Debtable one..

[spoody]

You mention the Doyle Brunson approach with suited connectors. The thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played. With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney. He even admits that he had to follow jonny moss around texas to figure out how to win tournaments. Its alot easier to move all in with middle pair and a lamo draw when you can reach into your giant pocket and pull out another wad o' cash. I am not sure what the odds are of flopping something REALLY usefull, but with suited connectors you either get 2 pair that may need to be protected by a very big bet, or a draw where no bet might be nice. But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!). I still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair?

spoody

[nicky g]

"thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played.

That's true, but we were nonetheless talking about cash NL, not tournaments.

"With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney."

I agree.


"But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!)."

Isn't Doyle talking about moving all-in, rather than caling? I would ahve thought so but I can't really remember. Either, way, it's obviously not that great a move in a tourney. Not hitting your last 2 SF draws is not that unusual - you're only evens to hit (unless making a pair is also an out).

"still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair? "

I agree. But one of the points I was trying to make is that people treat suited connectors like small pairs - they call with them and hope to outflop a big pair and get all the money in. In fact, most of the time if they flop anything it'll be a draw as you say something like middle pair. They think this is what Doyle was advocating - but it's not. His strategy is one of flopping a marginal hand and playing it very aggressively, so that people know he'll always play back and therefore let him steal a lot of pots, and if they do call him , he'll at least have outs. Which is fine but not the way people understand it, or a style that most people would feel comfortable with.

[tewall]

I'm having a lot of trouble following what you're saying. Ignatius said that his bet of 1/4 pot is a good bet if you will not raise with a better hand because that gives him a good price to see the turn, meaning that his bet is probably not -EV. He then says that, even if it were -EV, that's not the important point. The important point is whether your play is higher EV by raising or calling. I understood his points, but not yours.

First you said something about it did matter that his play was -EV, but I can't see why that would make any difference to your play. All you care about is what your best play is at the point (the flop). Is it better for you to call or raise? That's the question. I'm not sure what your point was there.

Your logic is, I think, that calling was a good play because the opponent would keep coming at you regardless of whether he had you beat or not. Since you're a 2 to 1 favorite you're better off calling than raising because raising will make him fold. Ignatius was saying that his folding was not a bad result since by not charging him to see the turn he could either draw out on you or an overcard could come up which would make like difficult for you.

I think this question is impossible to answer unless you make some assumptions about what he will do in different scenarios, and what you will do in return. I'll make the following assumptions (for your scenario)
1) If he has an overpair or he sucks out on you (turn or river) he will bet $20 on the turn and $30 on the river
2) If he doesn't help on the river he will bet $20 on the turn and fold on the river
3) You will always call

(for Ignatius' scenario -- you raise the flop)
4) He will fold if behind
5) He will re-raise if ahead, and you will fold.

Assuming these things, you will lose 62 dollars whenever he has an overpair (1/3 of the time) or sucks out on you (another 1/4 of the time aprox -- 6 outs twice, this is a little off, but close enough). 2/3 of the time, less the 1/4 he sucks out on you, you win his $20 bet on the turn. This is your suggested way of playing.

In Ignatius' suggested way of playing you will lose $40 on the flop when he has an overpair and take pot the rest of the time.

Looking at it this way, I don't see how your suggestion can possibly be superior. Would you alter my assumptions in some way? Or do you see a flaw in the analysis?

Finally you wrote," Sidenote, just to discredit every line: " What's with this? Is this tongue in cheek?

[tewall]

Brunson's strategy is based on winning lots of pots unopposed and having outs when he does get opposed. The book may make it sound like he would charge into any situation, but that's not the case. His style of play was highly dependent on being able to read his opponents well. I think perhaps Gus Hansen is someone who plays a similar style.

I think the suited connectors should be easier to play in a tournament than in a cash game, provided the stacks aren't too short in the tournament (and assuming the money is deep in the cash game). This is because the ideal situation for the draw is to get all in on the flop with a normal looking bet and force your opponent with the difficult decision of whether to call or not. If he calls, you still have outs. What you don't want to have happen is to have a chunk of your stack in on the flop and still have a load left when your draw misses and then face a large bet on the turn, which is more likely to happen in a cash game than in a tourney.

[spoody]

[ QUOTE ]
"thing is, his book is not really about tournaments, and that is where most of the NL is being played.

That's true, but we were nonetheless talking about cash NL, not tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that, I missed the fact you were talking about cash NL

[ QUOTE ]
"With his theory of getting his money in with a average draw just to make sure his opponent wont take advantage of him is an E ticket to the rail in a tourney."

I agree.


"But all my draws seem to be facing an all in bet, and I have decide if I want to risk my tourney life (my last 2 tourneys I have and have hit nothing on an open ended SF!)."

Isn't Doyle talking about moving all-in, rather than caling? I would ahve thought so but I can't really remember. Either, way, it's obviously not that great a move in a tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling with an open ended straight flush draw is debatable, but I was not able to check around and made a decision both times to call the all in and was crippled both times,

[ QUOTE ]
Not hitting your last 2 SF draws is not that unusual - you're only evens to hit (unless making a pair is also an out).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets just say I have not seen a open ended SF draw in a long time, and then in my last 2 tourneys I see it early on and am faced with all in or fold. Maybe shame on me, but I just could not lay those down. And both times I hit absolutely nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
"still think suited connectors are useful, but they are very difficult to play if you just catch a piece of the flop. - - how much money has been lost with middle pair? "

I agree. But one of the points I was trying to make is that people treat suited connectors like small pairs - they call with them and hope to outflop a big pair and get all the money in. In fact, most of the time if they flop anything it'll be a draw as you say something like middle pair. They think this is what Doyle was advocating - but it's not. His strategy is one of flopping a marginal hand and playing it very aggressively, so that people know he'll always play back and therefore let him steal a lot of pots, and if they do call him , he'll at least have outs. Which is fine but not the way people understand it, or a style that most people would feel comfortable with.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, he he states that the advantage is you have 2 chances to win...when the player folds, or you outdraw him. So it makes up for the weakness of the actuall hand. (I think this is exactly what you just said, sorry)

[spoody]

I think early in a tourney they are pretty tough to play. Usually you are dipping pretty far into your stack at the start, and everyone has the same amount of chips, so all in is all in, lose and your out. This is my own personal belief after getting bounced out of my last two tourneys very early with open ended straight flush draws...these are ALMOST the dream flop with suited connectors...but ALMOST is the key word.. (i realize that pat full houses and even 2 pair are really better hands because of the fact that the open sf is still just a draw and unless it is the nut straight you are drawing to, you could get hammerd by a better straight or flush. I just could not resist calling all in and could not hit anything after the flop on both of my draws. So, since i was the caller, I did not have the chance to win the pot with my opponents fold and could have been facing a nut flush draw or anything...So I made a cardinal sin of calling all in twice. Oh well, live and learn.

I think once you get out of the early stage of the tourney and have something to play with, the suited connectors begin to get easier to play, especiall when you have your opponent covered and can set him all in. But my stupid monkey play is over, no more calling all in with a draw...unless...

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[tewall]

An open-ended straight draw is typcially 15 outs twice, and is actually a slight favorite. (this would be heads up, of course). There aren't many situations where calling in all-in bet on the flop with an SF draw would not be correct, and even fewer where you could actually know that folding was the correct play. However, his is just from an EV situation.

That is to say, although it would generally be +EV to call, you may decide, especially early in a tournament where there are a lot of weak players, that it would be even higher EV to fold and wait for better opportunities.

[spoody]

well, aside from early in a tournament - both of mine were literally in the first 5 hands of a tourney - I cant think of many times I would lay it down. In a side game (limit) Im not sure I would ever lay it down, just for the chance that I could hit it and win a hat [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]