In live $1/$2 NL games I’ll occasionally see people straddle. While I understand this is UTG basically raising 2x the BB and the straddle can check or raise after the BB acts preflop, is there any strategy behind this play?

When would it be smart for someone to straddle, if ever?

Should I do anything differently if I’m at a table with someone who’s often straddling? And does it matter if I’m the SB/BB Vs elsewhere at the table when someone is often Straddling?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...ght=straddling

Straddling is quite costly, because you are putting in a forced bet in the worst position. OTOH if the whole table is straddling and double straddling, you have now upped the stakes, which is good if you are a winning player. Straddling can contribute to having an action image. Let's say you have a real action player at the table, and he's been losing heavily. He wants to win his money back, so he asks you to straddle. To me that is a time when I will always straddle, because the guy is so good for the game. Sometimes at a crazy table people will put on the 20, 40, 80, 160 at which point putting on the $10 is immediately profitable just because of the probability of it getting re and re straddled behind you.

Not really. Good, winning players usually hold a smaller edge over their opponents if stacks are shallower as opposed to deeper.

But really, this has all been discussed multiple times. A search brings up multiple large threads, my link is just one pointer for the OP.

It is almost never a good idea
For reasons already mentioned here.
It is as an even worse idea in games
That are already loose.
Most guys that straddle are just
Trying to look like sophisticated players.
Mathematically it's a fairly poor bet.

IIRC live button straddles are ok when allowed.

Especially if people become loose/passive and predictable facing this strange aggression?

yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll work in any game in which they're allowed

I think the only real interesting question is whether, assuming a multiway equilibrium exists, they are part of it, and if so to what extent it's affected by the total number of people at the table.

But from theory, it's quite clear that even a Mississippi straddle from the BTN is a bad idea for a winning player.

If, say, in a 5/10 game, the BTN straddles to 20, he has essentially made that 5/10 game a 10/20 game.

Given people's stack haven't changed, this reduces the number of streets of betting. Hence, the BTN takes away some of his positional advantage (the shallower stacks are, the larger is the value of position). And it really goes beyond that: Typically, the skill edge of good players over bad players is larger when stacks are deeper.
We see that even in tourneys which tend to play with shallower stacks. In those, good players employ a "small-ball" approach because they know their edge will be larger if there is more room for post-flop decisionmaking.

In poker, you can prove almost any theory by making the “right” assumptions.

You’re making one here: BTN is a winning player. The majority of players aren’t winning though. So the average player on the button might actually benefit from shallower stacks. If straddling gets your expectation from -10BB to -8BB, that move is +EV for you.

Now let’s assume BTN is a winning player in that game. That doesn’t mean he’s the best player at the table. Maybe he’s a 5BB winner in that game with two 15BB winners to his left and everyone else is a losing player. Putting those two players on his left in an even tougher spot by having to act first preflop might be worth the investment.

But the main assumptions we make when analyzing spots like this in theory is that we say other players know how to adapt to the straddle. And real life proves that false over and over again.

A couple times a year I travel through Tunica and play at the Horseshoe. That game allows players to straddle the BTN. Over the course of the evening, there’s always at least one player who asks “what’s that?” when they see the button straddle. That means information is distributed asymmetrically with some players having zero knowledge about how to play in that spot.

Anecdotal evidence proves over and over again that the vast majority of small stakes players have little idea what they do in general and zero idea when it comes to straddles.

I won't contest those with a lot of practical experience. I do play live on occasion, but mainly I grind micros online. That's why I qualified "in theory."

But you know, from my sporadic live experience, straddles can hurt my preferred game a bit. You know, I'm not properly rolled for 1/2. So when I play live for fun, it doesn't come out of my usual bankroll but out my "discretionary spending".

Therefore, I buy in for $200 as opposed to for the max. And then I see those huge raise first in sizes live plus a round of straddles now and then. And then I feel my stack is similar to those of fishy online players which buy in for 40BB.

This shows that for the straddler who is deep with the fish, it could be a really good idea. You're playing under-rolled and scared money, so you're not going to play correct SS strategy.

All of my experience with NL button straddles is playing at the Golden Nugget in an uncapped game, and most of the time there were people 500-1000bb effective at the table. There might have been a couple of times where people were 2000+bb deep, so a straddle pot with the right players wasn't necessarily short stacked. Mathwise, there is some huge edge for being short in this game. Since none of the short stacked players used decent strategy...


Getting to the point where you're well enough rolled to be indifferent to the money in a buy-in is a really good idea. You need to have your first $1000 losing day. Then your first $5K losing day. Then $10K or whatever amount is a disaster for the next biggest stakes. Not caring about money and only caring about correct decisions makes you tough to play against. It is hard enough to play good poker without also caring about losing a small buyin. Especially in NL, where the right move after getting stacked might be just to buy in for enough to cover the fun player who just stacked you. Two or three times in a row.

Let's say you are playing 2/5 NL and the straddle is $10. If you are next to act and want to MIN raise, are you putting $15 in the pot or $20?

I was at a table and someone raised to $15 on a straddled hand. The dealer said raise to $15 and others said it has to be $20. The raiser said ok and the dealer said nothing. I also said nothing but was wondering silently. I said nothing because I know this will basically never ever happen again haha

I view the occasional straddle the same way I do drinking at the table, or telling lots of jokes and socializing. A straddle generates action, but does it when you are positionally disadvantaged, so it is a tactically a poor move. By straddling, or drinking, or being gregarious, you take on the opposite image of a nitty, professional grinder, and that can help you get action later.

If you want a splashy, loose, rec image, straddle occasionally.

Depends on house rules.

Games that have a mandatory straddle basically treat it as a third blind which means the min raise would be to $20. In games where straddles aren't really allowed, the straddle is technically a bet in the dark from UTG (and not live) and the min raise would be to $15.

Everything in between might go both ways but I think $20 is more common and what I personally think is better.

One thing is for sure: If straddles are allowed there have to be rules for it and dealers/floors have to know those rules.

Yeah, I can see it either way, probably depends on the kind of straddle really - madlex is right, while it should be rare for someone in live NL to raise that small after a straddle, there needs to be house rules for this spot