Showing posts with label posts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label posts. Show all posts

Monday, September 20, 2010

2009 Concept of the Week #4: Blind Stealing by Happy Pixel

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78/micro-stakes-full-ring/concept-week-4-blind-stealing-419666/

Why should I steal blinds?
It's only 1.5BBs, why should I get involved?

Because 1.5BBs is a LOT OF ****ING MONEY!!!
For performing a single blind steal, you can win 1.5BBs (a successful steal equates to 75PTBB/100 which is a silly amount). Of course it won't work every time (nor should you steal at every single opportunity), but even when the blinds defend, you still get to play a pot post-flop with:
- Position (this is huge)
- Initiative
- Post-flop value

So you can often take down an even bigger pot on the flop with a c-bet (more on that later).
Stealing adds a TON to your bottom line.

I ought to say something on that note, about "stealing" with a huge hand. Suppose we are on the button with AA, and we have a fairly aggressive regular in the SB, who 3bets 8% facing a steal, over a decent sample. We have a bit of history, and he's 3bet our steals a few times. We've 4bet his re-steal with A4s once, and he snap-folded. So now we raise and he 3bets. What should we do?

Well, 4betting is bad. I know a lot of you are stuck in auto-4bet-get-it-in mode, but this is a spot where we should be flatting. His 3bet range here is really wide, and he's not prone to shoving over 4bets. Of course he's getting it in with QQ+ and AK here, but 4betting is also folding out a ton of worse hands which we want to keep in the pot. We have position and can play the hand much more profitably post-flop than pre-flop. We can induce huge mistakes post-flop, whereas by 4betting pre-flop we allow him to play much closer to optimally. Range manipulation ftw. Here's an example to illustrate:

Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 8 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com
Hero (CO): $49.75
BTN: $35.10
SB: $28.15
BB: $72.90
UTG: $50.60
UTG+1: $78.75
MP1: $50.00
MP2: $28.45

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is CO with Kh Ks
4 folds, Hero raises to $1.50, 1 fold, SB calls $1.25, BB raises to $8, Hero calls $6.50, SB calls $6.50

Flop: ($24.00) 3s 3d Qd (3 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets $16.50, SB raises to $20.15 all in, BB raises to $36.65, Hero raises to $41.75 all in, BB calls $5.10

Turn: ($127.65) 4s (3 players - 2 are all in)

River: ($127.65) 9s (3 players - 2 are all in)

Final Pot: $127.65
Hero shows Kh Ks (two pair, Kings and Threes)
SB mucks Qs Jd
BB shows Ah Qh (two pair, Queens and Threes)
Hero wins $43.20
Hero wins $81.45
(Rake: $3.00)

Additional history is so situational that I can't really go into much detail about it. However, I will say that some regulars do exceedingly stupid things when in BB vs BTN or BvB situations. I've seen a lot of this (as Goldseraph calls it) "reg spite syndrome" at 50NL, and you should adjust accordingly. If you've seen that someone is going to be making moves more often post-flop and getting it in lighter, you should be willing to either tighten up your steal ranges or to get it in lighter post-flop to counteract their wider ranges. Figure out when they're spewing and take advantage.

What should I steal with?
Late position play is such a personal preference thing, and so situational, that I'm not going to construct exact ranges for you. If you are uncomfortable stealing with 95s, or if you suck direly post-flop, then don't steal with it, that's fine. However, I will give some general guidelines:

- Play really loose from the BTN. Abuse it. Play loose from the CO. Play tighter from the HJ. Hijack is getting towards middle position, and having two players to act behind you makes stealing a lot trickier.

- Pick hands that play well post-flop. This includes suited connectors, suited gappers, pocket pairs, suited broadways, strong offsuit broadways, suited aces... basically if something is s00ted you can't go too far wrong. If you're uncomfortable playing offsuit aces like A2o-A9o I suggest you avoid them. Personally I still steal with them.

- Against tight players, open up your steal range. Personally I steal with ATC against a lot of players. But stealing with 40% of hands from the button against tight blinds is still pretty respectable. Just see how much you can get away with (you'd be surprised). People just don't adjust anywhere near as much as you would expect. Ball till you fall.

- Against loose players, particularly ones who don't like folding post-flop, I'd avoid hands which have little top pair/middle pair potential, such as 75s. Because you're going to be seeing a lot more showdowns, you're going to be relying on equity and playability rather than fold equity. Weight your range towards hands that can flop decently with a high frequency. Against loose-aggressive blinds, you should tighten up your steal range (or just leave the table). However, against a loose-passive fish, you can play hands like K8o and Q9o profitably, since you will flop top or middle pair pretty often, and you can get a couple of streets of value out of them. Domination just isn't as much of an issue against someone who is playing 60% of their hands.

Also, against these kind of players, if you do happen to flop a decent (but not strong) draw, you can also check back the flop a lot and take a free card. 4 cards for the price of 3.

Bet sizing
So... here is something which for me is a big factor in blind stealing. When you steal a lot, it's a good idea to make your bet sizing a bit smaller. It gives you a better price on your steals. Split's probably done this already in his bet sizing post, but let's quickly run through the math behind this:

Assuming our hand has zero post-flop value (which it doesn't, of course):
- If we open to 4BB, we risk 4 to win 1.5, so we need our steal to work 73% of the time.
- If we open to 3.5BB, we risk 3.5 to win 1.5, so we need our steal to work 70% of the time.
- If we open to 3BB, we risk 3 to win 1.5, so we need our steal to work 67% of the time.
- If we open to 2.5BB, we risk 2.5 to win 1.5, so we need our steal to work 63% of the time.
- If we open to 2BB, we risk 2 to win 1.5, so we need our steal to work 57% of the time.

Another reason for making our steals smaller is that we have position. So we want the SPR (stack-to-pot ratio) to be higher, since we can leverage our position more effectively post-flop. A smaller raise size accomplishes this.

Also, a quick note about exploitative bet sizing: against unknowns and unobservant fish, you can open larger with your better hands, since they don't know or don't care what your standard late position open is. Flex your bet sizing (to reassert your dominance).

Stack sizes
Pay attention to stack sizes. If you're deep with one of the blinds, you can steal liberally (especially with suited cards). You have higher implied odds and it's a nightmare for your opponent to play OOP while deep.

Versus shorter players, you can tighten up if they're a push-or-fold short stack, or open lots of high-card hands like Q9o if they're loose. Then flop TP and get it in. Profit!

By HappyPixel


Additional posts: #35

Friday, September 17, 2010

Pooh bah post: Pot control (finally...) by AlexB182


This post was really tl;dr so I decided to pick and choose relevant content to me. Worth a read through at least once.

Pot Control
1) What is pot control by definition?
Applying pot control means that we are trying to manipulate (aka control, aka keep small) the size of the pot to achieve different goals (for example going to showdown).
We have several ways to apply pot control, the best known being checking behind (most often on the turn) to basically eliminate one round of betting. We will get back to this later of course.

2) What are the consequences of pot control?
This is in my opinion the question that is not posed nearly often enough: what are the consequences that my play is going to have? It is of overriding importance though. So let’s see what the consequences of pot control are:

a) Positive consequences:

Keeping the pot size under control:
I think this does not need much explanation, we risk a smaller percentage of our stack and we minimize our losses when behind.

More likely to see a showdown:
What does that actually mean? Well, seeing a showdown in itself is not automatically a good thing. However, in this situation it is because by applying pot control correctly we minimize the risk of making a mistake by folding the best hand.

(Sometimes) Widening villains calling/betting range:
This is especially true when we apply pot control early in the hand, either by just calling a raise PF with a hand that we could 3b as well, more often though if we check behind on the flop with a made hand. 

b) Negative consequences

Giving away free cards

Might induce villain to play back at us / play correctly vs us because we polarize our range
This is actually a rather theoretical problem at the micro stakes but it’s for sure one to think about. It will also arise more often at higher stakes against thinking players that are not shy to make aggressive moves on all streets and that have no problem with deviating from standard lines if they think it will turn out to be +EV. It also illustrates a general problem that comes up when applying pot control in a too standardized way.

Let’s say we are in a NL50 game but there is one player who plays quite aggressively and tricky and is not shy of making moves and putting money in light in some spots. He is by no means a weak player and mixes up bluffs and plays for value nicely.

We are in the CO with QsQc. A weak player limps, tricky player limps behind. It’s folded to us and we make a standard raise to 6BBs. Both players call and we go the flop with a pot of 19.5BBs. All players have 94BBs left.

Flop comes 2h7d9c, it’s checked to us and we (correctly) make a CB of 14BBs. The initial limper folds and the tricky player calls after some hesitation, pot is 47.5BBs now and we have 80BBs left.

Turn comes 3h which can and should be considered as a blank. Tricky player checks to us and we check it back for pot control.

River brings 5h. Tricky player thinks for a few seconds and then checks to us again. We have an overpair on a rather unscary looking 2h7d9c3h5h board and our villain has not shown any strenght so far so we should go for a VB on this river hoping to get paid off by 88, 98, A9, J9 maybe even 87 or smaller PP like 66, so we make it 25BBs on the river with having left 55BBs after that bet. Villain instashoves over our bet….

Now what? Well, most likely this looks like a fold given that a straight draw came in, a (unlikely) BD flush draw came in and villain could easily have a ton of sets or 2 pair combos that have us beat (97s, 75s and so on).

But there is one problem:   by checking this turn back, we heavily polarized our range.
Let’s look at this hand from villains perspective: we raised PF, made a standard CB, checked the turn back and then finally bet the river again. So, from our villains perspective, what does our hand range look like? Well, we won’t ever show up with 777 or 999 here because we’d never check those back on the turn. We most likely never show up with 86 or 64 here because it’s unlikely that those are in our PF raising range and a BD flush isn’t too likely either if we don’t have exactly Ahxh (plus we might have even fired a 2nd barrel with those on the turn if we decided to CB in the first place).

As you see it’s fairly easy for villain to put us on exactly the kind of hand that we have namely an overpair that we’re not really happy to play for stacks with (we might have bet the turn with AA,KK even though AA,KK and QQ are basically the same hand in this spot). So, if villain puts us on basically TT+ (and maybe AK/AQ that tries to steal the pot with a river bet) then this is a great spot for a river bluffraise by villain knowing that we’re very unlikely to be calling here (esp as he’ll also show up with a big hand here often enough).

Risk of losing value from 2nd best hands


3) How to apply pot control

Pot control out of position:
As mentionend we can try to apply pot control but if our opponent decides that he wants to play a bigger pot then there is not really much we can do about it. We can try to keep the pot small though by:

a) Checking to our opponent
If we check the flop to our opponent we basically do hope that he does not want to play a big pot either and/or is happy to see a free turn. If the flop goes check/check we can reevaluate the situation and decide if we want to bet the turn (for value or as a bluff) or if we want to check again (intending to c/f or hoping villain might bluff or value bet worse hands so that can we c/c one or two streets). Obviously this is not a great situation to be in, especially against tough opponents that put a lot of pressure on us if we show weakness on boards that we have most likely missed.

As a sidenote: utilizing a well timed c/r frequency on the flop when being the PFR and when being out of position is very helpful to balance your range in these situations.

b) Block betting
This is a play that can be used on later streets with medium strength hands. Its advantage lies in the fact that it combines the value that we gain if we get called by a weaker hand with the advantage of setting a favourable price for a showdown. Note though that it can only be employed in smallish pots and when the stacks are still rather deep (it makes no sense to make a blocking bet of say 15BBs into a 90BBs pot when villain only has 35BBs left, I hope you guys see why).

On a downside this play might again induce river bluffs by good, thinking villains if they analyze correctly why we employ the strategy of block betting the river (or maybe the turn).

Pot contol in position:
Being in position makes applying pot control incredibly much more easy and valuable, simply due to the fact that we see what our opponent/opponents do first. We do also have some more options and are in the position to chose (often, not always) how big a pot we want to play for.

a) Checking behind
That’s the standard pot control play: we check behind on flop, turn or river (I’ll get back to WHEN to apply pot control later) to manipulate the size of the pot. 

b) Calling as opposed to raising

c) Betting/raising an earlier street to be able to check behind on a later street
This is a typical Limit Hold’em play where it is mostly used when we have a draw on the flop. We then raise the flop bet (in LHE the betting size doubles after the flop) to achieve that villain checks to us on the turn and we can check behind if we did not improve and by that save 1 small bet.

This idea can also be transferred to NLHE. If you think that making a small bet (or raise) on flop or turn can stop villain from making a bigger bet on a later street (that you would have to call though) then you might want to go for this.


4) When to apply pot control
For a lot of players, applying pot control means checking behind a medium strength hand on the turn. Well as we have seen, checking behind is not the only (though the most used) way to apply pot control and as we will see, the turn is not the only street where we can use pot control.

Personally, I very rarely go for pot control on the turn. If I think that a hand is only good for two streets of value then I’d most likely either bet flop and turn and check the river behind, or I’ll check the flop (behind or to villain) and go for value on turn and river.
The reasons therefore are already stated in the part: “consequences of pot control” and you might want to reread those if you don’t understand why I think that applying pot control on the turn is often misused. Here I’d like to take a look at a couple of examples:

Example 2:
100BBs effective stacks. We are on the BTN with AsJs. A rather loose, aggressive player raises in MP2 to 3BBs. He is pretty active preflop and rather aggressive and sometimes tricky postflop but does not go overboard with medium holdings. We call, the blinds fold and the pot is 7.5BBs.

Flop comes Ah9d5c giving us top pair with a good kicker. Rather surprisingly villain checks to us, so what should we do here? Let’s take a look at villains range at this point:
He is raising in MP2 with a wide range of hands, let’s say 22+, ATs+, AJo+, any 2 broadway cards and some suited connectors so obviously we are way ahead of his range at this point. Does this mean we should bet here? Well, I don’t think so, checking behind looks like the better play here to me.

This might seem counterintuitive on the first glance but let’s think about it: in case we are ahead we are very unlikely to get 3 streets of value here and if we decide to go for 2 streets of value then we can easily go for them on turn and river. Furthermore, against big parts of his raise PF, check flop range we won’t even get 2 streets of value if we bet the A high flop, for example against TT-QQ so checking this flop back also helps us opening up his calling range.

Opposed to that, in the rare case that we are behind to something like AK,AQ or a set, checking behind on the flop helps us to control the pot size.

Ok so back to the hand:
Villain checks the flop to us and we check behind. Turn is 5d and villain again checks to us, we now bet 5BBs and villain calls pretty quickly, pot is 17.5BBs. Think about what villains most likely holdings are at that point.

River is 6d, completing a back door flush draw and an unlikely gut shot with 87. Again villain checks to us (do you have established a hand range for him?) and we decide to bet rather big to make our hand look like a 2 street bluff so we bet 15.5BBs. Villain snap calls with QdQh.

In this example, we checked the flop back for multiple reasons, one of them being pot control. This was the best way to play it (imo) because:
- There were no draws that we had to charge.
- It was a basically a way ahead / way behind situation
- There was “some” value to be had from weaker hands but no real 2nd best hands that could give us “a lot” of value (of course these terms are not very precise but I hope you understand what I mean with them).

Example 3:
100BBs effective stacks. A tight, aggressive, straightforward player raises from UTG+1 to 4BBs and we have QsQc in the HJ. We know that villains PF raising range from UTG+1 is really tight, maybe something like TT+,AK and sometimes AQs. It’s folded to us and there are pretty tight players left to act behind us. We decide to not 3bet here (knowing that we give players behind us a good price to overcall) because we think that 3betting would fold out all the hands in villains range that we want him to continue with (TT,JJ) and give him the opportunity to 4bet the top of his range (KK,AA, sometimes AKs). Luckily CO and BTN fold as do the blinds and we end up in a HU pot with position on the preflop raiser, pot is 9.5BBs.

The flop comes 6h6c2s and we expect villain to CB on this board with 100 % of his range, sure enough he fires 7BBs. For the same reasons as preflop we don’t see too much sense in raising here, we never fold out AA,KK here and we don’t want TT,JJ to fold. If he has AK he has only 6 outs to improve or around 26 % equity so we don’t mind giving him a rather cheap turn card. We decide to call, pot is 23.5BBs, effective stacks are 89BBs.

Turn comes 7d which can be considered as a complete brick and villain checks to us which is a very good sign as we would expect him to fire again here with AA,KK so even though he might decide to check to us here for pot control with AA,KK (which would be bad btw) hands like TT,JJ, the other QQ combo and AKs have now become much more likely. There is also an outside chance that villain is going for a c/r on the turn with AA,KK but given that he is rather straightforward this seems pretty unlikely. We decide to bet rather smallish and make it 14BBs hoping to get called by JJ,TT, villain calls and the pot is 51.5BBs with 75BBs effective stacks left.

River is the Th, not a great card for us, and villain makes a strange bet of 16BBs. We assume that he would make a bigger bet here with TT or go for a c/r, a small bet to induce seems strange given the way the hand played out so far. However, a raise is unlikely to get called by JJ but if he played AA,KK weirdly he could very well call a raise with those. Therefore we decide to call here and villain shows us JJ, his blocking bet on the river has worked as he saved some BBs. In this example we actually applied pot control preflop trying to set up a favourable situation for our holding.


5) Examples for when applying pot control is reasonable: 
a) WA/WB situations
b) Medium strength holdings on dry boards
c) Medium strength hands vs aggressive opponents

6) Examples for when applying pot control is NOT reasonable:
a) when pot and stack sizes rule out pot control
b) when villain can easily stack off / commit a lot of his chips with worse hands
c) when villain is likely drawing (and willing to pay too much)

7) Plan your hands in advance!
This is most likely the most important thing to learn when you want to improve as a poker player: plan your hands. If you raise with JJ in position you should have at least an idea how you are going to continue on an A high board.

The same is obviously true for pot control. Have a plan AT THE START OFF THE HAND on which kind of boards or villains actions you are going to apply pot control. Think about how you are going to react to a c/r by villain, think about on what kind of boards checking back your TPGK might make sense, PLAN YOUR HAND IN ADVANCE!


Additional posts: #77

Monday, September 6, 2010

A Bad Habit of 3-betting and Range Choice by Chaostracize


This thread includes a lot of good discussion and debate on whether it is better to 3-bet or call KQo and hands of similar strength when IP and OOP. Lots of respected pros give their 2 cents.

Additional Posts:
# 17, 21, 29, 33, 34, 36, 43, 45, 46, 58, 69, 72, 95, 111

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Domination question (theory)


Malefiicus:
Depends on a lot of things. Quick little list of reasons to 3b and reasons to call.

Reasons to call
1) Fish in the blinds
2) You have a plan for most flops (I think QTs needs a plan if you're flatting it on the BTN)
3) Villain is a 4b monkey (myself for example)
4) Villain flats a wide range OOP vs 3bs
5) Villain bets a wide range on the flop but a narrow range on the turn, folds to floats often

Reasons to 3b
1) Squeezers in the blinds
2) Folds to 3bs often
3) Villain doesn't 4b often
4) One of your first hands vs villain (more fold equity/builds aggressive dynamic)
5) Villain doesn't fold to 3bs, but calls the 3b then folds the flop a lot.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some stuff, but just think about it and you should be able to come to a good conclusion.

tubasteve:
one thing:

"Don't 3bet it for value if it's going to be dominated by most of your villains range."

this is something i have discussed with noahSD (and baluagwhale if you can sit through the bad audio of coaching tree 2.2) at length, and he eventually convinced me it is incorrect. usually if you have a hand like KT/KJ and your opponents are only calling 3-bets with hands you dominate:

1) they are folding so much that 3-betting is hugely +EV just based on that FE w/out any postflop play (blockers ftw)
2) when they call, the odds of both of you flopping TP when dominated is the same as flopping a set so you have a ton of FE on a c-bet
3) you don't have to stack off 100% when you flop TP but even if you do as skreech mentioned its not like they made a correct call pf vs your range given how often they have to c/f
4) people make much bigger mistakes as the OOP 3-bet caller than we do as the IP 3-bettor and i dont think its close as long as we're not playing like lunatics 

so while this doesn't mean you should be 3-betting them all over the place, i certainly don't think people 3-bet them enough. hands liek KJo, ATo, and QTo tend to play pretty well when you are the 3-bettor compared to when you are the caller since w/out the initiative and w/out being suited you cannot continue on nearly as many flops.

check out noah's 5/10 ghost video b/c that is what really got me started thinking about this topic. i believe he 3-bet a loose BU open with KQo when the guy was folding to 83% 3-bet, i thought to myself "zomg keep the dominated hands in amirite?" and he said "hellz no tubasteve" 

conspecific:
So, just to check my understanding: upsides of 3-betting in position vs the guy that folds way too much pre-flop and check/folds way too much on the flop are that we win a lot of money uncontested. Downsides include the fact that his 3-bet calling range tends to dominate us, so occasionally we hit an unfavorable "favorable" flop and get boned, right?

The question is this: none of those upsides depend on us having KQ or KJ, while all the downsides do. (Well, for top pair hands, being able to pot control in position is good, too, I guess.) So in the case that we can't effectively valuetown the guy when we hit our top pair (because we assumed he's check-foldy on the flop and so presumably continuing mostly with the aforementioned range that bones us), shouldn't we just be 3-betting the polarized range in position (bluffs and monsters)?

tubasteve:
the point is that the EV of 3-betting someone that folds too much is often higher than calling regardless of our hand, and having KQ or KJ gives us blockers that make it more profitable. then postflop, yes, if he's going to fold he's going to fold, this is true, but when we have the blockers he's going to fold more often, making a 3-bet with KQ more profitable than one with K8, which likewise is more profitable than one with T8.

the way noah put it to me was that if he knew his opponent had KQ, he would 3-bet rather than call with KJo despite being a 3-1 underdog b/c he has a ton of FE postflop even if the guy flatcalls every time preflop.

you are correct also that we should be more apt to flatcall some of these hands IP, but there are times when it is not a great idea such as when there are light squeezers behind, or if you want to avoid multiway action.

also, you shouldn't 3-bet 67s that often mainly b/c it plays way better in single raised pots than 3-bet pots, even moreso than KQ by far.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

When should I be looking to Bet/Fold?


BalugaWhale:
its pretty simple actually--

being passive means only raising for value.

when youre playing against someone who is going for value, count the number of worse hands that can be going for value vs the number of better hands. if theres a lot of worse hands, you cant fold. if there arent, you cant call.
so, hand 1 is a call, hand 2 is a fold, etc., hands 3-5 are folds, etc.
you should rarely ever take a c/c line against a passive player for obvious reasons (youre bluff catching and they dont bluff).

And wtf is up with your min3-bet on the river with the 2nd nuts. make a real 3bet for value.

Sounded Simple:
I think we all know that bet/fold is the line best suited to when opponents calling ranges are wide but raising ranges are narrow. Sounds simple (pardon the pun) but its true and we all actually know this.

I think the problem most uNL players have is the fold part. Folding isn't fun, I hate it and I bet you do too.
For me the biggest reason I hate folding isn't that I have to fold a good hand its that I might be folding the best hand, that does annoy me.

So I think the problem that underlies here is having confidence in your hand reading abilities.

So with that in mind I recommend this exersise:
- Open HEM/PT3 and filter for
> Single Raised Pots
> Final pot >180bb (shorter stacks are easy to play anyway)
> You are OOP (because this is tougher)
> You cbet and are called HU
> You bet the turn
> You saw a showdown

Manually or in excel note the
> Player Type
> Flop SPR
> Board / Board Type
> Positions
> Villains turn action
> Villains hand

Your hand or who won is not relevant, now look at the info you have on what player types are doing on the turn with what holdings.
You may want to get more specific with the filters once you see patterns emerge.

WiltOnTilt:
the reason that bet/folding is such a powerful exploitative strategy is because people don't bluff raise later streets often enough in general. This is especially true vs players we deem "passive" as BW said. So in general, we should be betting later streets when we feel like we're a favorite when called and/or when there's value in winning the pot now to protect our share (equity) of the pot. This is why thin value betting has become so prevalent as you move up, because people have figured out that they can bet for extremely thin value against many players because they'll have an easy response vs further aggression. Eventually (and to some degree, now) people will realize that vs thin value bettors they need to slowplay more and bluff raise later streets more, but we're not to that point yet (and vs the fish, by definition, we'll never be at that point) so continue to bet away for value and continue to make good folds to raises vs people who either aren't bluff raising very much or value raising very many worse hands.

In terms of post game analysis, do like BW said. Count up the worse value hands and estimate how often you think it's a semi bluff. Of those hands, count up the combos (review Math of NLHE series for help on that) and figure out the value and semibluff combinations. See what your equity is vs that range in pokerstove, then figure out how many bluff combos you'll have to add in there to be able to continue in the hand (if any). Compare the number of bluff combos you'll need to the number of value hands you have already counted up. How does it look in comparison to your pot odds?

Hope that helps
WoT

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Suited Connectors, Implied Odds, and You (Theory/Math) by goofyballer


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.