Double straddled pot @ 1/2

[quartz]

***TRIPLE straddled pot @ 1/2 (my bad)

I was playing 1/2 a few nights ago and I decided to straddle (I was to the left of the BB and I asked my opponent in UTG+1 if he wanted to double straddle with UTG+2 following suit). The straddling structure changed recently and apparently starts at $5 instead of double the BB which I hadn't realized so I was told to add a dollar after the two villains left of me already posted their straddles (which I didn't challenge). The villains are complete unknowns but I believe the triple straddle is a LAG and the double straddle is some OMC type that still likes to 3bet semi wide against recs but potentially has LAG tendencies (from seeing him min reraise twice pre in the first orbit and winning a few medium pots with contiunation bets but also having over 60% vpip so far). The stack depths of the players in this hand are (roughly $275 for me, $350 for UTG+1 and $450-600 for UTG+2.

It folds to me in the first straddle (pot is $32), I'm holding T9o and it's $25 for me to complete. I joke about whether they intend to chop the blinds if I fold to which the first villain chuckles and says you can't and I quickly elect to fold (it did seem like nobody loved their hand though).

Double straddle completes for $15 and the triple straddle checks his option and the flop comes 783 rainbow. They check, turn is a J, they check again and river was another a blank like a 4 where they check around again. Triple straddle won with A5 against some K rag.

My question is should I have completed my straddle when my pot odds are so bad in the off chance that the villains will play the hand passively (I was worried about a squeeze but they don't seem to be polarized 3 bettors if I could generalize after playing a few orbits with them)?

Should I have possibly floated them since their ranges are that much wider if I ended up completing with the triple straddler checking his option behind if I never hit anything and either of them bet into me?

It would have been nice to win that pot even if I got no action (I doubt I could ever gain extra value in this particular hand because I don't see the double straddle not completing pre and the triple straddle probably only gives action if we were 1 on 1 (I don't think would bet small for thin value versus the double straddle whereas he seems to have constantly made dinky downbets against me the few pots we played prior).

Any thoughts on this spot or similar straddle situations?

I feel like I could take an exploitative approach in these straddle spots in a lot of cash games and it might be high EV against the right player types but in theory with my holding T9 for that price it's a clear fold given my stack depth right?

 

[jordanbillie]

I'm raising preflop.

I could never understand the table dynamic you just explained and I have witnessed countless times in the poker room. You get a lively 1/2 table with straddlers and double straddlers and triple straddlers, and the hand gets folded around preflop?!?!?! How much dead money was in the pot already? You get this juicy game and it sounds like nobody at your table was able to take advantage of the situation. What a shame.

 

[SPANKYSN]

I don't understand the numbers. It seems that the pot should have been higher, and your call should be less...did the betting go BB=2, you=5, double=10, triple=20, so I figure the numbers should have been $38 in the pot, and another $15 to you. Please correct me if I am wrong...with my figures, I would have called. ????

 

[quartz]

I'm raising preflop.
You get a lively 1/2 table with straddlers and double straddlers and triple straddlers, and the hand gets folded around preflop?!?!?! How much dead money was in the pot already? You get this juicy game and it sounds like nobody at your table was able to take advantage of the situation. What a shame.

It was pretty ridiculous but thankfully I was able to take advantage in other spots and made a decent profit ($475 from a $100 buyin) winning a ton of medium sized pots without going to showdown. I also went again last night and it was the same deal with most of the players being passive pre and I netted nearly double that.

I don't understand the numbers. It seems that the pot should have been higher, and your call should be less...did the betting go BB=2, you=5, double=10, triple=20, so I figure the numbers should have been $38 in the pot, and another $15 to you. Please correct me if I am wrong...with my figures, I would have called. ????

Wow I got that way off! I thought i was getting 1.28-1 odds rather than 2.5-1. I'm completely new to sharing hands and I'm still fairly green when it comes to cash games so thanks for bearing with me. I guess that's an easy call or potential steal unless the straddle blinds are squeeze happy then.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

The numbers still don't add up so I can't really help. You clearly say you had to play an additional $25 to complete so that means the triple straddle has to be $30 by itself. But we also know that you and the blinds are in for a total of $8 ($5 + 1 + 2) plus whatever the double straddle is. So without knowing what's going on it's hard to speculate. If this is true (triple straddle size is $30) then the triple straddle effectively makes the BB $30 for this hand and we are then playing less than 10 BB (think tournament strat / SPR). Limping for one tenth of our stack and hoping no one raises behind sounds terrible so we are either raising or folding. With the dead blind and double straddle money I can't imagine raising less than $100 and jamming any flop you connect with or just jamming pre. I would probably mostly fold too though with T9o here with the worst position if I thought these guys were sticky and aggo pre. If the triple straddle is $20 and it's $15 to complete and we are playing 14-ish BB we have more wiggle room and can raise / fold pre without putting in half our stack making the steal more attractive. Flatting is still bad though as the Ax hand can really punish us pre (and should have).

 

[quartz]

The numbers still don't add up so I can't really help.

No your post was helpful actually. The straddles were 5, 10 and 20 so the pot was $38 and it was $15 for my call. Raise fold seems to make the most sense as you're suggesting being almost 14BB deep but I figured limp fold might let me realize my implied odds safely like I was set mining? Is there a stack depth you could be completing the first straddle or is it mostly fold and raise/fold (and I suppose fold & all in with lower SPRs) that is the correct line?

 

[eetenor]

***TRIPLE straddled pot @ 1/2 (my bad)

I was playing 1/2 a few nights ago and I decided to straddle (I was to the left of the BB and I asked my opponent in UTG+1 if he wanted to double straddle with UTG+2 following suit). The straddling structure changed recently and apparently starts at $5 instead of double the BB which I hadn't realized so I was told to add a dollar after the two villains left of me already posted their straddles (which I didn't challenge). The villains are complete unknowns but I believe the triple straddle is a LAG and the double straddle is some OMC type that still likes to 3bet semi wide against recs but potentially has LAG tendencies (from seeing him min reraise twice pre in the first orbit and winning a few medium pots with contiunation bets but also having over 60% vpip so far). The stack depths of the players in this hand are (roughly $275 for me, $350 for UTG+1 and $450-600 for UTG+2.

It folds to me in the first straddle (pot is $32), I'm holding T9o and it's $25 for me to complete. I joke about whether they intend to chop the blinds if I fold to which the first villain chuckles and says you can't and I quickly elect to fold (it did seem like nobody loved their hand though).

Double straddle completes for $15 and the triple straddle checks his option and the flop comes 783 rainbow. They check, turn is a J, they check again and river was another a blank like a 4 where they check around again. Triple straddle won with A5 against some K rag.

My question is should I have completed my straddle when my pot odds are so bad in the off chance that the villains will play the hand passively (I was worried about a squeeze but they don't seem to be polarized 3 bettors if I could generalize after playing a few orbits with them)?

Should I have possibly floated them since their ranges are that much wider if I ended up completing with the triple straddler checking his option behind if I never hit anything and either of them bet into me?

It would have been nice to win that pot even if I got no action (I doubt I could ever gain extra value in this particular hand because I don't see the double straddle not completing pre and the triple straddle probably only gives action if we were 1 on 1 (I don't think would bet small for thin value versus the double straddle whereas he seems to have constantly made dinky downbets against me the few pots we played prior).

Any thoughts on this spot or similar straddle situations?

I feel like I could take an exploitative approach in these straddle spots in a lot of cash games and it might be high EV against the right player types but in theory with my holding T9 for that price it's a clear fold given my stack depth right?

Thank U 4 Posting

This is a non-standard spot in a live game so we can use non-standard strategies to be successful. To analyze this spot we can use data points beyond the math.

The reason we can move beyond the math is that poker math is based on long term repetition of actions and we can look at this situation as an outlier.

So what are the data points we would use to make a decision on how to play this 109 in a non-standard way?

Luckily you included several of these data points in your post.

#1 Data Point

You initiate a triple straddle for the purpose of seeming loose and getting the table to gamble. There is no other good reason to take this action. You then fold when you need only complete. Thus negating your objective. The villains both played passively after you folded so you did not get them to loosen up and you have now displayed that you have no gamble in you.
You must call or raise in this spot especially with a hand like 109 to achieve the meta game goal we initiated.

#2 Data Point
You are OOP due to the straddle so villains can raise your initial action. However, after the flop you are in POS. This is a strong reason to play by calling or raising.

#3 D-P
All other villains at your table fold so your read of too tight is correct for those villains so you have to let them see you mixing it up with the 2 loosest players on the table to get the desired result of them paying you off later.


To raise or call?

In this non-standard spot either action has value as the point to our actions had meta game purposes.

If we call and fold to a raise preflop we seem loose and weak. A good thing. Not great.
If we call and call again we seem much looser and much weaker. Bad for the bankroll short term, great for the image. If we were playing the same small group of tight players repeatedly we could do this profitably.
If we call pre and then fold post without showing. Ok. Requires further actions to loosen table and our image.
If we call pre and then bluff and show. Great.


If we raise and everyone folds we seem loose but not weak. Ok.
If we raise and get calls and then villains fold on flop and we show our 109 this is meta game good. Great would be 72 or similar no hope hand.
If we raise and then fold to a 3 bet, this is bad for us.
If we raise and call a 3 bet this is good for meta game but really bad for short term bankroll.

Just some thoughts on playing non-standard meta game spots when we initiate or participate in them.

Hope this helps.

 

[jordanbillie]

Thank U 4 Posting

This is a non-standard spot in a live game so we can use non-standard strategies to be successful. To analyze this spot we can use data points beyond the math.

The reason we can move beyond the math is that poker math is based on long term repetition of actions and we can look at this situation as an outlier.

So what are the data points we would use to make a decision on how to play this 109 in a non-standard way?

Luckily you included several of these data points in your post.

#1 Data Point

You initiate a triple straddle for the purpose of seeming loose and getting the table to gamble. There is no other good reason to take this action. You then fold when you need only complete. Thus negating your objective. The villains both played passively after you folded so you did not get them to loosen up and you have now displayed that you have no gamble in you.
You must call or raise in this spot especially with a hand like 109 to achieve the meta game goal we initiated.

#2 Data Point
You are OOP due to the straddle so villains can raise your initial action. However, after the flop you are in POS. This is a strong reason to play by calling or raising.

#3 D-P
All other villains at your table fold so your read of too tight is correct for those villains so you have to let them see you mixing it up with the 2 loosest players on the table to get the desired result of them paying you off later.


To raise or call?

In this non-standard spot either action has value as the point to our actions had meta game purposes.

If we call and fold to a raise preflop we seem loose and weak. A good thing. Not great.
If we call and call again we seem much looser and much weaker. Bad for the bankroll short term, great for the image. If we were playing the same small group of tight players repeatedly we could do this profitably.
If we call pre and then fold post without showing. Ok. Requires further actions to loosen table and our image.
If we call pre and then bluff and show. Great.


If we raise and everyone folds we seem loose but not weak. Ok.
If we raise and get calls and then villains fold on flop and we show our 109 this is meta game good. Great would be 72 or similar no hope hand.
If we raise and then fold to a 3 bet, this is bad for us.
If we raise and call a 3 bet this is good for meta game but really bad for short term bankroll.

Just some thoughts on playing non-standard meta game spots when we initiate or participate in them.

Hope this helps.

Wow! Nice post!

My decision in this spot would certainly be influenced by any prior knowledge on the straddlers, however I am much more in favor of raising this spot than flatting. I mean...who flats preflop?!?!?!?

 

[c0rnBr34d]

No your post was helpful actually. The straddles were 5, 10 and 20 so the pot was $38 and it was $15 for my call. Raise fold seems to make the most sense as you're suggesting being almost 14BB deep but I figured limp fold might let me realize my implied odds safely like I was set mining? Is there a stack depth you could be completing the first straddle or is it mostly fold and raise/fold (and I suppose fold & all in with lower SPRs) that is the correct line?

Ok, that actually gives us some room to play a bit. In general limping pre is not a great idea. Especially out of position. Any time we are limping pre we should have a specific reason / plan / exploit in mind. Example, the guy to my left on the button always raises and we can limp re-raise. Or we are at a loose passive table and want to give our self odds to set mine. Or there is a tilting short stack that has shoved the last two hands in a row. You get the idea. With only two players behind you can come in for a raise fairly wide and you will have more fold equity if you c-bet. When we are this short stacked, completing with T9o out of position to try and out flop everyone is generally a bad plan. If anything, increasing the stakes with the straddle should narrow your limping range if you even have one in my opinion.

I would remove the idea that you can "set mine" with T9o with 14 BB effective and OOP from my head as quickly as possible. Set mining is a thing because sets are camouflaged and very hard to read, they are super strong and can still improve to boats / quads, and they are relatively easy to flop (about 8 to 1 or 12% ish). It's not remotely comparable to T9o where if you flop a straight it is more likely to kill the action. If you flop trips, same. Unless someone has the same trips or a boat they probably aren't playing for stacks and if they are you are probably out kicked or otherwise beat. And two pair is not nearly as strong as a set. Plus it's much harder to flop this strongly. Trips ~1.3%, Straight with connectors ~1.3% and cannot improve, two pair ~2%. Add those all together and they still aren't half as likely and often aren't as strong or cant improve.