trying to find every edge in live games. Just because someone is bad at poker (not because they are dumb, but because they dont care about getting good, they like gambling for fun) doesnt make them a moron.

Ive seen some absolutely horrendous behavior from regs who seem to think the rich business man fun player is clinically ******ed just because he isnt following the newest GTO opening charts. Recs very often get pissed off if someone seat hops them, but shitregs dont understand because their social skills are 0.