Genreal ? about SC in small stakes games.

[zaxx19]

Im beginning to believe the SC are overvalued by many players(including myself) in smaller stakes NLH games.

Here is a breakdown of why I believe this is so:

- SC rarely flop made hands they usually flop strong draws.
(of course the corrolary to this is WHEN they do flop made hands especially in raised pots they have the potential to break people(opponents) VERY often

- SC are great hands to semi bluff with after flopping a strong draw.

- MANY TIMES people on this forum and even myself in practice are loathe to stick their entire stack in with a draw unless it is an OESFD in a small stakes(read shallow stacked) game.

- FE(folding equity) is small in alot of raised pots in SSNLHE games...people that flop TPTK or hold an overpair are unwilling(sometimes quite correctly) to muck to a huge reraise even an all in reraise on the flop suspecting they are ahead.

- From what I understand it is precisely this FE which makes SC SO valuable in NLH...read you flop a huge draw and move in on a man in a raised pot stealing it many times and gambling with a decent chance when he calls. This also goes to creating a "gambling image" something Doyle talks about extensively in his seminal work Super System...but image is off markedly less value in a SSNLHE game bc half the donkeys dont/wont/cant notice the tendencies of the other players or will simply choosde to ignore them and play their cards.

- Some of the biggest losses incurred by players in SSNLHE are when you pay for a huge draw and dont hit or dont get paid...and like I said alot of people are just paying to see the turn here not semi bluffing by moving in with FE..

Conclusion: SC are really of much less use in SS games than they might be in larger games with deeper relative stacks....and the 5% or 10% rule might need to be modified for SS games.


These are just some thoughts and they do not really constitute a coherent arguement- all comments are welcomed.

In fact the reason for posting this is less to convince others that these "talking points" are true than to stimulate discussion on when, where, and for how much SC can be played profitably.

Thank You in advance for any forthcoming comments.

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand it is precisely this FE which makes SC SO valuable in NLH

[/ QUOTE ]

From why I understand it is precisely implied odds that make suited connectors so valuable in small stakes. You get a good price on your draw, and you get a bunch of money in when you hit. They can't get away from their TPTK, and suddenly their stack has been consumed by yours.

The FE value of SC comes in higher stakes games, where players can lay down JT on a J63 flop and who can fold AK when the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] board turns the 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and somebody wakes up firing. Also, occassionally RAISING sc preflop in higher stakes games has value, because it helps fix the problem of losing implied odds on an obvious draw.

But for small stakes, I play SC to hit, and then charge them $30 for only making me pay $2 for my draw.

-Kings

[xorbie]

I agree with some of this. My SC are losing, for the most part. The reason for this is that I'm playing them too early, and paying for flush draws. This is bad, because flush draws are hard to get payed off on. Straight draws, OTOH, generally make a lot of money. Especially with position. For some reason, nobody on party can see a straight hit.

[radioheadfan]

Some stylized facts:

Here are my highest netting hands according to pokertracker (listed in order), sample size = 22K hands:

AA
QQ
AKo
KK
JJ
AKs
88
A4s
K9s
KTs
55
66
T9s
QTs
77
76s

...

Other SCs have netted me a loss...I would have been better off not playing them at all it turns out. But I'm sure they set up future hands with advertising, bluffing, etc, so it's hard to evalute the net effect of playing the SCs.

But my data does show that the high pairs, high cards, and play pairs for set value is where the profit in NL lies.

Anyone else care to share their biggest netting hands?

*** My data comes exclusively from PP 6MAX games, 100NL - 25NL ***

[xorbie]

Mine are a bit odd. Just for the record, every single SC is basically a losing hand for me. Oddly enough, S1G are pretty good, because I only play them in LP, so I get to pick up a lot of pots and get payed off better when I hit. So here go my top hands, by BB/100 over 23 k hands:

AA
AKs
A9s (?)
QQ
AJs
KK
TT
97s
JJ
AQs
55
44
QTs
J9s
A7s
77
53s

Eh.. I notice AKo is way down there, as is AQo. That sucks.

[radioheadfan]

So suited connectors really do suck, huh?

Can anyone claim otherwise?

[augie00]

T9s is my 7th most winningest hand, over 34k hands so far this year.

[zaxx19]

Damn Augie thats nuts bc its one of my biggest winners also....I actually will limp UTG with it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[emil3000]

Methinks that you need a whole giant superbig sample size to make a decent assessment, since you often lose small pots, and sometimes win big pots... 34k is probably way too small.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason, nobody on party can see a straight hit.


[/ QUOTE ]


They are fish. Thats the reason. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]