SSHE: Even 72s can be playable - really?

[DeepCroak]

Was re-reading SSHE pre-flop recommendations and saw something that I missed first time.

In Eds recommendations for SB play in an unraised pot, he recommends playing any two suited cards. Wow, really? Even 72s?

I really am having a hard time with the proposition that ANY two SOOTED cards can be played profitably, even in the small blind, an unraised pot, lots of loose limpers, and assuming I play the hand well. That just seems like spewing chips to me, but I'm obviously not a Noted Poker Authority.

Is this one of those situations where enough of the suited hands are profitable in enough circumstances that a simplification was made to say "play them all, in aggregate they are profitable", when in fact not all of them are profitable in all circumstances? Or am I misreading it? Or what?

[Kellon]

Better yet, take a look at this discussion of the Best Damn Hand in Poker--the 72 offsuit. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

http://72off.cjb.net/

[Svenungson]

Well, he also sais that those pre-flop-recommendations are not carved in stone and written in blood. You need to adapt to the other players, your table image, people already in the pot etc. etc.
So with alot of callers (loose table is defined as 6-8 seeing the pot if i remember correctly, so lets say 8 limpers) it might be very profitable to call half of a bet with 72s if you are able to play well postflop.
However, i do not think it is a good idea if you are not very sure of your abilities. Might i add that i would not call in the situation i described above /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lost Wages]

Any two suited will flop a made hand 2 pair or better or a flush draw about 15% of the time (5.6:1 against).

Lost Wages

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Might i add that i would not call in the situation i described above

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call in that situation every time! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

These small stakes players play badly. Punish them for it. If you hit your flush draw, it most often will be good and easy to play, because flush draws are one of the easiest hands to play in hold'em, IMO.

[DeepCroak]

[ QUOTE ]
Any two suited will flop a made hand 2 pair or better or a flush draw about 15% of the time (5.6:1 against).

Lost Wages

[/ QUOTE ]

Which just means that 85% of the time your flop play is probably easy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As we all know, flush draws only come in about once in 3 times - any idea how much of that 15% is flush draws (versus two pair or better)?

We all know there are lots of ways to lose with what you initially thought was a very good flop - even if you make your draw. And we've all experienced them /images/graemlins/mad.gif. 72s is obviously more vulnerable to them than any other suited hand.

So my surprise is that when all of these are considered (including nature of opponents, table image, nothing is set in stone, and all the rest), Ed implicitly seems to assert that 72s can still present a profitable opportunity to voluntarily put chips in the pot. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So my surprise is that when all of these are considered (including nature of opponents, table image, nothing is set in stone, and all the rest), Ed implicitly seems to assert that 72s can still present a profitable opportunity to voluntarily put chips in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's true. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[DeepCroak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So my surprise is that when all of these are considered (including nature of opponents, table image, nothing is set in stone, and all the rest), Ed implicitly seems to assert that 72s can still present a profitable opportunity to voluntarily put chips in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's true. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


I've gained new respect for the power of SOOTEDness. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
So with alot of callers (loose table is defined as 6-8 seeing the pot if i remember correctly, so lets say 8 limpers) it might be very profitable to call half of a bet with 72s if you are able to play well postflop.
However, i do not think it is a good idea if you are not very sure of your abilities. Might i add that i would not call in the situation i described above

[/ QUOTE ]

For 1/2 a bet, you wouldn't complete with 6-8 limpers? Loosen up. Your missing alot of profit here. I'd call it with 2-3 limpers.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I've gained new respect for the power of SOOTEDness

[/ QUOTE ]

For fun you can go to pokerroom.com and look at the EV stats. Compare some offsuit hands with their suited counterparts. I did this the other day with KJo and KJs. KJs was, if i remember right, about 4 times more profitable overall. That's quite a bit.

b

[DeepCroak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So with alot of callers (loose table is defined as 6-8 seeing the pot if i remember correctly, so lets say 8 limpers) it might be very profitable to call half of a bet with 72s if you are able to play well postflop.
However, i do not think it is a good idea if you are not very sure of your abilities. Might i add that i would not call in the situation i described above

[/ QUOTE ]

For 1/2 a bet, you wouldn't complete with 6-8 limpers? Loosen up. Your missing alot of profit here. I'd call it with 2-3 limpers.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 3/6, and completing is 2/3 of a bet, not 1/2, which changes things a bit, I'd think. Your game may vary.

Also, I think Svenungson was implying that he was not confident in his ability to play well enough post-flop to make such a call profitable. Your game may vary. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DeepCroak]

[ QUOTE ]
For fun you can go to pokerroom.com and look at the EV stats. Compare some offsuit hands with their suited counterparts. I did this the other day with KJo and KJs. KJs was, if i remember right, about 4 times more profitable overall. That's quite a bit.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, will do.

DC

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I play 3/6, and completing is 2/3 of a bet, not 1/2, which changes things a bit

[/ QUOTE ]

That changes things a lot, actually. You may have to toss it in this case. It will really depend on how many people limp in front of you. I'm much tighter when its a 2/3 to complete. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Lost Wages]

As we all know, flush draws only come in about once in 3 times

A flush draw in a loose game is very profitable.

any idea how much of that 15% is flush draws (versus two pair or better)?

The bulk of it - 10.9%

We all know there are lots of ways to lose with what you initially thought was a very good flop - even if you make your draw...72s is obviously more vulnerable to them than any other suited hand.


Agree that 72s is vulnerable to hitting and losing but I would say that 32s is more so.

So my surprise is that when all of these are considered...Ed implicitly seems to assert that 72s can still present a profitable opportunity

Considering that in a loose game you are often getting 9:1 or better to complete your small blind, you should have plenty of overlay to cover those times that you hit and still lose.

Lost Wages

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think Svenungson was implying that he was not confident in his ability to play well enough post-flop to make such a call profitable. Your game may vary

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's on a lower limit, what a better place to learn to play. Better there than a higher limit.

For 2/3d's a bet, i play much tighter.

b

[MicroBob]

For half-bet I would complete in the SB vs. 3-4 limpers I think.
For 2/3 bet I would ocmplete vs. 7-8 limpers.
Mostly the same for 3/5 bet (on 5/10).

For 1/3 bet (on 15/30) I would complete with this with only 1 limper. And would probably raise if 0 limpers.

[betgo]

With a lot of people in the pot, you are getting good pot odds and implied odds for half a bet to hit your flush or two cards 7 or 2. I almost always complete with suited cards.

I don't understand all this making fun of playing "sooted" cards. Playing any suited hand for a full bet is clearly bad is limit poker. However, "sootedness" is valuable, not just for win percentage, but for making a big hand to win a big pot.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand all this making fun of playing "sooted" cards. Playing any suited hand for a full bet is clearly bad is limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You kind of answered your own query. Many will play any hand that is suited. No matter the position, no matter how many bets to them. For 3 bets they tighten up, but for just a single raise many will easily call. Their first excuse when they win? uh, it was soooted.

Then they bitch when they get beat by a flush over flush in a hand they didn't have the odds to call 2+ bets preflop to play anyways.

b

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]

You kind of answered your own query. Many will play any hand that is suited. No matter the position, no matter how many bets to them. For 3 bets they tighten up, but for just a single raise many will easily call. Their first excuse when they win? uh, it was soooted.

Then they bitch when they get beat by a flush over flush in a hand they didn't have the odds to call 2+ bets preflop to play anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh, but I see all these posts about how "I raised with KK and this moron called me with 75 sooted and took me out." In a no limit/pot limit tournament or in the big blind or a multiway pot in a limit tournament calling with a suited gapper may be a good move. The person with the big pair may have misplayed the hand by overplaying their overpair after the flop. Then they act like the guy who took them out is a fish for playing "sooted" cards.

I doubled up in a limit tournament calling an UTG raise which everyone else folded to with 53s. I got a flush draw on the flop of all rags. It went 3 bets on the flop after I checkraised. At this point, I figured he had a big pair. On the turn, I hit my flush. We kept raising until I was all in and he was almost allin. Afterwards, my opponent had a handful of chips and was cussing me out and calling me a fish for playing trash hands. However, with all rags on the board and a 3-flush and him clearly representing a big pair, it was pretty likely I had a flush, straight or 2 pair to be reraising him, and he should have check/called at that point.

When you have a bunch of weak players limping with all sorts of trash in a limit or no limit game, the value of playing "sooted" hands goes way up.

[CLC]

or maybe should be buried deep.

[flair1239]

For half a bet with some limpers, this is a good play. In my opinion these hands are easy to play, as long as you don't get hung up on a 2nd or 3rd pair. Your either going to get a flush draw, 2-pair, FH, or trips or you are folding.

Playing suited crap out of the SB with proper odds is easy, you will rarely get trapped and when you hit, you get paid off big.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
When you have a bunch of weak players limping with all sorts of trash in a limit or no limit game, the value of playing "sooted" hands goes way up

[/ QUOTE ]

Within reason. Not just any suited cards.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeh, but I see all these posts about how "I raised with KK and this moron called me with 75 sooted and took me out."

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're posting to complain, they should study where the profit in the game comes from. If the 75s wasn't in a blind, he made a mistake in calling the raise.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubled up in a limit tournament calling an UTG raise which everyone else folded to with 53s. I got a flush draw on the flop of all rags. It went 3 bets on the flop after I checkraised. At this point, I figured he had a big pair. On the turn, I hit my flush. We kept raising until I was all in and he was almost allin. Afterwards, my opponent had a handful of chips and was cussing me out and calling me a fish for playing trash hands. However, with all rags on the board and a 3-flush and him clearly representing a big pair, it was pretty likely I had a flush, straight or 2 pair to be reraising him, and he should have check/called at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy's an idiot for calling you a fish. This story is much different had you missed your flush or hit your flush pairing the board giving him a FH and lost the great portion of your stack. Which is what will happen if you play this enough times in the longrun.

b

[Billy Zee]

Hiya's

"would call in that situation every time!

These small stakes players play badly. Punish them for it. If you hit your flush draw, it most often will be good and easy to play, because flush draws are one of the easiest hands to play in hold'em, IMO. "

I'd probably agree with your opinion except, I play on UB and Bugsy. The LLH players there DON'T play badly. Stay away from them if you value your chips. They love to slowplay and trap, even at LL.

Regards
Billy Zee

[Double E]

[ QUOTE ]
Your either going to get a flush draw, 2-pair, FH, or trips or you are folding.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a loose passive game, you wouldn't hang around for one flop bet if you hit one pair and the board was at least moderately ragged? You'd have five cards to draw at (about 8:1 odds for the next card) and probably at least 10:1 pots odds, plus implied odds if you hit.