[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only are your comments unhelpful, but you don't sound like a very good player (particularly if you don't understand why someone would sometimes raise with suited connectors in LP with 4 people in the pot in front for 2 bets). Maybe you should be examining your game instead of making snide comments about mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although my comments contained elements of sarcasm, I believe they still held useful information - especially my suggested "Leak #5". The sarcasm was intended as a way of expressing my discontent for "trying to come up with 'General Rules' on how to act in all seemingly similar circustances, even though each case is matter for discussion on its own." It would be wrong of me to let incorrect "advice" be taken as gospel by those trying to learn from these forums.

Now, the fact remains that perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about.

As a little experiment, though, let's try this:

I'm going to list my reasons against "raising with suited connectors in LP with 4 people in the pot in front for 2 bets" as you have described.

In turn, you respond with your reasons "for" doing so.

MY RATIONALE:

1. Let's take JTs, for example. You are currently at the very least a slight underdog to anyone holding an Ace, King, Queen, or pocket pair in their hand - each of these possibilities is increasingly likely given that someone has open-raised, and there are 3 others who have decided their hands are worth cold-calling the raise.

2. The value of suited connectors in big, multi-way pots stems from catching a big draw and dragging a huge pot when it actually comes through. Otherwise, we want to see the flop as cheaply as possible, but easily release the hand when we miss. By raising, not only are we costing ourselves an extra bet to see the flop, but we risk getting re-raised by someone holding something like AA,KK, or QQ.

3. Further to point #2, by raising the flop we've not only cost ourselves more for the chance to pick up a draw, but we've essentially killed our implied odds of getting action when we do pick up a draw.

For example, instead of re-raising preflop, wouldn't it be nice to have just called preflop, hit an open-ended-straigt-flush draw, then have the original preflop raiser lead the flop, have all/most call one bet behind him, *then* we raise the flop, trapping everyone and building a monster pot? Alternatively, if we miss the flop, we fold.

If we had re-raised preflop, and been fortunate enough to hit the open-ended-straight-flush draw, it would suck to have everyone check to you, then you bet and only build the flop by one bet each.

Please note the differences in the above two scenarios. In the first you are seeing the flop cheaply, *then* building a pot when you have potential. Otherwise you can cheaply release your hand.

In the second scenario, we're paying a hell of a lot for the flop whether or not we even hit a draw, not to mention killing out implied odds the times we do.


Okay, now your turn ....


I am using this example only because this is the one you have put forth and challenged me with. In reality, though, this example should be of minimal concern since the instance when you should actually be cold-calling with high-medium suited connectors is a *relatively* rare occurance compared to other common, more frequent, leaks.


Oh ya, and *that* was one of my original points too: how you were incorrect in saying how *often* one should be cold-calling with suited connectors.

Adam