Are Straddles good for Small No-Limit Games?

I think most fun players don't understand how straddles alter the game, esp. button straddles. This can obviously be profitable at larger stack sizes where they are making mistakes, but...

They create bad dynamics that have the opposite effect if you play somewhere where people often buyin for 30bb-50bb, and you've now made those stacks 15-25 straddles. This is almost certainly worse for the game.

Also my first big experience of straddling was in 2/2 PLO games where people who played often always wanted to make it 2/2/5 even though almost none of the people trying the game for the first time wanted that, so the new players would lose a 200 buyin before they even really had a chance to like the game and then never played PLO again and the PLO game would die.
Maybe those people would lose anyway and never come back even without the straddle, but I very much doubt it was better for the long term health of the game.

This is a very god post.

If you guys are talking about mandatory straddle, I get it. But having one or two random players straddle, especially at low stakes where they probably aren't good players, is good for everyone. Few players are going to leave a game/casino and never come back because one guy is straddling.

I don’t think you understand. They don’t leave because someone has posted a straddle, they leave because they lose their money to quickly. And this often happens when the straddle turns their small buy-in into a short stack.

Yes and it's easy to comprehend.

Many players don't want to put in more than $10 preflop, for example. So instead of raising normal hands, they are forced to limp, and thus making the game smaller and less action.

LOL. I have never seen a btn straddle lead to less action. Never. SB might not be able to limp in, but that's about it -- that doesn't lessen the action.

If only one (or two) guy is straddling, this should affect their stack that much. If they lose their money quickly based on one straddler, they were going to lose it anyway 😉

The only straddling I like is button straddle as it gives button even more advantage if you typically raise often from you button. However I do find straddling very useful short stack if you are planning on jamming anything within your range you'll most likely either steal a bunch of limps or get one caller and more then double up because of the effective limpers.

The flip side is that the little games are much more beatable if the pot size usually gets well past the point where the rake is capped. It's certainly true that the fish don't last as long, but as a winning player, do you want to sit in a rake trap?

I mostly agree.

Straddles should be restricted in the smallest NL game of the room, though sometimes a cap on straddle size is an OK alternative (ex. $10 max). The table can always vote on it to remove the restriction.

If the room only has one size NL game, it might be better not to have the restriction.

Straddles can intimidate players and reduce liquidity at any stake.

This is more significant than some might realise.

If we raise 4x to $12 at 1/3 and two call the pot is $40. We cbet $30, that is 75%, one calls and the pot is now $100. We barrel turn, player folds, we receive $90 after rake for a net profit of $48 or 16bb.

In the same scenario with a $6 straddle, when we raise 4x preflop to $24 and two call, one player calls our 75% ($62) cbet and then folds turn, we receive $196 after rake (82 + 124 - 10) for a net profit of $110 or 36.67bb.

Of course we make more because the straddle doubles the stake, but if we measure our net profit in terms of straddles (i.e., an effective bb of $6 rather than $3) we still net 18.33 straddles. So even in terms of effective bbs we make 6.87% more profit.

Once multiway pots get beyond the turn, the impact of the capped rake won't be as significant but a decent proportion of our profit comes from raise preflop/bet flop/barrel turn.

So long as the structure allows for a 200bb+ buy-in, which is typically the case, then I favour an UTG straddle (I agree that BN straddles can impede game flow and slow down the game).

^ We actually make 14.56% more profit, not 6.87%, with a straddle in the example above. I miscalculated!

Utg straddles are great, button straddles are not.

I dunno. I see a lot of the short stackers going broke and rebuying right away, over and over again. It's like they've budgeted to spend a certain amount of money and time at the table, and they go home when they go broke or when time's up.

If they sit at a 1/3 game with $100 on the table and $500 in their pocket, I want them to go through those buy ins as quickly as possible, so there's more money on the table, and sooner.

If they go broke and leave, someone else will fill the seat. I'm not concerned with how much fun someone has when they're sitting there nursing a $100 stack. If it were up to me, the minimum buy in would be 100bb's, not 33.3bb's. The presence of short stacks makes me want to push for the straddle to be on more, so that the short stacks go broke sooner.

I don't think we need to worry about how many fish go broke and don't return. More fish are being spawned every day.

I'm not sure if our experiences vastly differ or what, but a hard disagree from me on all of this. Long term losing regs make up the vast majority of a poker rooms ecosystem. The thought that most regs / game starters are winning players is absurd. Most players have thousands and thousands of hours of poker under their belt because it is one of their favourite hobbies, they can afford it, they enjoy the game, the socialness, the convenience, the gambol... and a lot of them simply have a gambling addiction and poker scratches that itch. The fact that someone is allowed to put in 2bb blind on the Button has literally no affect on whether they decide to remain in the game long term and has little (if any) affect on the overall poker ecosystem.

GimoG

This is the most obvious reasons why pros like to straddle, double the stakes and you pay less bb/hour in rake. But for the recs its not good since they lose faster.

My opinion also. I hate it when I'm playing and there's a guy on my right (usually a fish who has no clue) keeps button straddling and I'm forced to fold my SB/BB or else open super tight. Limping in also sucks because I have a few rogues in my room that will drop the hammer in late position to pick up the extra dead money. I limp AA sometimes.

We have some NITs and OMCs in my room that buy in for the minimum 100$ (at 1/3) and just sit collecting dust. One guy puts in 4-5 hours a day every day. It's like having an empty seat at the table except once a session it shoves 100$ with QQ+.

While I feel your frustration, because I see that too, I think it's likely besides the point OP was driving at, if I understood OP correctly. You're talking about an annoying type of reg. He's talking about rec-fish who just want to sit down and play 1/3 with $100, and may or may not be turned off when the $6 straddle is on.

I can understand, because I don't necessarily like sitting down to play 2/5 and have to put the $10 straddle on. But the difference is I'm sitting down at 2/5 with $1k, not sitting down with $200, and I give action.

I think the point OP is trying to make is that the good regs should view the bad recs as "customers" in our poker "business". I agree, and do view them that way, but as someone who's actually run a real business, I'm capable of distinguishing between good customers and bad customers.

I don't view the recs who sit down at 1/3 with $100 as good customers, generally, and especially not if they're going to play like that's the last $100 they'll ever put on the table. If they're burning through $100 buy-ins every hour, I'll consider them good customers. Otherwise, I'd rather they pick up so someone who actually wants to play can sit down with more than 33.3bb's.

There are other ways regs can make the "tourists" feel comfortable, which don't require as much of a sacrifice in our hourly rate. We ought to understand that recs are playing for fun, so we should try to make the game fun, by giving them action, and keeping the table talk lively, congratulating them when they drag a pot, etc.

My observation has been that the general atmosphere at the table has more to do with how long a rec will play than how often the straddle is on. A rec will sit there and torch multiple buy ins, as long as he's having fun.

All that said, I'm in favor of limiting straddles to UTG and capping them at 2x the BB. That's what Parx does, and I prefer it over the BTN straddle nonsense that takes place in some of the other local card rooms.

GG, Mason's point is that he believes that losing players don't stick around all that long because they run out of money for the session. Therefore, a majority of the players at a table are winners with the losers making cameo appearances and rotating in and out.

My experience is different than both of yours apparently. I usually play about 4 hour sessions. In that time, only 1 or 2 players remain from the start of the session. While occasionally someone walks away with money, most of the time people have lost their stacks and leave.

Also some players double-up and leave to book that elusive win. It's noteworthy how few players remain after 4-5 hours.

In respect of how many players are long-term winners, I'm more sceptical than others, with much depending on what is "long term" (2000+ hours perhaps), but I'd take unders on 10%. The majority simply don't track their results, partly because they don't wish to admit they're break-even/small losers, even though they may regard themselves as competent.

Some know they're not winners but enjoy the challenge of the game and its social element; in my mind, these are the players we should be conscious of when discussing the value of a straddle (generally they don't leave because they run out of money --- they leave because the game is no longer fun, that is, structured to favour stronger players).

It's possible I'm misunderstanding his take, but from how I'm reading it he seems concerned that the straddle will have an apocalyptic affect on the long term survivability of the game due to apparently poker ecosystems consisting of a of majority winning players being mainly supported by random "tourist" players sitting in the game, a take I don't agree with at all.

Most poker ecosystems are supported by the whole room of reg players, the vast majority of which are long term losing players. These guys love their poker hobby and are there week in week out... sometimes taking a break but eventually returning due to missing the social side, their gamboling addiction, being able to afford it like the other hobbies they dump money on, etc..

So if a straddled pot happens to send one of these guys home earlier today than they had planned, no biggee. Their seat is filled by the next guy on the list, have a nice evening, and see you both in few days.

My memory sucks, but IIRC our room began allowing the Button straddle to its 1/3 NL game (the only game that runs 98% of the time) in 2018 (shortly after it had increased it's maximum rake for the third year running, to $8 at the time, as well as increasing the maximum BI at the time to $400 from the previous $300). 7 years later and nothing has changed in terms of room traffic / tables running (if anything it has increased although there are likely other factors at play there). Still the same old rotating cycling cast of long term losers (some newer than others) enjoying their poker outing. To think that some guy occasionally putting out $6 on the Button would have any real long term affect on this environment is odd.

GcluelesspokerecosystemnoobG

This is almost certainly true. But there's a huge difference between all three of the following things:

1. Guy will randomly put a straddle on when he's been card dead for 20 minutes and he thinks the straddle will help his karma or his luck must be about to change or whatever random thoughts.

2. One or two players will always put a straddle on, and have some kind of plan to make it not a big -EV thing (esp. so with a BTN straddle).

3. 6-8 players put the straddle to increase the stakes and crush the 1-3 seats who just wanted to play a "normal" game.

...where #1 is just fine and you shrug when it happens, #2 means the game changes but it is something everyone can adjust to (but the weaker players adjust worst, generally), but #3 will often break the game if you don't have a large supply of people to fill the extra seats.

I suspect OP is mostly referring to scenario 3, where most players in the game agree to put the straddle on every hand, and there's pressure on the remaining players to do likewise.

I can't imagine it's a huge problem in most rooms. The room either has multiple games going, such that the unhappy player can table change, or the room doesn't have enough action players for this to become a recurring problem.

They do have a cap on straddle in my 1-3 games its 15$ most people aren't going over 10$ and usually if its a 15$ straddle its because the guy is on tilt.