Another SSH vs HPFAP Question

[Leavenfish]

I am confused as to a difference between Sklansky's opening hand recommendations in HPFAP and Millers in SSH.

Sklansky states that in EARLY position, suited connectors go up in value. P25: "If the game is passive, you prefer the suited connector to the pair". He is refering to small pairs and suited connectors like 87. He indicates that group 5 hands can be played in these loose passive games and that goes down to 56 suited.

In SSH, Ed Miller's 'Loose Games' chart recommends playing any suited pair but stops at 98 suited.

I believe I understand the rationale behind each...yet wonder why they differ. I was thinking that it might be a simple matter of approach to the game and that may indeed be the case; but clearly when Sklansky says you 'prefer' the mid-suited connectors over the small pairs, I have to wonder just why that is the case and why Ed, in similar games, prefers the small pairs over the mid-suited connectors.

I understand that the level of agression is a factor in playing small pairs - passive is fine but you prefer a little action for when you flop your set as others are a bit tied to the pot with likely weaker prospects.

I also understand that medium suited connectors prefer a more passive table as you will flop many fairly weak draws.

Still, you have to go to group 7 before you get the small pairs that Miller recommends and would appear to be unrecommended hands according to Sklansky for he never mentions them --be the game totally passive or even slightly agressive. Smiliarly, Miller does not seem to recommend anything below 98 suited in even passive games.

Just seems like a contradiction that I was wondering if anyone cared to address.

Thanks,
Leavenfish

[Clarkmeister]

Well, first the distinction David makes between postflop texture, specifically passive vs. aggressive is valid. That said, I personally think HPFAP dramatically overvalues suited connectors and undervalues pairs and suited aces which also might account for part of the discrepancy you noted, though I am sure the two books are not technically in conflict with each other.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Fish:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Still, you have to go to group 7 before you get the small pairs that Miller recommends and would appear to be unrecommended hands according to Sklansky for he never mentions them --be the game totally passive or even slightly agressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

From HPFAP, page 24:

[ QUOTE ]
The same is true of small pairs such as:

3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

They can be played from an early position providing that you are sure that you will get a multiway pot. However, they can stand a little more action than the suited connectors. But if many pots are going to three bets or more, they are probably never worth playing, even if you can usually anticipate several opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leavenfish]

From HPFAP, page 24:

[ QUOTE ]
The same is true of small pairs such as:

3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

They can be played from an early position providing that you are sure that you will get a multiway pot. However, they can stand a little more action than the suited connectors. But if many pots are going to three bets or more, they are probably never worth playing, even if you can usually anticipate several opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, quite true, I mispoke when I said that Sklansky did not go that far in the hand rankings.

Still, there does appear to be a discrepency in the area of middle range suited connectors in Early position. I am far from the player that Clarkmeister is, but I have tended to agree with him regarding HPFAP's overvaluing of suited connectors. They seem to be somewhat marginal hands here even in these loose and fairly passive games. I would tend to agree with Miller in his not recommending them even in his loose games chart.

Thanks,
Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Fish:

In SSH we made some simplifying assumptions about the starting hands. What this means is that some hands which are perhaps marginally playable, especially if you play well, we dropped so that the charts would remain easier to learn. However, the cost of not playing these hands is very slight. If my memory is correct, I think we stated something along these lines in SSH.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Gayle]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that the level of agression is a factor in playing small pairs - passive is fine but you prefer a little action for when you flop your set as others are a bit tied to the pot with likely weaker prospects.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me if this is a stupid question but I'm a learning player (not much above a fish) and the end of this paragraph seems to contradict one of the points I've had drilled into me: Money in the pot is no longer mine and each play should be evaluated based solely on what's happening now rather than how much money I put in the pot.

Is that correct or have I misunderstood? Or did I misunderstand you?

[Chimera]

I don't want to put words in Leavenfish's mouth, but I take the quote to mean that if there's a preflop raise, it creates a larger pot, which makes people more inclined to stay in with marginal hands (like middle or bottom pair), especially since they don't realize they're up against a set (and thus drawing very thin). In other words, they're getting good pot odds, regardless of who put the money in the pot.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that the level of agression is a factor in playing small pairs - passive is fine but you prefer a little action for when you flop your set as others are a bit tied to the pot with likely weaker prospects.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me if this is a stupid question but I'm a learning player (not much above a fish) and the end of this paragraph seems to contradict one of the points I've had drilled into me: Money in the pot is no longer mine and each play should be evaluated based solely on what's happening now rather than how much money I put in the pot.

Is that correct or have I misunderstood? Or did I misunderstand you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, money you have put into the pot is no longer yours.

I really should have said that people will often find themselves tied to their hands. Of course, the size of the pot is the very reason this will happen...for why would anyone in their right mind continue with their hand if they were not playing for much of anything?

When a game is loose and even somewhat agressive, the pot is often big enough after the flop for people to draw to all sorts of hands which (un-benounced to them) could well be second best when facing your nicely hidden set. When your hand holds up, you stand to win a nice pot.

---Leavenfish

[Gayle]

[ QUOTE ]
When a game is loose and even somewhat agressive, the pot is often big enough after the flop for people to draw to all sorts of hands which (un-benounced to them) could well be second best when facing your nicely hidden set.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you now, makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[ QUOTE ]
When your hand holds up, you stand to win a nice pot.

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone told me that if you lose with a set and don't lose a lot then you played it wrong, I guess that's part of the same thing.