Moving up to bigger games
Not a super pro, but have been on a hot streak this past few sessions, and have disposable income and wanted to take a shot at 5/10 that runs at Encore. When I have played bigger games, I usually sit in for the minimum, and play a very tight strategy, essentially looking to get it in in favorable spots pf and otf. I don't mind dealing with the variance and it makes later street decisions nonexistent.
I have two questions mainly;
1. How is time collected in 5/10 games? My understanding is that Encore the 5/10 game does bomb pots for time collection, how does that work, the winner of the hand just pays the time for the entire table? Would it be a bad decision to not opt to play this bomb pots?
2. I have recently been playing a 1/3 MTS game in NH and have had some good results; recently I 6x my starting stack within 40 minutes of sitting down. Then proceeded to rack up and move down to 1/2 to secure a massive win. Obviously its my right to do so, but many of the players were explicitly upset and made some snarky comments. When I play in this game again and I run into some of the regs that were there, are there any adjustments I should be expecting?
Appreciate some of the feedback. Don't understand the hate for wanting to sit at a 5/10 game with 500 or 1k. Never going to be someone who would be buying in for more than one other bullet max.
Also in regards to the 1/3 MTS comments. I bought in for 300, and ran the stack up to 2100. By the time I had returned to the table several players topped off to be within the 2k range. Not something I was comfortable with. I will admit in hindsight that I feel that my better option would have been to just
Only to clarify some of what's been said...in my opinion, some of this will come down to whether or not anyone actually notices what you do.
I don't hate guys that buy in for the minimum. I do have to laugh when I see them repeatedly going broke and re-buying for the minimum, rather than buying in deep and just playing poker. If it looked like they understood and were effectively employing a smart short-stack strategy, I'd feel differently. But most look like they're just trying to go broke more slowly.
I haven't played any MTS games. But I routinely find myself playing over $2k deep at 1/3 or over $3k deep at 2/5. I like playing deep, so it doesn't faze me. But if it did, I'd probably be more diligent about ending sessions earlier than I typically do, which is to say, I'd keep more of my profits by getting up and going home, instead of continuing to play and give some back.
I do agree that being seen moving down in stakes is going to look like ratholing to regs, and isn't a good look. I think the ethical considerations aren't worth debating, inasmuch as it seems like doing the right thing according to poker ethics is the opposite of doing the smart thing according to basic economics.
I will say that I think there's long term value in being seen as "good for the game". Not in the sense that we're perceived as being bad players, but in the sense that we understand we need to give action to get action, we benefit from making the game entertaining for the rec-fish, etc. I would not want to earn a reputation for being overly ruthless within my regular card-room. I'd much prefer to be seen as a fun reg.
I'm okay being feared. I don't want to be hated. If you're playing well, AND people notice you ratholing, you'll be hated. The adjustment opponents will make is to vote with their bankrolls, by leaving games when you sit down, or generally refusing to give you action, which will inevitably hurt your win rate. There are certain players in my local player pool who I refuse to play with, because they've shown themselves to be a$$holes.
It's okay to leave some of your profit in the local liquidity pool. Consider it an investment in your own reputation as a player within that pool.
And docvail, maybe hes a dick, but nothing he is doing abou this is dickish and the browbeaters certainly are dicks. As an aside, if these regs wanna play $10 blinds, PLAY FIVE TEN. ITS EVEN TIME RAKED FOR GODS SAKE. Ask yourself, why arent they playing 5/10? The answer is pretty obvious.
"Pretty obvious" can be something completely different in different rooms.
My local cardroom won't spread 5-10 NL for the obvious reason that by city ordinance 2-3-5 is the biggest NL game they can spread. So the regs play with a winner straddle, and it has turned into one of the best games in my region. Yes, we have players who won't post a winner's straddle, and yes, we have players who won't play bomb pots(*); but yes, that is their prerogative, and browbeating them won't do a lick of good.
--
(*) Worst is the character who will play bomb pots in position but won't when out of position, but that's his prerogative too.
And yes, as illeterate alluded to, theoretically you should play tighter in straddle games. Button raises tighter, and sb plays almost nothing.
This is simply and obviously not true. Play in a straddle (i.e., three-blind) game should be looser than in a two-blind game for the simple and obvious reason that there is more money in the pot relative to the straddle in the straddle game than there is relative to the big blind in the two-blind game. ETA: In a 2-5 game, the pot begins with 1.4 big blinds. In a 2-5-10 game it starts with 1.7 straddles. More money in the pot at the start means wider ranges.
Broken YouTube LinkThis is simply and obviously not true. Play in a straddle (i.e., three-blind) game should be looser than in a two-blind game for the simple and obvious reason that there is more money in the pot
There are also three people protecting it instead of two. This is esp. true in BTN straddles because when I've done them you better believe I've got plans if I call wide pre. (and I do more often than not -- although I hate BTN straddles enough I don't do them even though it's probably good for me as the BTN).
No idea who the guy in your video is, but here's a nose bleeds goat you have heard of:
This is simply and obviously not true. Play in a straddle (i.e., three-blind) game should be looser than in a two-blind game for the simple and obvious reason that there is more money in the pot relative to the straddle in the straddle game than there is relative to the big blind in the two-blind game. ETA: In a 2-5 game, the pot begins with 1.4 big blinds. In a 2-5-10 game it starts with 1.7 straddles. More money in the pot at the start means wider ranges.
FWIW, I am watching the video and surprisingly, the only range that is looser is the UTG one. The Button and SB ranges are tighter.
I also don't know if they have take rake into account for that solve.
Semi-Grunch From my sample size of 1 encore 5-10 dudes where nits most of the action players were playing 10-10 PLO, if you don’t feel comfortable doing bomb pots buy-out. Honestly I’d prob play 2-5 at encore first…while most regs are nits they know how to play
FWIW, I am watching the video and surprisingly, the only range that is looser is the UTG one. The Button and SB ranges are tighter.
I also don't know if they have take rake into account for that solve.
Yeah wtf. Also the video says we are going from 100 BB to 50 BB, which, you know…. Typical online player trying to teach people about live games while not even knowing max buyin.
Also 5/10 -> 5/10/25 goes 1.5-> 1.6 lol.
The OBVIOUS best structure with no substantial changes is just to make both blinds the same size. (But yes ante is even better)
