Cash Game Can the small blind restraddle? (1 Viewer)

[honkydevil]

Had encountered the situation before. Playing 4 handed. Small blind and big blind post, straddle and double straddle post. Can small blind restraddle? Seems odd and confusing to me but I don’t want to discourage the gamble.

 

[honkydevil]

Hadnt*

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Re-straddle? Not really. Wouldn't that just be called a re-raise?

 

[honkydevil]

Not if you consider it “live”

A re-raise would be dead

 

[honkydevil]

4 handed .25/.50

Utg straddles $1. Utg+1 double straddles to $2. Small blind tries to triple straddle to $4.

Before we’ve always played UTG straddle is double the BB and next guy can restraddle and so can the next.

 

[BGinGA]

JFC, just say no. It's pointless madness. Raise the frickin' stakes already.

 

[honkydevil]

Raise the frickin' stakes already.

I did... guess I should again.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yes, SB can re-re-straddle. And BB can re-re-re-straddle, and UTG can re-re-re-re-straddle if he likes, and so on all the way around the table multiple times. It's a gambling game. Don't discourage people from gambling. That's my take, anyway. If you don't like it, you can always decline to participate in the straddling.

Really, it depends on the house rules. Establish a rule and stick to it (although I'd say this is something a unanimous vote could override).

Don't listen to @BGinGA. He's just a curmudgeonly nit when it comes to straddling. People wanting to straddle doesn't mean you need to raise the stakes. It's not pointless madness. You have three players who want to voluntarily juice the pot with extra money because they feel like it, and if you're Nitty McNittigan in the BB, you can just sit there and pay $0.75 per orbit to wait for premium hands to crush them with. Why in the world would you want to suppress that?

 

[200 Motels]

In our game, the button is the last re-straddle. SB can't. Just our rules though but I do agree, just raise the stakes already if yas need that much blind money in.

 

[Gunnar]

In our game button is not allowed to re-straddle or sleeper straddle

 

[Gunnar]

In our game button is not allowed to re-straddle or sleeper straddle

That is the standard in all games in Iceland. Button already has position

 

[JustinInMN]

Don't listen to @BGinGA. He's just a curmudgeonly nit when it comes to straddling. People wanting to straddle doesn't mean you need to raise the stakes. It's not pointless madness. You have three players who want to voluntarily juice the pot with extra money because they feel like it, and if you're Nitty McNittigan in the BB, you can just sit there and pay $0.75 per orbit to wait for premium hands to crush them with. Why in the world would you want to suppress that?

In defense of @BGinGA 's position, the downside of frequent multiple straddles is that before you deal you get in the habit of effectively having to poll the table to determine which combination of straddles apply each hand.

I find permitting one live straddle utg is enough gamble without slowing the game down.

If players want to play for more, raise the stakes, do a mandatory 3rd blind, add antes (or a single button/bb ante), all seem preferable to raising the gamble other than confirming five or six way straddles before dealing every hand.

 

[upNdown]

Why in the world would you want to suppress that?

For one reason, because you’re playing four-handed? You’ve got to open your range way up - who wants to do that with quadruple straddles?

 

[Jimulacrum]

For one reason, because you’re playing four-handed? You’ve got to open your range way up - who wants to do that with quadruple straddles?

The main reasons you open your range up short-handed are that (a) there's less competition due to fewer players and (b) you have to keep up with paying the blinds a lot more frequently.

Point (a) remains true, and when it comes to point (b), your straddling opponents are making it easier for you by loading up the pot with an extra 2, 6, or 14 BB every hand for you to steal, while you still only have to pay 1.5 BB per orbit. How is that a problem?

 

[upNdown]

The main reasons you open your range up short-handed are that (a) there's less competition due to fewer players and (b) you have to keep up with paying the blinds a lot more frequently.

Point (a) remains true, and when it comes to point (b), your straddling opponents are making it easier for you by loading up the pot with an extra 2, 6, or 14 BB every hand for you to steal, while you still only have to pay 1.5 BB per orbit. How is that a problem?

From my perspective, playing .25/.50 four-handed, I don't mind raising pre with J5 and plaing it like it's KQ. If there's a quadruple straddle on, I have less confidence in that move's chances of success.

 

[Lemonzest]

I usually let people keep sttaddling as long as they want. Usually stops at 3rd or 4th person.

 

[honkydevil]

Thanks for the input guys. I kinda agree with both sides, raise stakes or let the degens degen and straddle forever. It would be ironic though if we raised the stakes and we still get quadruple or more straddles on.

We're playing PLO too so its great for the action.

 

[JustinInMN]

One other thing to consider, staddles are negative ev already, the original straddle is even worse with subsequent straddles. So unless it's a degen thing, without the ability to buy last action may eventually discourage people from starting the string of straddles in the first place at some point.

 

[glom]

When my group raises the stakes, thegametightens up, but because we allow unlimited straddling, the stakes ebb and flow as a game dynamic. It’s good for the game.

 

[glom]

One other thing to consider, staddles are negative ev already, the original straddle is even worse with subsequent straddles. So unless it's a degen thing, without the ability to buy last action may eventually discourage people from starting the string of straddles in the first place at some point.

It’s never -ev tobethe first straddlerif it sets off 6 more straddles afteryou IME.

 

[JustinInMN]

It’s never -ev tobethe first straddlerif it sets off 6 more straddles afteryou IME.

You're always taking the worst of it putting out dead money, now you don't even buy last action and often fold to the bigger straddles.

 

[glom]

You're always taking the worst of it putting out dead money, now you don't even buy last action and often fold to the bigger straddles.

You’re putting in a very small portion of the pot with dead money that far overshadows your contribution. You then may even have first action. This can be a very lucrative spot.

Folding to a random hand that posted a big straddle is -ev if you’re simply avoiding the variance. Being first aggressor in a big pot of dead money can be a great opportunity.

 

[BGinGA]

Just add the jokers back into the deck.

 

[glom]

Just add the jokers back into the deck.

I’d rather have the jokers in the chairs.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It is definitely EV+ to straddle if it will regularly entice re-straddles. An extreme example of this is if you're to the right of a string of dedicated re-straddlers.

You put out that $1, and then it goes $2, $4, $8, $16 to your left. You've invested $1 to play in a pot of $31.75 worth of dead money. It's like being invited to play in a game with blinds of $1 and $30.75, and the other guy has to post the BB.

Even if it doesn't get that crazy, same idea. Would you ever turn down the opportunity to play $1/$6.75 NLHE, where you're only ever the SB?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Last time I played in a game that allowed unlimited straddles, I had the best finish ever in a game. It wasn't my game, so I just made a feast of it.

Players who straddle are just pretty flippant about money, and easy to take advantage of. I don't permit it in my games, because my players are my friends, and I don't invite friends over so others can pillage them. That would make me both a shitty host and a shitty friend.

 

[ChaosRock]

Players who straddle are just pretty flippant about money, and easy to take advantage of. I don't permit it in my games, because my players are my friends, and I don't invite friends over so others can pillage them. That would make me both a shitty host and a shitty friend.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement, MJ. I thought about writing a long and winded response refuting the above but decided there is no way I can engage in an argument if that's what you really think about poker, yeah about poker, 'cause you're basically shitting on the essence of poker. Suffice it to say what I just did: I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

And just to make it clear, I'm not talking about being in favor or against straddles. There's a ton of reasonable points to be made in favor of one or the other.

 

[GenghisKhan]

JFC, just say no. It's pointless madness. Raise the frickin' stakes already.

For a second I was thinking, what does JFCJ have to do with this post? Then I re-read, lol.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I couldn't disagree more with your statement, MJ. I thought about writing a long and winded response refuting the above but decided there is no way I can engage in an argument if that's what you really think about poker, yeah about poker, 'cause you're basically shitting on the essence of poker. Suffice it to say what I just did: I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

And just to make it clear, I'm not talking about being in favor or against straddles. There's a ton of reasonable points to be made in favor of one or the other.

I wanted to respond to that post as well, but I couldn't come up with the exact words.

Poker is a competitive skill game played for cash. By virtue of hosting a poker game, you are inviting people to gamble. Friends or not, some of them will be consistent donators, and anyone you invite who is better than them will be winning their money.

If you have any type of clue as a host, you'll know who's who after a while. Do you stop inviting the skilled players to spare the donators? Or maybe stop inviting the donators to save them from themselves? If you do either, it will basically end your game. A good game requires a balance of player types. So of course you keep them all, as long as everyone behaves. It doesn't make you a shitty host or a shitty friend. This is what poker is.

As a host, your job is simply to curate the game. You choose the players, set the stakes, and implement the rules. You arrange for the little extras that make people happy to be there, whether it's food or alcohol or sports on a big TV. Your goal is to have a sustainable, long-term game. Every detail you choose may either help or hurt that end, and straddles are one such choice.

I don't fault @Poker Zombie for not allowing straddles. To each his own. They're ultimately one small piece of the picture. Far more important are your choices of game, betting structure, and stakes. If you think allowing straddles makes you a shitty host and a shitty friend, then what of no-limit Hold'em? It's one of the worst games ever, in terms of giving recreational players a fighting chance. Why not a high-variance game like fixed-limit Omaha?

I know the answer, though. You have to make the choice that keeps your game going, and NLHE (or PLO, or any other shark-feast game) is what your players want. Same with straddles in games where that's what people want.

Doesn't make you a shitty host or friend. It makes you a good host, and as far as a friend, that may depend on other choices you make—like whether you'll invite a guy you know can't afford to lose, or ramp up the stakes to really take advantage of someone with an obvious gambling problem.

 

[JustinInMN]

Just add the jokers back into the deck.

Usually I apologize for threadjacking, this thread is in desperate need of one, so here goes.

I've heard about a variant of hold'em from dealers where the jokers are in the deck. They are wild cards in players hands and they are "blank" cards when they appear on the board. Very interesting concept.