Low suited connectors in LAG games

[MaqEvil]

This summer I've been mostly taking a break from internet poker and working on skills unique to live play. The low limit games around Seattle are straight out of SSH, often 6+ to every flop, usually a mix of loose passive, one or 2 moderate LAGs and a maniac. There are often games in which raises preflop do little to thin the field and 7 way capped pots are common.

Today I was reading Psychology of Poker and Schoonmaker brought up a point that I've seen in other books. He says that (specifically referencing a loose aggressive game) if a pot is likely to be raised behind you, you should fold a hand like 87s in MP because it will deny you the implied odds necessary to make your hand profitable. Likewise, in SSH, Miller says of low suited connectors, "You cannot overcome your preflop disadvantage if you must pay two or more bets".

Contemplating this, I ran some simulations and don't see the big preflop disadvantage in LOOSE games. For example, 56s against two random hands, one hand in groups 1-3 and one hand in groups 1-4 is 4.15:1 to win getting 4:1 on every bet. So even if it is capped and you have 4 players against you with no dead blind money, that's .15sb that you need to make up postflop. Since the game is loose and aggressive, with many people calling multiple bets on the flop in a big pot, it seems like this would be easy to make up for when you flop a draw. With more players, you're actually +EV preflop, add 2 random hands to the above sim and you're 5.4:1 to win getting 6:1 on every bet.

So what am I missing? Are too many winning hands ones you have to fold before they get there? I'm sure that Ed Miller and others have looked at these things, but I want to know where my thinking is going wrong. Regardless, it seems to me that in very loose and aggressive games, if there's a good reason to fold suited connectors because of a likely raiser, it's not because of a large preflop equity disadvantage. Am I totally off base here or what?

[MaqEvil]

No one has a thought on this?

[Barry]

The problem in aggressive games is not only PF, but on the flop as well. You will miss most of the time and can fold. What happens if you flop a OESD? You may have to pay multiple bets on the flop and turn in order make your draw, further hammering your implied odds. If you flop a gut shot you want to see the turn for 1 bet, but say someone ahead of you bets? You are in a horrible position because it might get raised behind you and you might be stuck paying multiple bets, 1 at a time.

That is why SC play better in loose/passive games with position. The good news is that B&M games are generally more loose and passive than online ones.

[W. Deranged]

Sklansky makes the point in HPFAP that suited connectors and small pocket pairs want almost exactly opposite kinds of loose games. Namely, a loose-passive game tends to favor the suited connectors, because when you flop a draw you will not be forced to pay much to see it through. (Obviously these hands will not play well if you can expect to regularly have to pay 2-3 bets on the flop). Small pairs, though, want a loose-aggressive game because you want to be able to really pump the pot when you flop a set. Ideally, you want to be able to expect a raise if you bet out your set.

So, I think that some of the real difficulty for the connectors comes in on the flop (and the turn as well).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the game is loose and aggressive, with many people calling multiple bets on the flop in a big pot, it seems like this would be easy to make up for when you flop a draw. With more players, you're actually +EV preflop, add 2 random hands to the above sim and you're 5.4:1 to win getting 6:1 on every bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't tend to like to play to flop a draw against lots of possible postflop aggression. Look into the effective odds and just how much you really put in until you make your hand, offsetting the times when you miss. In these games, you also want high card value so if you get a pair, it's an added way of winning. In these games, putting them on hands is tougher, so you want to start with a better hand than they're likely(avg) to have.

b

[xxxxx]

Say you are playing 54s against AKo or AQo. You are as likely to make a pair as your opponent is. So you aren't that big a dog. But it is tough to play bottom pair or middle pair correctly. What do you do if the flop is Q-5-3? What if it is K-5-3? On the other hand, if you have two big cards and flop top pair with good kicker, you can just jam the pot. So your ability to play suited connectors depends on your ability to read your opponent to some extent. Saying that you'll make a pair of 4s a quarter of the time so you are a 4:1 dog doesn't really end the analysis.