Straddle in the 5/10-150 game...

[Nidociv]

Its common knowledge that a straddle is USUALLY twice the amount of the big blind, such is the case at CAZ.

Under normal fixed limit conditions, the straddle can only be double the big blind because the opening raise is limited to a set/specific amount due to the betting structure. 

Since fixed limit has been so prevalent in the past years, it just became commonplace that doubling the big blind was the correct amount to straddle in any "limit" game.

My contention; since 5/10-150 is a spread limit game, and the opening raise is NOT limited to a specific amount other than the spread, the straddler SHOULD be allowed to make a straddle for any amount within the constraints of the structure (up to 155 or 160 depending on 5/10 - 150).

[CrazyLond]

I disagree.  A straddle effectively doubles the size of the game for that hand in 5 or 10/150 which means it already has more of an impact that it does in a limit game where the stakes remain the same.

[Nidociv]

I believe you are referencing a "Kill", which does double the limit of a game for that one hand, a straddle is completely different. 
A straddle is a blind raise, in position, that has the right to last action preflop (taking that right from the Big Blind). The straddle does not "count" as a raise in the sense that is still allows for three more raises in that particular betting round.
It does not double the limit.

[CrazyLond]

In a NL game or in 5/150, doubling the limit is exactly what it does in effect.  By posting a $10 straddle in a 5/150 game, for example, it means it will play like 10/150 for that hand.  In 10/150, it plays like 20/150 for that hand.  The overall effect is much bigger than in a limit game, where it acts more as a blind raise but the stakes remain the same.

[Nidociv]

A straddle only affects the betting for ONE ROUND , not an entire game/hand, as you have stated on several occasions.
It Doesn't double the limit, because the the highest bet allowed stays the same, a straddle increases the amount of the opening bet...Herein lies the crux of my original statement, why shouldn't a straddler be allowed to make a bet for any amount within the limit of the spread structure.


I have given a cogent argument as to why the straddle should be allowed to come in for any amount within the structure.

In your first response you say you disagree, with what?

What is your argument? that there shouldn't be a straddle at all? because it effectively makes that game( that one betting round actually,size of the pot created not withstanding) play higher?  isn't that THE POINT.

[CrazyLond]

It affects the betting for every round if the players have any idea how to play spread- or no-limit poker.  A standard raise is usually 3-5X the big blind but becomes 3-5X the staddle.  The pot becomes double what it would be, causing every subsequent bet to also be double.

The reason I disagree with allowing more than 2x the big blind is that I don't think people should be subjected to playing in a game where the size of the game more than doubles for any given hand that a player decides to straddle.  In fact, I have never heard of a casino that allows this.

It makes even less sense in a spread limit game.  In a NL game, while it seems ridiculous to allow it to turn from, say, $2/$5 NL to $5/$20 NL, it could be done if the players are OK with switching to a game four times as large when it happens and had deep enough stacks to be able to play at that limit.  With a $150 cap, however, it really turns it into a limit game and a high one at that.  If someone straddles for $20 this means it would only take one or maybe 2 raises to reach the $150 cap where every bet from there on out would be $150.  If someone wants to play that game, they ought to be sitting at the $75/$150 limit table instead.

[Nidociv]

It affects the betting for every round if the players have any idea how to play spread- or no-limit poker.  A standard raise is usually 3-5X the big blind but becomes 3-5X the staddle.  The pot becomes double what it would be, causing every subsequent bet to also be double.

A straddle affects the first betting round only,the structure reverts BACK to normal post flop.   Explain how in a 5-150 game, even a 10 dollar straddle affects the betting structure post flop.  5-150 is limit and the STRUCTURE is not affected by the size of the pot
WHAT causes every subsequent bet to also double?  After the preflop betting round, the subsequent rounds revert back the the "normal" structure.

The reason I disagree with allowing more than 2x the big blind is that I don't think people should be subjected to playing in a game where the size of the game more than doubles for any given hand that a player decides to straddle.  In fact, I have never heard of a casino that allows this.

The size of the game DOES NOT DOUBLE, the betting for ONE round is affected.  The increase in pot size will change the pot odds, the size of the game may be a percentage higher than "normal", but the size of the game does not double.  If players are afraid of an occasional straddle in these games, they shouldn't be playing them. Period. I think you might be surprised at the response by the players if you ask their opinion one way or the other.  My experience is that the preference is just as i state it should be. Ask around, see what they say, have them add their input here.

It makes even less sense in a spread limit game.  In a NL game, while it seems ridiculous to allow it to turn from, say, $2/$5 NL to $5/$20 NL, it could be done if the players are OK with switching to a game four times as large when it happens and had deep enough stacks to be able to play at that limit.  With a $150 cap, however, it really turns it into a limit game and a high one at that.  If someone straddles for $20 this means it would only take one or maybe 2 raises to reach the $150 cap where every bet from there on out would be $150.  If someone wants to play that game, they ought to be sitting at the $75/$150 limit table instead.

Cross referencing/comparing to NL games is pointless and serves only to confuse the issue.  I don't argue that the straddle should/could be different in a NL or PL game, each are entirely different arguments with different circumstances, this is about the 5/10-150 spread LIMIT at CAZ.

The fact that a straddle( regardless of size) will bring the limit to 150 faster than normal is true, but the reality is it can go the the limit in one bet anyway, so...

[CrazyLond]

I referred to no limit because the same concepts apply as far as increasing the size of the game for that hand with the additional problems of hitting the cap sooner due to the $150 cap.

Would you agree that $10/$150 is a game twice the size of $5/$150?  Perhaps it is not quite that due to the $150 cap, but it is pretty darn close.

"Explain how in a 5-150 game, even a 10 dollar straddle affects the betting structure post flop."

Here's a basic example for you.  In 5/150, a player has a hand which they usually raise 4X the big blind with.  There is a straddle so they raise to $40 instead of the $20 if there had been no straddle.  The big blind calls and the flop comes out.  At this point, there is about $80 in the pot instead of $40 if there had been no straddle.  Next, one of the players decides to make a bet of half the pot(a standard bet for say, top pair-good kicker, on a non-suited board.)  Instead of betting the $20 they would have, they need to bet $40 to make it half the size of the pot.  The other player calls and so there is now $160 in the pot.  If there had been no straddle, there would only have been $80 in the pot at this point.  So on and so forth...

I'm not talking about the allowable bets which obviously stay 5-150 throughout the hand.  I'm talking about the realistic bets people are going to need to make.  Post flop bets are generally measured by their % of the pot and so a bet of X strategically will always be equivilant to a bet of 2X if there was a straddle(until the $150 cap is reached or if you judge that certain other players do not understand this concept.)

[Nidociv]

I understand your perspective, a straddle CAN double the size of the game if played using "normal" betting patterns relative to pot size.  it wont always happen that way.
I took it too literally thinking you were being specific about the actual betting structure of the game, and the total pot size that could be accumulated.  The reality is the total pot size would increase by the straddle amount x the number of players who call that bet pre-flop.

That said, i stand by my original assertion, that since a live straddle is allowed, the conditions of a spread limit game allow for the player to straddle for whatever he wishes within the limit.
I have heard it argued both ways by people who have been in the industry for a long time, but the double the big blind crowd have never gone beyond..."thats just the way it is" for the most part.

I understand you reasoning as to why not, but that is more opinion( informed no less) than based in any type of applied structure that can be consistently applied.( in limit games)

Just out of curiosity, ask around an see what the players think about this type of a straddle, i know i have spoken to quite a few who like the idea.

What would you call it?

A "CAZ" straddle?

[CrazyLond]

Well, I am glad you understand my point of view.  I suppose it's just one of those things where we'll have to agree to disagree.  As a compromise, blind raising in early position is always allowed and the result of that is not as severe as a straddle, yet still allows players to liven the game up.

[Nidociv]

Yes, i believe we can now agree.  I appreciate the perspective.
 
I wonder why more arent people involved in this board?

[that_pope]

I'm involved in this board, I just didn't want to get in the middle of your bickering match about the 'straddle' in 5/150 and 10/150.

It does in fact 'double' the stakes for that hand.  It doesn't make the minimum bet on the next streets double though.  It just makes the bring in raise bigger, meaning the 150 maximum bet 'should' be hit quicker, but people don't always play flawlessly, so maybe someone will donk out a $5 bet on the flop after 5 people limped for $10 on a straddle hand...

[Nidociv]

I meant involved in the board in general Pope.  The whole idea is to "get in the middle of it" i suppose.
I meant to imply that more people should know about the board.

[AllYourChips]

I disagree aswell.  I think if a straddler was allowed to do so for any amount, because of the 150 cap, it would effectively eliminate post-flop play on a good % of hands that are straddled.  There are definetely people that would straddle to 20 or 25, then with 2 limpers and 1 re-raise, you are now forced into betting 150 in a multi-way pot.  It would also force out a lot of dominated hands, like 910 and JQ, when those are the hands I want calling my raises.  Even bad players aren't putting 100 in with QJ.

I love playing 3-5-10 and have played tons of hours with a "mandatory straddle."  It greatly increases the action and loosens everyone up.  However, you are still alloted a tiny bit of post-flop and can force your opponents into making mistakes.  Once you beef the pot up over 300, it is now limit poker if played correctly.

[Nidociv]

Just a reminder...It seems my original point was lost pretty quickly in this thread.
The POINT of my post was not to discuss the effect of allowing a straddle of any amount. Rather why it SHOULD be allowed if one were to use the same logic that the straddle is based on the allowable raise based on the limit.

Its common knowledge that a straddle is USUALLY twice the amount of the big blind, such is the case at CAZ.

Under normal fixed limit conditions, the straddle can only be double the big blind because the opening raise is limited to a set/specific amount due to the betting structure.

Since fixed limit has been so prevalent in the past years, it just became commonplace that doubling the big blind was the correct amount to straddle in any "limit" game.

My contention; since 5/10-150 is a spread limit game, and the opening raise is NOT limited to a specific amount other than the spread, the straddler SHOULD be allowed to make a straddle for any amount within the constraints of the structure (up to 155 or 160 depending on 5/10 - 150).