Questions for Ed Miller

[binions]

1. Have you ever played an unsuited, 0-gap connector (T9-54) not in the blinds?

2. If so, why do you recommend never playing them in your SSHE book?

IMO, these hands are quite playable in late position in an unraised pot with multiway action (3-4+ limpers plus the blinds).

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, these hands are quite playable in late position in an unraised pot with multiway action (3-4+ limpers plus the blinds).

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you come to think this?
What are your reasons behind this opinion?

I think answers to these questions will help to further the discussion.

[steamboatin]

Wow, and Poker tracker says I'm loose.

[steamboatin]

I don't play any unsuited connectors below JT outside the blinds and Poker Tracker rates me as semi-loose.

[Francis]

I'm not Ed, (nor do I play one on TV)

but unsuited connectors are pretty weak. Per Ed's book, you'd like to have 3 attributes for your starting hands

- high carded'ess
- suiteded'ess
- connected'ess

If you don't have at least 2 (and high card strengh is the most valuable) you probably don't have a +EV hand under any but the BB position.

The only thing you can make with unsuited (non highcard) connectors is a straight that probably won't be the nuts. Possibly 2 pair once in a while.

Do you really find these cards +EV for you? What does PT say? Since I alwasy toss them my data is worthless.

Just curious,
thx,
Francis

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, these hands are quite playable in late position in an unraised pot with multiway action (3-4+ limpers plus the blinds).

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you come to think this?
What are your reasons behind this opinion?

I think answers to these questions will help to further the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, these hands are in Sklansky Groups 7 and 8. It's not like I am making this up. Second, straights have great implied odds, since they are more hidden than flushes. Third, 0-gap unsuited cards are roughly 5:1 to flop:

2 pair
3 of a kind
4 of a kind
boat
straight
8 out straight draw (open ended or double gut)

In an unraised pot in position with several limpers, how can you afford to fold these hands?

Sure, sometimes you will flop a straight draw against a 2 flush board. Fine. Subtract 2 outs, and if the pot odds are correct on a 6 outer, go for it.

Heck, with one card to come, straight draws are better than flush draws against a set, since if you hit, you are never pairing the board.

I will say these hands have more value at pot limit where you can make a flush draw lay down after they miss the turn, but I have seen straights take down some huge pots in limit hold'em.

The question remains, has Ed Miller ever played an unsuited 0-gap connector from T9 down to 5-4. I can't imagine the answer is no. And if the answer is yes, why doesn't he address the proper use of these hands in his book?

PS - Here is the math on the unsuited connectors:

Unsuited Max Stretch Connector (JT-54)
1.31% flop a straight
2.02% flop 2 pair
1.45% flop trips or full house or 4 of a kind
11.76% flop 8 outs to straight draw (open ended or DBB)
16.54% flop a hand worth playing
5.05 to 1 against

Unsuited Max Stretch 1-gap (QT-53)
0.96% flop a straight
2.02% flop 2 pair
1.45% flop trips or full house
9.19% flop 8 out straight draw (open ended or DBB)
13.62% to flop a hand worth playing
6.34 to 1 against

This math does not account for the paired-board and 3-flush flops. The real odds against flopping a hand you want to play are slightly worse than listed above. In addition, for the 2 flush boards, you are effectively flopping a 6 out draw instead of an 8 out draw.

[Ed Miller]

1. Have you ever played an unsuited, 0-gap connector (T9-54) not in the blinds?

Of course I have. I do a lot of stupid stuff when I'm drunk.

2. If so, why do you recommend never playing them in your SSHE book?

Because the number of opportunities to play them profitably is vanishingly small. And your profit when you do play them is equally small. And my goal when I wrote SSH was to give a decent preflop strategy then focus on postflop play. I never wanted to get into the nitty gritty of every possible preflop scenario.

Finally, if you are upset that I don't discuss when playing 76 is profitable, you must be livid that I also avoid A9 and A8. Because those hands are better than 76 and worth playing much more often.

[AngryCola]

"1. Have you ever played an unsuited, 0-gap connector (T9-54) not in the blinds?"

"Of course I have. I do a lot of stupid stuff when I'm drunk."

Classic.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ed Miller]

Second, straights have great implied odds, since they are more hidden than flushes.

While this might be true and significant in no limit, it's not worth much in limit.

As for your math about how often hands like 76 hit the flop.. 32s hits the flop even more often. You flop all the two pair and trips hands just as often, and, combined, your flush and straight draws are more numerous. But that doesn't make either hand worth playing.

The reason 76 and 32s are both generally not worth playing is a simple one. Your opponents will have hands that are too good, too often.

[binions]

If the answer is you wrote the book for players relatively new to the game, that's fine.

The title, however, promises "expert play."

Experts I know play unsuited connectors in unraised multiway pots in late position.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Experts I know play unsuited connectors in unraised multiway pots in late position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are these "experts"? I want them in my game.

[ QUOTE ]
If the answer is you wrote the book for players relatively new to the game, that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not at all what he said. He said the instances when these hands are profitable are extremely rare. Even then, they aren't that profitable.. period.
He mentioned they may be slightly more profitable in NL.

But I remind you, SSHE isn't about NL play. You will have to wait for the Sklansky/Miller book on NL for those ideas.
Thank you.

[Vern]

But unsuited connectors can make two different flushes, not just the one that suited connectors can.

[binions]

If you are playing in a game where 3-4 people see the flop, and there is a lot of preflop raising going on, clearly these hands are not often playable.

SSHE specifically talks about games in which 6-8 people see the flop. Often unraised. Can't imagine a better spot for 65 offsuit on the button, can you?

[steamboatin]

And they make sure you see what they played to give you the wrong impression of "Expert Play". TOP says ( I'm paraphrasing) "Do something stupid every now and then and make sure they all see what you did so they can't get a good read on your play".

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't imagine a better spot for 65 offsuit on the button, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The 6-5 offsuit is barely playable (IMO not playable) in your example. You would be stretching to call it profitable. You are basically subsidizing all the better hands which have limped in. You are making your opponents play(s) more profitable.

I'll let the writer of the book elaborate if he chooses to do so.

[Derek in NYC]

The first article has been on my reading list for a while, but I havent gotten to it. However, it purports to answer your question. Also, I seem to recall a footnote in Lee Jones' book about work that Abdul Jalib had done about the value of unsuited connectors, but I havent looked at this either.

http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/unsuited.php

http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/sim/index.html

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Experts I know play unsuited connectors in unraised multiway pots in late position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are these "experts"? I want them in my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, who on pg 37-38 of Hold'em For Advanced Players say that it's perfectly fine to play group 8 hands on the button in an unraised pot with a horde of limpers. Group 8 hands include unsuited connectors down to 54o. If you only have a few limpers they don't recommend you go below 98o.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can't imagine a better spot for 65 offsuit on the button, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The 6-5 offsuit is barely playable (IMO not playable) in your example. You would be stretching to call it profitable. You are basically subsidizing all the better hands which have limped in. You are making your opponents play(s) more profitable.

I'll let the writer of the book elaborate if he chooses to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I have a 5:1 shot at flopping a hand worth playing, and am getting 6:1 or 7:1 on seeing the flop, those other limpers are subsidizing me.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Who have admitted they do not posses the exact skills for beating the small stakes games as well as Miller can.

:shrug:

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
those other limpers are subsidizing me.

[/ QUOTE ]

*SIGH*

Okay, you're right. How silly of me.

Fin.

*NOTE*
You don't need to change the subject every time you post a reply.

[binions]

That poker stove math is wrong.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
That poker stove math is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

It's not enough to say that and expect everyone to believe you.
Especially considering how good of a program Pokerstove is.

[binions]

Poker Stove on 0-gap unsuited connectors down to 54:

"Cases to consider:
two pair
trips
straight
full house
quads
open-ended straight draw"

"Chance of making two pair or better off the flop: 3.80%
Chance of making strong drawing hand off the flop: 11.02%"

Real percentages, derived from Mike Petriv's Hold'ems Odd Book

Unsuited Max Stretch Connector (JT-54)
1.31% flop a straight
2.02% flop 2 pair
1.45% flop trips or full house or 4 of a kind
11.76% flop 8 outs to straight draw (open ended or DBB)
16.54% flop a hand worth playing
5.05 to 1 against

It appears that part of the problem is that pokerstove only accounted for open ended straight draws, and did not include double gutters.

In addition, you have 4.78% chance to flop a made hand 2 pair or better, while pokerstove puts it at 3.8%

[AngryCola]

Well, you are only using max stretch connectors. I didn't look at the pokerstove page, but you quote it as using 0 gap connectors "down to 54"

This is different than JT-54.

I'm not very smart when it comes to probability. So someone else will have to answer any of the questions you are posing about this.

I just thought it was necessary for you to provide some evidence for what you were talking about.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth

[/ QUOTE ]

Who have admitted they do not posses the exact skills for beating the small stakes games as well as Miller can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you seriously think 54o plays better in 30/60 than in 3/6???

[Vern]

This got me thinking and I did the old TTH sim
Solid player against LL players, on the button with 65o 10000 hands that meet criteria.

4 limpers at decision point -.33BB/Hand
5 limpers at decision point -.17BB/Hand
6 limpers at decision point -.06BB/Hand
7 Limpers is gonna take about an hour to run, I will post an update. Nice article at PokerStove, thanks for the link.

Vern

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you seriously think 54o plays better in 30/60 than in 3/6???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure?

Look, my only point was that the differences between SSHE and HEFAP are brushed aside (by the authors) by giving the same explanation (plus a few others) which I just gave to you.

If we wanted to get real technical, I could remind you that 2+2 always advises you to not take the starting hand suggestions literally.

Again, I'm no expert. I'm just trying to state the reasons SSHE gives for it's differences in advice.

[Rudbaeck]

I think Ed is wrong here. There is quite clearly a bit of +EV by playing small offsuit connectors on the button after many limpers, atleast if the blinds are passive.

[AngryCola]

Obviously, I tend to disagree here. But I'll let those who are more knowledgable about these things debate it.

I still think, as Miller said, they can be very marginally profitable.
You need to be a great player, however, to make money off of this type of hand.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to be a great player, however, to make money off of this type of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, these are fit or fold hands, and thus simple enough to play. I'm pretty sure that 54o on the button plays alot simpler than A2s UTG, which the SS forum regulars find profitable. (Ok, none of these are recommended in SSH, but they are recommended in the SS forum here.)

T9 in the CO might be a bit trickier, but still not horribly so.

[AngryCola]

I disagree. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

These are not just "fit or fold" hands.

Some of the ways these hands can be strectched to be made profitable is by making pairs. You need to be a great player to know if your middle pair with a four kicker is beaten.

[binions]

You assume your 2nd or third pair with weak kicker is beaten. The trick is knowing when you have a clean 5 outs, because if so, the pot is usually laying you better than 8:1 to see the turn.

However, even if you folded every flop that did not turn out to make you

2 pair
trips
boat
4 of a kind
straight
open ended
double gut

You still would be profitable in late position with 4+ limpers plus the blinds.

[Rudbaeck]

They are still profitable even if you never stay past the flop with less than 2 pair. It's not much, but every little bit helps. Another 0.25BB here and there add up.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]

In addition, you have 4.78% chance to flop a made hand 2 pair or better, while pokerstove puts it at 3.8%

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there seems to have been an accounting error introduced in the process of moving from the text file to the formatted web page (or even before that). I honestly have no clue how that number crept in there. My original odds sheet http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~prock/poker/odds has the correct numbers. Who ever knew that transcription was the hardest part about poker?

Thank you for pointing it out.

- Andrew <font color="white"> </font>

[Vern]

Messed up, forgot it was simulating 2/4, so the following is acutally the result:

10000 hands that met the criteria of number of limpers before BTN with 65o make a decision, he always calls a called pot on the button and folds a raised pot or two raised back to him.

4 limpers at decision point -1.32BB/Hand
5 limpers at decision point -0.68BB/Hand
6 limpers at decision point -0.24BB/Hand
7 limpers at decision point +0.72BB/Hand

It had to go through about 25million+ hands to get 10000 where everyone limped before it got to the button.

Vern

[binions]

I love PokerStove. That's the only technical error I have found. I think I e-mailed you about it several weeks ago.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

[AngryCola]

This is to both binions and Rudbaeck:

You make a compelling argument. But you understand my reasons for generally trusting what Miller has to say.

So, how about this?

You are both very convinced you are correct about this. This means, to you, it is expert play. I would be very interested to find out if this is the case.

Try to find the games where it becomes loose enough (by your standards) to play these hands.

Track your statistics over a significant number of hands with Poker Tracker.

Post the positive results, and you will make a believer out of me. You would also be verifying your own definition of good play.

Since I assume playing well is something you are already trying to accomplish. This should be an easy task.

[Rudbaeck]

I pretty much convinced myself to try this out. Was rereading HEFAP while visiting the parents and the preflop chapter felt very, very loose. But these hands during good conditions are worth it.

Going to take a long time getting a decent sample together.

[AngryCola]

Cool!

My request wasn't meant to be condescending.
I'm glad you didn't take it that way.

I actually do believe these hands can be made very marginally profitable by a good player. I just think...

the increase in variance + extremely small profitablity + the need to play pretty well

...makes these hands better folds than gambles.

I could easily be wrong, and I am anxious to see the results.

I know it could be awhile. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ed Miller]

...here are my feelings on the hands:

T9 and maybe 98 can be slightly profitable on the button in an unraised pot under the right circumstances.

Assuming you play well, 87 through 54 (along with the rest of the top 60-70% of all hands) might be profitable on the button in a very good $1-$2 blind $4-$8 game or spread limit game with a small big blind.

I highly doubt 54 is profitable for a full small bet on the button no matter what game you are playing and how bad your opponents are (within the bounds of games you could realistically find somehwere).

While this by no means tells the full story, find 54 on this page (http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm) and note the company that it keeps. 72s fares better, and I think that's probably right in practice as well. Would you play 72s on the button in these situations you are talking about?

[Rudbaeck]

So, do you in turn think the late position suggestions of group 7 and even 8 hands are wrong in HEFAP?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So, do you in turn think the late position suggestions of group 7 and even 8 hands are wrong in HEFAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't want to post an ass kiss reply to Miller. But I thought his post was very good.

Still, I would love it if he would reply to the above question directly.
I suspect the answer will be pretty simple.

*EDIT*

You never really answered Miller's question.

Miller:
[ QUOTE ]
Would you play 72s on the button in these situations you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to take a stab?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you play 72s on the button in these situations you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Play it? I'd raise it! /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Seriously, I play any 2 suited cards when there are 5+ limpers not including the blinds. (You are 5.6:1 to flop 2 pair or better or a flush draw with suited unconnectors). How can you not see a flop with 2 suited cards in a large multiway unraised pot on the button?

It's the same principle in completing the small blind. If you are getting 7:1 or more in the SB (ie 2 limpers + BB), you have to play any suited cards and any 0-gap and 1-gap unsuited connectors. 9:1 (ie 3 limpers + BB) you can play 2-gap unsuited connectors in the SB.

This all goes to your theory that if the pot is big enough, you cannot fold if you have a chance to win. Well, you cannot win a big pot unless you play it, and these hands we are talking about (suited unconnected &amp; unsuited connected) have a chance to win big pots in the right circumstances.

The mistake people make with these hands is playing past the flop when they flop one pair.

This is all pretty basic stuff.

[Francis]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Would you play 72s on the button in these situations you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

For just a touch of levity in an otherwise excellent thread. Just last night I was teaching my wife to play online, and I was coaching her on Party .5/1..

72o comes, and I show her Ed's starting charts (thx McGee!), and she folds. Flop comes and she says to me, "Bad advice! I would have had a full house!". I look, flop is 227... So much for a teaching opportunity...

We then started the discussion on probabilities, statistics, and the long run /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all pretty basic stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you up for participating in what I proposed?

[steamboatin]

Because it would take an amazingly skilled player to make these marginal hands profitable for the long term, I'll just go ahead and conceed that you are the greatest player that ever lived and you make Stu Unger look like a fish.

Because that is the skill level required to play hands of this nature.

Me and all the other lesser mortals had better stick to tight play so when you do decide to play these hands, we'll have a giant head start. You might be a good enough player to come from that far behind and win the pot but most of us aren't.

If Ed Miller can't make them profitable, I'll guarantee you The Steamboat can't either.

[twang]

Someone (DS?) said that Hold'Em is a high card game. He is probably right, but I've always found TPTK-ish hands much, much harder to play than any drawing hand, including off-suit connectors.

When I began playing I followed the starting hands chart in HEFAP religously and I can't recall that the offsuit connectors were chip spewers or hard to play. (Of course I don't have PT-data to back this up, this is just how I remember it.) Quite the opposite, they felt easy to play for a weak-tight newbie like me.

Now I don't play them anymore, but that's just because Ed Miller and PokerRoom says I shouldn't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

/twang

[Ed Miller]

binions,

My feeling is that you've started with an important basic principle, "In loose games against bad opponents, you can loosen up considerably in late position in unraised pot," and taken it somewhat too far.

Adding these hands in favorable situations will certainly not be a big enough leak to cause you to go broke. In fact, you may not even notice its effect on your results. But I think you are mistaken when you say they are profitable.

[binions]

Please don't misunderstand. I think his book is excellent. I read all his posts. I have no quarrel with the man.

I simply don't understand leaving unsuited 0-gappers out of a book that's intended for games where 6-8 people see the flop.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling is that you've started with an important basic principle, "In loose games against bad opponents, you can loosen up considerably in late position in unraised pot," and taken it somewhat too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to HEFAP preflop chapter all these hands are playable at a loose passive table. I highly doubt they get easier to play just because you multiply the stakes by 10.

It would be wonderful if you did an article on who HEFAP preflop chapter.

Why is this supposed to work at 30/60, but not at 3/6?

Maybe Mason or David want to chime in now that we are getting their book into the fire again. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[steamboatin]

Ed it would take a very good player to play those hands profitably, if it is possible. The rest of us are better off saving those chips for raises when we have the best of it. We don't need to be playing marginally profitable hands, We need to have those chips in our stack so we can jam the pot when we have the nuts.

[BarronVangorToth]

I don't know if it's a huge leak in my game, but I have to tell you, when I'm on the button and EVERYONE calls in front of me (this isn't that odd at Foxwoods) I'll take a flop if I'm relatively certain the small blind nor big blind will raise with 9-10-offsuit. Given the natural passivity of these games, I think it's worth the value for a single small bet if you know it's going to be truly a 10-handed pot.

I also would like to know if Ed would think this too loose, given the (a) passivity and (b) position and (c) 10-handedness.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, sometimes you will flop a straight draw against a 2 flush board. Fine. Subtract 2 outs, and if the pot odds are correct on a 6 outer, go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You brushed upon an important point here...

[ QUOTE ]
Unsuited Max Stretch Connector (JT-54)
1.31% flop a straight
2.02% flop 2 pair
1.45% flop trips or full house or 4 of a kind
11.76% flop 8 outs to straight draw (open ended or DBB)
16.54% flop a hand worth playing
5.05 to 1 against


[/ QUOTE ]
... and then ignore that point when referencing a chart like this as if it were proper justification. Just because something in the above list appears on the flop X% of times does not necessarily imply the hand was profitable overall. You can make two-pair and lose when someone with higher connectors makes a straight, or be behind a set, or get counterfeieted and lose to a higher-two pair. You can make trips or a full house, but since you have all the good cards, you probably won't get paid off much - unless you don't have all the good cards and your trip 7s with 78 gets wrecked by A7s. You can make your straight, but lose a big pot when someone else makes a flush or fills up.

T9 is reasonable to play on the button and has some high-card value, but 54 is just garbage.

[bobbyi]

If you're an expert than you should not be playing preflop by following a chart in a book.

[smoore]

45 isn't good in a game where 6-8 people are seeing the flop because the chance someone has 57 or 48 is WAY too big. Hell, what are the chances someone has A4 or A5? I haven't done the math, but 45 probably has a better chance in bigger games where people will fold the 87s and the A5.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Messed up, forgot it was simulating 2/4, so the following is acutally the result:

10000 hands that met the criteria of number of limpers before BTN with 65o make a decision, he always calls a called pot on the button and folds a raised pot or two raised back to him.

4 limpers at decision point -1.32BB/Hand
5 limpers at decision point -0.68BB/Hand
6 limpers at decision point -0.24BB/Hand
7 limpers at decision point +0.72BB/Hand

It had to go through about 25million+ hands to get 10000 where everyone limped before it got to the button.

Vern

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be careful with these kind of simulations. When the situation is that rare (1 in 2500), you are probably seeing results which are skewed by clumping. That is, the players are playing so tight that once seven of them have entered the pot, nearly all of your pair and straight outs are live.

I've gotten even more bizarre results which say you should cap it with 65o under similar conditions. Be sure that you are modeling the appropriate game conditions.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[Rudbaeck]

Sklansky&amp;Malmuth think playing 54o in that position is fine.

[Vern]

I just grabbbed some of the basic low limit profiles, took a custom one and made it always call a called pot with 65o on the button and set the decision point to require a certain number of callers. I then stacked the deck to give the btn 65o and froze the button at seat 10, where the custom profile sat. I still needed millions of hands when the limper count had to get to 6 and tens of millions when it got to 7, just to get the required 10000 hands to see the flop.

Post flop the profile will not continue w/o two pair or odds to call for a straight draw. I then ran it for 6/7/8/9 players in the pot at the decision point which matches to 4/5/6/7 limpers. I know computer models are weak, but I don't have time to play the millions of hands necessary at real tables to get the sample sizes for the times I have a middle unsuited connector, on the button and get such a large number of limpers. The simulation results tend to make me believe that short of a limp fest of 9/10 way hands, unsuited connectors are not gonna enter my play options.

[GuyOnTilt]

It's the same principle in completing the small blind. If you are getting 7:1 or more in the SB (ie 2 limpers + BB), you have to play any suited cards and any 0-gap and 1-gap unsuited connectors. 9:1 (ie 3 limpers + BB) you can play 2-gap unsuited connectors in the SB.

This is not true. You should be looser completing in the SB with suited cards than on the Button with the same pot odds, esp. in 1/2 and 2/3 blind games. Your implied odds are much, much better. That is the biggest reason for completing the small blind with "marginal hands" like 85s after 2 limpers or T8o after 3 limpers, not your pot odds. That doesn't have much to do with your point, but it's a very important concept to understand.

GoT

[Rudbaeck]

I'm waiting for Mason to chime in here. I trust your findings, as well as simulations can be trusted. But this implies that parts of the preflop advice in HEFAP is solid loosing play.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky&amp;Malmuth think playing 54o in that position is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then let them come in here and say it themselves.
You have already made your point about HEFAP several times.

There is no need to continue repeating yourself. Especially considering the fact that you failed to answer the question Miller posed to you.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Then let them come in here and say it themselves.
You have already made your point about HEFAP several times.

There is no need to continue repeating yourself. Especially considering the fact that you failed to answer the question Miller posed to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

He asked Binions the question. But yes, I'm tempted to play any two suited cards after sufficient limpers. So is Ed, he has said so himself on the forums atleast a couple of times.

You can hardly dispute that S&amp;M actual say to play 54o on the button after many limpers in HEFAP. (Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players 21st Century Edition pg 38.)

We can however discuss if they were flat out wrong when they included the unsuited connectors in group 8 and/or saying to play group 8 hands in the specified spot.

The sims run by posters in this thread certainly point heavily in that direction.

So, is the advice on page 38 of HEFAP flat out wrong?

Edit: All in all it might be that S&amp;M overvalue connectedness. They recommend lots of preflop plays in HEFAP (playing 98s UTG in a typical mid limit game) that would get you grossly flamed in SS or Mid/High here. Ds.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
You can hardly dispute that S&amp;M actual say to play 54o on the button after many limpers in HEFAP. (Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players 21st Century Edition pg 38.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I already said:

You've made your point about HEFAP several times.

Yet you do so again?
I never disputed what is written in HEFAP.

I think your point is a fair one, but you do not need to "beat it into our heads".
That is all I was trying to say.
If Mr. Malmuth wishes to answer the question, I'm sure he will do so.
If Mr. Miller wants to answer it, I'm sure he will do the same.

As I already indicated in an earlier post, I would be interested to hear their responses to this question as well.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you play 72s on the button in these situations you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I play any 2 suited cards when there are 5+ limpers not including the blinds. (You are 5.6:1 to flop 2 pair or better or a flush draw with suited unconnectors). How can you not see a flop with 2 suited cards in a large multiway unraised pot on the button?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I can answer this question, although the responce will not be of the same par as the other responces in this thread.

72s is a hand that will run a small profit in the long run from the small blind with numerous limpers and no pre-flop raise because:

a) there is one player left to act who may raise, but the odds are against it.
b) the small blind has to pay 1/2 a bet (assuming a 1/2 blind structure such as 4/8 or 2/4)

From the button however, the value of 72s is greatly decreased:

a) There are now two players left to act that may raise the pot. This will not change the implied pot odds for the player 90% of the time since it is assumed all limpers will call the pre-flop raise from the blind position player, however it does make it a more costly bet.
b) The button does not have the benefit of a discounted bet that the blind has. Of course the added benefit the button has is position, however that does not come into effect until after we see the flop.

I hope I was able to add to this conversation in a meaningful way /images/graemlins/smile.gif Great thread.... But as you can see I agree with Ed's philosophy here in the standard small stakes game, both passive and agressive.

In short, I would advise against playing 72s from any position except the button, and then only if there are numerous limpers and there is no pre-flop raise.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Luv2DriveTT]

Actually, that is a good sugestion Rudbaeck, there is obviously enough controversy here to warrent another look at HPAF vs SSHE pre-flop reccomendations. I hope David considers it for the next magazine. As previously stated I belive Ed's thought process is correct here, but there is some small long-term value possible in HPAF's reccomendation as well. We must all keep in mind that HPAF was written before computer simulation was the norm, and LONG before we had the ability to datamine millions of hands to determine pre-flop equity (thanks Pokerroom.com!). Its amazing at how accurate David was, this is a point that cannot be overlooked.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
As I already indicated in an earlier post, I would be interested to hear their responses to this question as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope they do that. Otherwise I guess someone will fire up a post titled "Horrible pre-flop advice in HEFAP" and it will get their attention. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm very interested in hearing their reasoning on the unsuited connectors. I want to be firmly convinced one way or the other.

Side note: Anyone checked out what your VP$IP ends up at if you play the 'typical game' suggestions in HEFAP? (It's got to be over 20%.)

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
But unsuited connectors can make two different flushes, not just the one that suited connectors can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that, but, because every straight contains either a ten or a five, T5 is the best hand for making straights, not those worthless connectors.

[binions]

I don't like the T5 - never makes the 9 high straight. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky&amp;Malmuth think playing 54o in that position is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which book (or article) is this in? I'm not being sarcastic as I have read I believe almost everything both of them have written (multiple times) and I don't recall the advice dropping down to 4-5o on the button with a full table and no raise.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky&amp;Malmuth think playing 54o in that position is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which book (or article) is this in?

[/ QUOTE ]

HEFAP (21st century edition), pg 38 first paragraph.

[BarronVangorToth]

I've read the book a half-dozen times and somehow misread this every time. Thanks for pointing it out as I was keeping Group 8 hands out of my realm of play and NOT including them. Very interesting.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Victor]

whats a group hand........

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
If Mr. Malmuth wishes to answer the question, I'm sure he will do so.
If Mr. Miller wants to answer it, I'm sure he will do the same.



[/ QUOTE ]

The cynic in me is tempted to say that the reason there has been no response to this point is...that to cast aspersions on the great hand categories in the 'bible' would be a sin...while to create further cracks in the SSH hand charts would be bad for sales.

Fortunately, I am not a cynic.

---Leavenfish

[ZeeBee]

I'd be most interested to see the results of Andrew Prock's analysis (http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/unsuited.php) updated with the correct odds that he points out in his post here.

No one is doubting the point binions makes about the 5:1 odds you are getting to make 2 pair or better. The counterpoint seems to be that even if you hit your hand you will often lose. Andrew's analysis on the page above says that offsuit 0-gaps up to 87o will only win 33% of the time vs 2-3 opponents - obviously less (but I don't know how much less) against the 4-5 we are talking about here. I don't know how Andrew came up with the 33% figure (perhaps a Pokerstove sim but that would mean a no-fold situation) - but if it's correct it would imply you need much more than 5:1 for this call even given implied odds.

Andrew - any chance of updating your analysis?

others - am I just talking crap?

ZB

[Ed Miller]

The cynic in me is tempted to say that the reason there has been no response to this point is...that to cast aspersions on the great hand categories in the 'bible' would be a sin...while to create further cracks in the SSH hand charts would be bad for sales.

I feel I answered this thread completely and honestly. My position on playing 87-54 should be clear: These hands aren't strong enough to be worth playing for a full small bet even on the button in a very good game.

I don't have HPFAP nearby, so I don't know whether it contradicts what I just said. But if it does, so be it.

Will you guys really not be satisfied until I dig out the book and quote specific passages I agree and disagree with?

[Gallopin Gael]

They obviously don't understand that you are one of the 10 smartest poker players (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1435626&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1). /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Maybe if you had been rated higher than Jesus then your words would be treated as Gospel. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ed Miller]

Maybe if you had been rated higher than Jesus then your words would be treated as Gospel.

Whatever. Their point is, "Ed, why are you dodging the question?" My point is, "I don't think I dodged it." That's all I'm saying.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have HPFAP nearby, so I don't know whether it contradicts what I just said. But if it does, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think this is a fair response.

[Gallopin Gael]

I got that.

I wasn't trying to add fuel to the fire.

It was nothing more than a feeble attempt at seminary humor (Jesus/Gospel).

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I know.... It's been a long semester for me. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ZeeBee]

The rather transparent attempts to make you say "HPFAP is wrong" are a bit pathetic really. Fact is that HPFAP was written a rather long time ago, and even the starting hand chart revisions are fairly old now. The fact that they have held up so well over time despite being made without the aid of the advanced simulation and tracking tools we have nowadays says volumes for the quality of thinking put into them. We should be amazed they are so good rather than desperately trying to highlight flaws in them in a strange attempt to get one up on Sklansky &amp; Malmuth.

ZB

PS Nothing wrong with finding flaws though - it's just the gloating about it I have issue with.

[BarronVangorToth]

Ed,

I don't think anyone expects you and David to agree 100% on everything -- given all the variables in poker, I think there can be some elements ... on the edge, shall we say ... where differences can occur.

Given that, since you labeled 78 as not worth playing for a bet, I will say that on page 83 how I read your labeling of button play that 89-o and 9-10-o are not on your list. Have you changed your mind since the book was published and now would say these hands are worth calling a bet for given lots of action and no raising ahead of you?

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Leavenfish]

and me...I was wasnt' saying anyone wasn't answering any questions...really, just that both answers can not be 'correct'.

---Leavenfish

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be most interested to see the results of Andrew Prock's analysis (http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/unsuited.php) updated with the correct odds that he points out in his post here.

No one is doubting the point binions makes about the 5:1 odds you are getting to make 2 pair or better. The counterpoint seems to be that even if you hit your hand you will often lose. Andrew's analysis on the page above says that offsuit 0-gaps up to 87o will only win 33% of the time vs 2-3 opponents - obviously less (but I don't know how much less) against the 4-5 we are talking about here. I don't know how Andrew came up with the 33% figure (perhaps a Pokerstove sim but that would mean a no-fold situation) - but if it's correct it would imply you need much more than 5:1 for this call even given implied odds.

Andrew - any chance of updating your analysis?

others - am I just talking crap?

ZB

[/ QUOTE ]

I did go back and change the data for the 0-gap connectors. That ups the P(win|flop hand) from 33% to 35%. This really doesn't affect the final odds needed by very much. I haven't redone the entire analysis because it really depends on a lot of assumptions which are a function of game conditions. The biggest variable is how poorly the players will play postflop. Implied odds can make a huge difference. For every small bet in EV players will give away post flop, you can reduce the required limpers by one. [note that spewing to the tune of one small bet is a huge amount.]

Most of my analysis today is based on simulations which are more finely tuned to game conditions. I plan to eventually release a more modern unsuited anslysis, but this probably won't be ready for a months.

Suffice it to say, small unsuited connectors 87o and below are crap. Don't play them outside the blinds unless you are stealing.

- Andrew

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
The rather transparent attempts to make you say "HPFAP is wrong" are a bit pathetic really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. You can't be serious. I wasn't one of those who were practically begging for a respose to this issue, but I can hardly call the attempts "transparent".

You know why? Because they weren't trying to hide their motivations for asking the question. To say something like that is "transparent" implies they were trying to go about it in a somewhat deceitful way. I don't view the way the questions were asked in that way.

[ZeeBee]

Super, thanks Andrew.

ZB

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't view the way the questions were asked in that way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people were obviously trying to sow seeds of disagreement between the two camps -- but some of us are asking the question in all seriousness to make our games better. I'm certainly not interested in starting random arguments but I do see now in rereading more carefully HEPFAP that playing unsuited connectors like 5-6 and 7-8 on the button ARE worthwhile with lots of customers in front of you while Ed has listed on his chart "unsuited cards 10 or higher" (which eliminates 45o, 56o, 67o, 78o, 89o, and 9-10o).

That's why I wanted clarification from Ed as one of his posts made me think he endorsed 89o and 9-10o on the button with a table of limpers in front of you.

All of this has led me to believe that the next batch of sessions I log at Foxwoods that I'll be playing all of those unsuited connectors on the button and, even though it's a small sample size, especially as it's live play, I'll see what happens...

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[ZeeBee]

[ QUOTE ]
You know why? Because they weren't trying to hide their motivations for asking the question. To say something like that is "transparent" implies they were trying to go about it in a somewhat deceitful way. I don't view the way the questions were asked in that way.

[/ QUOTE ]Perhaps you are right. I was using "transparent" to mean simply that their motivation was clear. Obviously I don't really like the motivation (wanting to "prove" that HPFAP is wrong in some sense) - I don't know exactly why, it just irks me. Probably because it feels like a waste of energy when I personally feel that HPFAP was a landmark book even if nowadays we would disagree with some of it - rather like any book that was good for its time.

ZB

[AngryCola]

Good post.

I think we all need to remember these "hand charts" aren't rigid at all. Both SSHE and HEFAP say as much.

I don't understand all the fuss either.

[Cerril]

You're getting 5:1 to get a playable hand and, with 6 in, substantially lower to flop the best hand. That's the whole point, your equity isn't equal unless you're playing against opponents who have truly random holdings - and even then it's marginal because you're on the edge of an average 'random holding' with some of the lower offsuit connectors

edit: By the way, I'm not strictly referring to situations where you're immediately beat, either - often you'll flop a good hand or draw but your opponent will flop a far better redraw. The opposite won't happen with you. Also, flopping an OESD or double gutshot isn't anywhere close to flopping the best hand, you're getting less than a third of the value of the flop and you'll often have the bottom end of it (from ~half to substantially less than half)

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact is that HPFAP was written a rather long time ago, and even the starting hand chart revisions are fairly old now. The fact that they have held up so well over time despite being made without the aid of the advanced simulation and tracking tools we have nowadays says volumes for the quality of thinking put into them. We should be amazed they are so good rather than desperately trying to highlight flaws in them in a strange attempt to get one up on Sklansky &amp; Malmuth.

[/ QUOTE ]


i believe that S&amp;M have stated that they stand by the information in their book.

I don't think they have acknowledged 'flaws' or 'out-datedness' of the content.
I could be wrong though.

If they aren't making excuses for any of the information in their book that some believe is flawed then I think it's fair to question it.

I too was playing by HEFAP guidelines for awhile until everyone on the SS-forum told me to just stop.
This included the play of small-suiteds multi-way which I have, for the most part, abandoned.

I'm a pretty suck player though so that may be worth considering too.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
Messed up, forgot it was simulating 2/4, so the following is acutally the result:

10000 hands that met the criteria of number of limpers before BTN with 65o make a decision, he always calls a called pot on the button and folds a raised pot or two raised back to him.

4 limpers at decision point -1.32BB/Hand
5 limpers at decision point -0.68BB/Hand
6 limpers at decision point -0.24BB/Hand
7 limpers at decision point +0.72BB/Hand

It had to go through about 25million+ hands to get 10000 where everyone limped before it got to the button.

Vern

[/ QUOTE ]

Your results for four and five players seem to suggest poor post flop play. I would think the worst result possible should be -0.5 BB. That would be the case that the hand has zero equity. Losing more than 0.5 BB means the player is losing money after the flop as well as before the flop.

I am assuming that the effect of the blinds occassionally raising pre-flop is negligible.

Paul

[Ed Miller]

Given that, since you labeled 78 as not worth playing for a bet, I will say that on page 83 how I read your labeling of button play that 89-o and 9-10-o are not on your list. Have you changed your mind since the book was published and now would say these hands are worth calling a bet for given lots of action and no raising ahead of you?

No, I haven't changed my mind. In fact T9.. and possibly 98, I don't remember.. is specifically listed in a footnote to the "Junk Offsuit Hands" subsection of the "Preflop Hand Categories" section as being a possible exception to the "never play these" recommendation.

I left them out of my charts because the players who would rely heavily on the charts would probably not be sophisticated and experienced.

Bottom line is that I don't much care. These hands aren't big winners anywhere... and they aren't big losers either, provided you play them on the button in a favorable situation.

Really, you guys don't need me to adjudicate this discussion. You are all sophisticated enough to draw your own conclusions. When I try to make decisions about hands like this, I look at the gocee data, the Pokerroom.com data, and then I think about what benefits and/or drawbacks the hand would have after the flop. You guys can do that too.