Fold this straight?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply Entity. I appreciate the link also, however it didn't really help me to get a better understanding of starting hands. That is just an example of another 6,4 hand that hit the flop right (or am I missing something). Let me clearify that I do understand for the most part) why I am raising certain hands, limping with others and still folding others and how position alters these decisions.
My confusion comes in on starting hands like the small broadways. I raise or limp these more often than I should (if I follow the advice of the most 2'ers and other experts)I feel they make me money however. I also play some middle connectors, (90% suited), but much less often then my small broadways. My Reasoning? Since 90% of the players out there play every combination of Paint/rag, A/rag
etc. When my J,Qo pairs it's Q I'm good quite often because of the loose palyers. Of course I need to be careful of domination, but as long as I can get some reads, who limps with this, raises with that, yada, yada. I'm not afarid to release quickly if necessary.

With the small connecters if they pair I feel it is to easy to get burnt on the turn or river by that sole picture or ace when half the table is fishing. That is why I was surprised to read your comment about PF equity with the 6,4s hand. Maybe I'm wrong (more than likely). I would like to know your reasons why you prefer the small/middle connectors over the small broadways.

I do undersatnd your good position comment now. Betting out as first to act and letting the initial raiser help you jack up the pot. This is good position/situation for a strong draw or a made hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just for the record (so you know), I don't advise calling with 64s in edthayer's situation here. I just don't think it's really bad -- probably -EV by a fraction of a SB. I'd call with 10:1 or better, like I probably would on the Button if everyone limped.

I don't play middle connectors from anywhere except the BB, though I've seen arguments presented for playing as low as T9o in the SB in unraised pots, and I think it's a convincing argument.

Basically what you're looking at in situations like this is a case of implied odds: with a hand like 64s, you look at the pot odds being offered (in my case, I think it was around 12:1) and the implied odds when you hit a large hand (investing 1SB for the chance that a flop that hits you hard will generate a lot of action). Those are the predominant considerations that come into play -- if there were more people in the pot, I'd advise edthayer to definitely call with a hand like this, because both the implied odds and the immediate pot odds of playing hands like this goes way up as more players enter the pot.

Does that make some bit of sense?

The reason you don't play hands like KJo against a raise, but I would play 76s, is because of the hand you're likely to hit. If you hit a pair with 64s, it's very easy to tell if your hand is good or if it isn't. However, when you do the same with KJo, it isn't nearly as easy to tell; you often end up paying a premium postflop for a second-best hand.

This is, of course, in a raised pot, where hands like top pair are less likely to take the pot down, and people will have odds to call on all sorts of draws. Head's up, I'll take KJo vs. 64s anyday. In a multiway, raised pot, however, I'm more keen on 64s -- as long as the pot will be very large. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Hope this helps somewhat -- I'm not sure if it did.

Rob