Straddling: Just Don't Do It

About two years ago during a home game session, I decided to try a move I had seen some poker friends doing at another home game. These other guys had been playing for a while longer than anyone in my regular game, so I pretty much absorbed everything they said and did like a sponge. Anyway, back in my game I declared a live straddle, and Jun laughed and said straddling was one of the dumbest plays in poker. I didn't think much of the comment -- figuring he was either uninformed or simply jealous that I had been the first to introduce the move into our home game. I hadn't really thought about that comment since.

But after last night, I find myself thinking what Jun apparently saw all along. Straddling really is one of the dumbest plays in poker. If you're a pretty experienced player going against a bunch of novices, there might be some value in this manuever because you can outplay your opponents for bigger pots. But if you're playing opponents that are close to your skill level or better, then this turns out to be a losing proposition most of the time.

Why would you want to put more money into the pot before you've seen your cards? Tight-aggressive players hate paying the blinds, because they are forced to put money in without knowing where they stand. Furthermore, they get involved in pots where they will be out of position the rest of the hand. The straddle is essentially just an extra (and larger) blind. The last thing a solid player should want to do is further commit himself to the pot when chances are he's behind in the hand. Trust me, straddling does not make a player look cool or daring. It makes you look like a fool who is willing to put money in when he's probably an underdog.

The game I played in last night was full of these live straddles. One hand illustrates my point very well, I think. The player was a decent player but not overly sophisticated, probably a Level 2. He straddles making it $4 to go, I fold, the next guy re-raises to $12, and three other guys cold-call back to him. He shows me his cards (6-3 offsuit), shrugs, and says aloud, "Oh well, pot odds." He makes the call for $8 more.

In a way, he has a point. The pot is now $55 back to him, and he only had to call $8. That's almost 7:1 odds. Chances are he's about a 15-20% favorite to win against four random hands. So at this point, his decision to call is technically correct. His opponents likely have higher cards than him, and they could be taking away each others' outs. Plus, if the flop comes lowball, he could easily connect for two pair or a solid straight draw.

However, think about it from a different perspective. This is a hand he never would have involved himself in had he looked at his cards first. Now he's putting in a total of $12 before the flop with 6-3 offsuit in a $1-2 game. Furthermore, he'll be out of position on the flop, turn, and river.

As it turned out, the player flopped an open-ended straight draw, check-called big bets on the flop and turn and missed on the river. He made all the right moves later on -- had the correct pot odds to call the $8 preflop, as well as the bets of $15 and $30 on the flop and turn, respectively. But he ended up with basically 6-high. In summary, he lost over a buy-in on a hand he should never have been involved in, all because of the initial decision to over-straddle.

But the results of the hand aren't really the point. He could have connected and won a huge pot. I still think the over-straddle would have been the wrong move -- because I feel it is a losing play in the long run. Occasionally you will hit the board for huge pots. But in the final analysis, you're just forcing yourself into hands where chances are you won't be able to win without bluffing. If you win, it's only because you got lucky. Straddling isn't a sign of how fearless you are. It's just an indication that you don't really think before you act.

And the solid players in your game will eat you alive for it.