maddog2030:
I wrote a program to do these exact calcs over a year ago, and came out to the same ~25% you did, so your math is probably good (some of my numbers were also verified by BruceZ of the probability forum).
Because I wrote a program to do this, I ran through a number of other types of hands that you may be interested in. For instance, suited one-gappers come out to 23% to flop OESD+,2pair+. So basically, most anytime you're willing to play a suited connector, you should be willing to play a similar suited one-gapper also.
Summary of hands:
Suited connectors: 25%
Suited one-gappers: 23%
Suited two-gappers: 18%
Unsuited connectors: 17%
Suited aces: 17%
Note: This isn't the end-all, be-all, as it doesn't take into account draws to the nuts, etc. But it's a relatively decent gauge on the strength of those various types of hands to each other.
binions:
I looked at this long ago. My posts are somewhere in the archives.
If you factor out flopping flush draws on paired boards, and straight draws on paired and 3-flush boards against, I get 23.5% or 3.25:1 against flopping 2 pair or better made hands or at least an 8 out draw for suited max stretch 0-gap connectors.
21.3% or 3.7:1 against for max stretch 1-gap suited connecttors.
18.5% or 4.4:1 against for max stretch 2-gap suited connectors.
Jamougha:
you will also flop some useful top pair hands with a AXs; less so with the smaller connectors.
If you have e.g. A8s against a reasonably tight CO opening range (say 22+, 2 broadway, A8o+, Axs, 65s+, 86s+, two suited cards 9 or higher) then you are 49:51 with their range and typically getting good pot odds + position. With 65s you would be 37:63 and it would be rather harder to judge where you are. Your call is justified more by pot odds than implied odds.
c strong:
"A good play may be to call with these in position only".
This is really important. With a small PP you don't mind being OOP so much, as you'll usually be playing fit or fold on the flop. Extraction is easier in position, but you should still be able to get stacks in with a set OOP against an overpair, TPTK etc.
With an SC, though, most of the time when you're continuing on the flop you'll have a draw. These are so much easier to play in position, where you have the option of checking behind for a free card if it's checked to you, betting or raising the flop to disguise your hand and possibly take a free card on the turn, etc. Much harder to play them OOP where none of your options are great: check/call looks like a draw, you have no FE and may not get odds to draw; leading may mean you get raised or floated so you can't take a free card; check-raising may mean you put a lot of money in to draw etc.
linuxrocks:
One thing I wanted to add is the equity of playing the SCs after flopping a pair. The odds of flopping a pair that's not paired is 30%. The equity obviously is not that great, but there's certainly some value in backdoor draws, hitting your second pair, trips etc. This is especially true when we are the one raising or re-raising. This, I think is the big difference compared to small pairs. They are almost useless, if you don't hit the set.
Calculating equity of a middle pair against a pre-flop raiser is quite a hairy calculation, but I am guessing it's much higher than the equity when small pairs don't hit set on the flop.
No comments:
Post a Comment