Importance of suitedness in SH play?

[gotme]

Hi,

I've been thinking about SH play theory.

Generally for the new people:

Drawing hands (87s etc etc) go down in value.

Showdown hands (Ax, 22-77+) go up in value.

What about hands which are suited? Is KJs that much stronger than KJ, i'd think it's minimal - but i'm of course pretty new to it myself.

Thanks

[car ramrod]

I'm not a math guy, but KJs is definately better than KJo, regardless if it's hu or not.

[Peter Harris]

KJs has three ways to win: pairing, straighting, and flushing. The extra 6% chance that you will make a flush with sooted cards helps vastly. Read SSHE (p58), it counts in shorthanded play just as much as full ring.

KJo can win by pairing and straighting, but much less likely flushing. The additional benefit of being suited is not minimal in SH play; yes big cards are more valuable than sooted connectors, but just because of this one should not downplay the usefulness of being suited.

[gotme]

Sure, but by how much?

Is a hand being suited (like the emphasis used in SSHE) that important in SH play?

The SSHE concept is that suited hands have only marginally higher pot equity, but when they hit a flush they generally rake in a large pot.

Does this happen with SH play? I don't believe that much - which leads me to believe that suitedness is a good addition but is put more toward a "drawing value".


Edit: Would anyone with a large SH PT database care to post stats on a suited hand with it's unsuited counterpart. Say KJ and KJs?

[thesharpie]

I usually think of a suited hand that's a notch lower than it's unsuited counterpart around similar value, for instance KTs and KJo, I'll usually make the same type of PF decisions with both of these hands if I'm heads up, multiway the suitedness adds alot more value. Actually KTs is slightly stronger than KJo against a random hand heads up. There are some situations where a suited hand 2 or 3 notches lower than an unsuited one is of equivalent value usually due to being more connected, IE A4s is slightly stronger than A7o HU against a random hand.

Being suited gives cards a bare minimum equity, since you'll always have a finite chance of flopping a flush or flush draw. When comparing the same hands, like AKo to AKs, being suited makes a big difference, since you have a much better chance of not splitting.

People on here vastly overestimate the value of small, suited connectors HU, IMO. I'm working on a new blind stealing approach which does away with most suited connectors. I won't know the results until a long time from now, but early results are promising.

[car ramrod]

think about this in a heads up situation.

You have KJo and raise, get called. Flop is T53, villian bets into you, all you have is overs and a bdsd.

Now assume you have KJs and same flop, but add the bdfd or even if you hit a 4 flush. You are now correctly raising the flop, vs, just calling. So, villian could have been making a play at you and fold, or if you follow thru with a turn bet he may fold.

So, suitedness, can win you pots by allowing you to bet or raise, b/c of extra outs, and not necessarily having a pair.

I don't know %'s, but I think you flop a flush draw 11% of the time, or something like that.

[Peter Harris]

you flop a flush draw just under 11%, i think the odds to remember are 9-1 against flopping the 2flush, 124-1 for flopping the flush.

[axioma]

im not sure just which hands you are removing from your steal range, but if you are not stealing with 87s + you are missing value IMO.

I'll steal with it if the blinds are tight, but you need to be prepared to let it go without a favorable flop if they call. 87s is horrible HU. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll make a separate post someday when I have everything worked out.