Percentage of suited hands that should be played? (long)

[TommyO]

After analyzing my hand histories and posting the results in this forum you helped me realize that I was playing way too many suited starting cards (thanks everyone). I have really tightened up in this area and my results have been better.

However, I still find that I'm seeing the flop with almost 50% of my suited hands and I'm wondering if this is still too high.

Anyway, I started thinking about which suited hands I'm playing and here's what I came up with.

There are a total of 78 suited starting hands:

Suited hands
AK - A2 -> 12
KQ - K2 -> 11
QJ - Q2 -> 10
JT - J2 -> 9
T9 - T2 -> 8
98 - 92 -> 7
87 - 82 -> 6
76 - 72 -> 5
65 - 62 -> 4
54 - 52 -> 3
43 - 42 -> 2
32 -> 1

Total -> 78

Below is an approximate break down of how often I play each hand. Hands weighted at 50% are hands I play only when the conditions are right (i.e. multiway pots in late position). Hands weighted at 20% are ones that I only play out of the blinds.

AK - AT -> 100% (4)
A9 - A2 -> 50% (4)
KQ - KT -> 100% (3)
K9 - K2 -> 50% (4)
QJ - QT -> 100% (2)
Q9 - Q2 -> 20% (2)
JT - J9 -> 100% (2)
J8 -> J2 -> 20% (1)
T9 - T8 -> 100% (2)
T7 - T2 -> 20% (1)
98 - 97 -> 100% (2)
96 - 92 -> 20% (1)
87 - 86 -> 100% (2)
85 - 82 -> 20% (1)
76 - 75 -> 100% (2)
74 - 72 -> 20% (1)
65 - 64 -> 100% (2)
63 - 62 -> 20% (0)
54 - 100% (1)
53 - 52 -> 20% (0)
43 - 20% (0)
42 0
32 - 0

Total -> 37

Which means that I'm playing approximately 47% of my suited hands. Is this number still too high? Do any of you have statistics on this? I wrote a program to do this but is this something you can get out of PokerTracker?

[lu_hawk]

So you're playing something like 65s more than you're playing A6s or A5s?

[smoore]

That's way too many soooteds for me. Here's me:

AK-AT KQ = raise
Ax = limp if it looks favorable
KJ KT QJ QT JT = raise late, limp others
T9-87 = limp late, muck early, table read mid
J9-86 = limp late, muck the rest

SB is treated like late
I hate two-gappers and don't play them.

[Malcom Reynolds]

Most of the 20% hands you list should be 0%. You play too many suited kings. You shouldn't be playing lower than 65s.

Go reread preflop of Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em. He has precise starting charts that should get you started. If you are making such huge preflop errors as this, you should probably drop down to the microlimits.

Also realize that starting hand selection is situational. In passive preflop/passive postflop games, you can come in with a lot more hands, like 87s in early position (where that would be folded in an aggressive game). Don't be playing these against raises very often unless in the BB, and even then you can just play any two suited.

In the small blind that is half the big blind, you can often come in with any two suited.

[TommyO]

Thanks for the reply. Basically the 20% hands are the hands I play only from the small blind for half a bet or for free from the big blind. Since you should be playing anything suited from the small blind I don't think any of them should never be played. You're right about the kings, I play them almost as often as I do do suited aces.

[amulet]

you are playing way to many. a lot of it depends on how many are in before you. it also depends on how aggressive the game is - this effects your drawing odds. it is impt to know that you make a flush by the river less then 6% of the time. early position raise with AKs, KQs, AQs, AJs, and maybe ATs. if the games is not aggressive and a lot of people are limping, JTS, QJs, KJs maybe QTs are often playable (however, all are scary in a 10 person game where it often is raised and only a few players see the flop). middle position, if one or two limpers KJs, OJs, QTs, T9s, QTs, sometimes 98s, if the game is very passive and a lot of limpers 87s and KTs, plus A9s, A8s, if you think there will be a large field Axs (but if you hit an A and there is action you need to be able to get away from it). late position, you now know how many are in, if there are several limpers you can play the hands i listed in middle position, and IF you want to add a few if the field is large that is ok, but not too many. hands like Q5s, J6s, T5s, are pure trash DUMP THEM. these are very rough guidlines. the # of opponents and the passive vs aggressive nature of the game will dictate if you play. in general play few hands up front, and very very few for a raise. please note i generally play middle to high limit games, in a passive low limit game a few more are probably playable, but not many. see SSH.

[Malcom Reynolds]

In aggressive games (3/6 Party for example) you usually can't play lower than A8s or A9s in early/mid position. In late position in unraised pots that are preferably multiway, you can come in with them. In late position, I may play as low as K9s depending on the table texture, but usually KTs is the lowest I go.

[TommyO]

amulet,

I appreciate the reply. I think that what you're saying and what I posted are pretty close to the same thing. The hands marked 20% are thrown away unless I'm in the blind and I'm seeing the flop for free or just half a bet. I've gotten a lot of responses that I play too many suited hands but no one has told me what % they are actually playing. Does anyone have stats on this besides me?

[ddubois]

Your chart probably doesn't convey what you meant to convey. Rather than %, you should have described situations you will play the listed hand. As an example, when you said "20%", but meant "only from the blinds in unraised pots" (these two don't exactly matchup BTW), you gave some people the wrong idea.

I think I might rather call a raise with 65s in the BB than A6s. The former is much easier to fit or fold; the latter tends to lose me an extra bet or two when an ace flops.

[Grendel]

[ QUOTE ]
K9 - K2 -> 50% (4)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yuck. Suited kings are nasty -- I will echo the others' fine suggestions and recommend reading Small Stakes Hold Em. There was also a great post about why AXs is so much better than KXs, but after searching for a half hour I can't find it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
T9 - T8 -> 100% (2)
98 - 97 -> 100% (2)


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think these are always worth seeing, especially in early position or with few people in before you in mid position. This is especially true of the two-gappers.

[ QUOTE ]
87 - 86 -> 100% (2)
76 - 75 -> 100% (2)
65 - 64 -> 100% (2)
54 - 100% (1)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yuck! These baby connectors are only good from late position. The two-gaps are just bad. Save them for late position at a loose table on a full moon. If then. There's NO WAY these hands are worth playing 100%.

In general, I think these 100% hands are probably giving you the most trouble. That, and the KXs, though if I could only find that post...

-Grendel

[TommyO]

Great reply, thanks. For the K9-K2 category (and any other category marked 50%) here's what I was thinking. 20% of the time you'll be getting these in the blinds, which means that I'm throwing them away 70% of the time i'm not in the blinds (thus the 30% of the time I play them out of the blinds). This is what I was trying to convey in my post. Sorry it was wasn't more clear. You're right about the mid/low suited connectors. I still play those too much. Thanks.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
There was also a great post about why AXs is so much better than KXs, but after searching for a half hour I can't find it. /images/graemlins/frown.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't hard to figure out, though. First of all, a pair of aces beats a pair of kings. Secondly, Axs can make the nut flush. Kxs can't. End of story.

I went back through my PT and saw that for all the times I limped with Axs, the hands I won were more often because I made a pair of aces than because I made a flush.

[odellthurman]

Interesting to me that some of you play Q/10s and K/10s. I never play these except for the occasional blind steal on the button or in the small blind. I have been concerned, though, about being too tight preflop - 16% through 20,000 hands at 2/4 and 3/6. Some earlier threads convinced me to consider playing A/10o more often. Should I consider playing Q/10s and K/10s more often?

[7ontheline]

It depends too much on the table to give an absolute answer for KTs and QTs, but in a party 3/6 or 2/4 game I would tend to play both of these more often. If every hand is being raised then they don't play so well, but I always limp with these in mid-position if there is a limper ahead of me and I might raise these in the CO or button if there are 3 or so limpers ahead of me. If you play well postflop, these hands are easy to get away from if the board isn't too your liking.

[Grendel]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't hard to figure out, though. First of all, a pair of aces beats a pair of kings. Secondly, Axs can make the nut flush. Kxs can't. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, steal my thunder. /images/graemlins/wink.gif For what it's worth, I found the post I was thinking of here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=621714&Forum= All_Forums&Words=%2Bscratch%20%2Bclaw&Searchpage=0 &Limit=25&Main=459301&Search=true&where=bodysub&Na me=&daterange=1&newerval=5&newertype=y&olderval=&o ldertype=&bodyprev=#Post621714).

It's a long thread, but the post I linked to is by StellarWind, ~100 replies in, about how AXs has to "scratch and claw" its way to +EV.

Interestingly, I remembered his wording and searched for +scratch +claw to find it...

Hope this helps.

-Grendel

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
Some earlier threads convinced me to consider playing A/10o more often. Should I consider playing Q/10s and K/10s more often?

[/ QUOTE ]

If on the button, CO or MP2 and no limpers so far, I would raise all 3 of these hands, provided a typical 2/4 table and probably more often than not if they were unsuited depending on my reads of SB +BB.