Playing small suited cards

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

I have been playing a lot of live $1/$2 No Limit Hold em (max buy-in $250). I wanted to get some thoughts on playing small suited connectors and one-gappers.

When these games become limp-fests with three or more limpers, and I hold small suited cards in late position, I have been joining in the limping. I have found these hands to be very profitable (of course, because these are live, I don't have any real data). These hands are very easy to get away from after the flop when you do not get a substantial piece -- but when I do get a nice piece of it, others will not put me on these hands.

For example, I limped with several others with 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif in CO (total of 6 players). I called a slightly-smaller-than-pot-size bet ($10) when two diamonds came on the flop (with one other caller making three players). The turn brought another diamond -- after a bet from the flop-bettor of $20 (into a $42 pot), I raised to $60 and took it down. (I felt comfortable that the bettor would not have bet the flop with the flush draw, but certainly could have held one diamond.)

In another hand, I limped from the button with 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The small blind raised to $7 and all three limpers called. Flop is Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Checked to CO who bets $15. I call (all others fold - pot at $65). Turn is a 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. CO bets $30. I call. River is a non-spade rag. CO bets $30, I raise to $60, he reluctantly calls and shows KQo.

My criteria for playing these hands is usually:
(1) at least three limpers before me
(2) significant stacks in front of the limpers
(3) unlikelihood of a raise from the blinds (or button if its not me).

I should also note that I have played with some of these players on multiple occassions and feel comfortable with my ability to read some of them.

Any thoughts? Will this be +EV or -EV in the long run?

[Zag]

You haven't quite given enough information, but I will infer it and you can confirm.

You say that the max buy-in is $250 (or 125 BBs). I shall suppose that you always buy in for the max, and that there are typically several people who cover you.

Given that assumption, then I think you have an easy limp in late position, even with only two limpers before you. However, it is important that you can get away from bottom two for less than 40 BBs, and that you can get away from a small flush for less than 50 BBs. This requires pretty good knowledge of your opponents -- whether you are pretty sure you can read from them the difference between an overpair and a set and whether they would bet their flush draws.

My point is that the down side of these hands is if they make a good second-best you have to be able to keep from losing your whole stack. If you can't get away from these situations, then they will be overall losers. You are playing them on the theory that, even though they usually lose, it is very little that you have lost, where, when they win, they usually win a lot. This same theory can be extended in the reverse -- of the hands that you play on with them, the will usually win a good pot but occasionally will lose your whole stack. You need to avoid that last part.

Of the two hands you posted, only one of them was played correctly. In the first one, you didn't have pots odds to call for a nut flush draw, there, never mind a bad flush draw. Therefore, you needed to have significant implied odds. However, when your flush hit, you did what you could to shut out the other player, killing your implied odds. (Not that that step was wrong.) Anyway, note that the total winnings that you got did not justify the odds of calling on the flop.

In the second hand, I like your play throughout.

Finally, I want to mention that, not only should you be limping with these hands in late position after a couple of limpers, you also should occasionally raise with them if there are no limpers. Consider how often you have a legitimate raising hand in this situation (and raise). Then what you want to do is increase by half the total number of times you raise in this situation, by adding in a number of these stealth hands. Note that this works out to raising with about 1/4 to 1/8 of the times you find yourself in this situation with one of these hands.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

Answering some of your questions/comments (if that changes anything):

[ QUOTE ]
You say that the max buy-in is $250 (or 125 BBs). I shall suppose that you always buy in for the max, and that there are typically several people who cover you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did buy in for the maximum, but not everybody does. There are a number of people in this poker room that will buy in for $100. I would say that the average stack at the table was slightly under $200. At the time the hands discussed were played I had over $250 in front of me. Typically, I will buy in for another $100 (or more) if I fall under $150.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is important that you can get away from bottom two for less than 40 BBs, and that you can get away from a small flush for less than 50 BBs. This requires pretty good knowledge of your opponents -- whether you are pretty sure you can read from them the difference between an overpair and a set and whether they would bet their flush draws.


[/ QUOTE ]

My reads vary, but I have played with several of these players before and know their game. I am certainly not confident in distinguishing between an overpair, a set and a flush draw -- but I have a feel. -- not very scientific here.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't get away from these situations, then they will be overall losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent I have been tested so far, I have been able to lay down hands that I don't feel comfortable playing. No one has tested me with a big bet when I made my baby flush -- although I have called down a small river bet to lose to a bigger flush once (bet was $25 into a pot over $100).

[ QUOTE ]
In the first one, you didn't have pots odds to call for a nut flush draw, there, never mind a bad flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other caller was before me (which wasn't clear in my first post). So I was calling $10 to a $32 pot. Aren't those sufficient odds for a flush draw?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, note that the total winnings that you got did not justify the odds of calling on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. Assume the other player had top pair with an A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and called me -- and I had the sense to shut down if a fourth diamond came on the board -- doesn't that make my EV greater? I certainly do not find the play at these tables to be optimal -- a caller with a top pair and nut flush draw (or less) was a possiblilty.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider how often you have a legitimate raising hand in this situation (and raise). Then what you want to do is increase by half the total number of times you raise in this situation, by adding in a number of these stealth hands. Note that this works out to raising with about 1/4 to 1/8 of the times you find yourself in this situation with one of these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

On rare occassion I have attempted a raise with one of these hands (or with no hand) without limpers. I don't know if I am giving off a tell on my pre-flop bluff-raises (is that what they are?) but I have not found them successful. Note that I have only been playing this game on a regular basis for less than two months (maybe 10 to 20 hours a week), so my sample size is not very large.

[Zag]

With an average stack in the 50-10BB range, then you are correct to look for 3 limpers rather than just 2. You should modify this by how well you know the limpers, as well as what their specific stack is.

[ QUOTE ]
Assume the other player had top pair with an A and called me -- and I had the sense to shut down if a fourth diamond came on the board -- doesn't that make my EV greater? I certainly do not find the play at these tables to be optimal -- a caller with a top pair and nut flush draw (or less) was a possiblilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you are betting enough that an Ad is making a mistake to call. In other words, if an opponent has (let's say) 25% pot equity because he has 9 outs of 45 cards. If you bet exactly 1/2 of the pot, he exactly has pots odds to call you, so you do not make any money from his call. You will make a profit of the bet size 3 times out of 4, and you will lose the pot 1 out of 4. And that is assuming you fold if he makes his hand.

In your first hand above, I had missed that there was another caller. Of course, with another caller, that increases the risk that you are drawing to a losing flush, so I would try not to count that so much. When you hit your flush, you raised $40 to make the pot $120, giving him 3-to-1 to draw out on you, if he does have the ace. (Unless the other caller had called his turn bet also -- you didn't say). So, as I said above, you wouldn't profit much on this call, if he had made it. The added money you would make is exactly offset by his chance of stealing the pot from you.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
Not unless you are betting enough that an Ad is making a mistake to call. In other words, if an opponent has (let's say) 25% pot equity because he has 9 outs of 45 cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 13 cards of each suit in the deck. Hero has two of them, three of them are on the board, and we believe that our opponent has one of them. That leaves seven cards of that suit in the deck, not nine. We can account for two cards in our hand, four on the board, and the two that we assume our opponent has. This leaves 44 cards. Seven outs with 44 unknown cards is only a 15.9% chance of hitting. (Windows Calculator gave me this number and twodimes.net gave the exact same result.)

This is a LOT different than 25% equity for the naked ace draw that you mention.

Additionally, I believe that it is unlikely for a player with top pair to bluff at the pot (especially leading into the turn raiser) with four of a suit on the board. He will usually just check and hope top pair is the best hand. Even most bad players understand that it makes no sense to bet here.