Understanding how to play certain preflop type hands....

[VorShot]

Ok. So a few different questions involving Preflop choices only.


<font color="red"> Suited connetors. Do they have the same implied odds that hitting a set does? Considering that most of the time, the only way those hands are "hidden" type hands are because of two pairs or large draws (which you hit these big draws what % of the time again?) Are these only good for limping behind a bunch of limpers? How often should you raise these preflop? What about at NL10, should i even worry about changing my play at this level? If i do decide to call a raise, i assume that goes back to the Implied odds these hands have...so i guess i already asked this question.</font>

<font color="blue"> Are hands like AXs even worth looking at? Considering they have to hit something like 2 pair or better to be a real hand, and the best case for a sneaky hand is normally a pair and a flush draw.</font>

<font color="red"> Also, hands from the small blind. I feel like the small blind is such a waste to complete. OOP unable to take free cards...is there anything wrong with folding the SB short of it being a real hand? </font>

[Shaddux]

I raise low scs from LP and higher ones from all positions.

I raise Axs from all positions.

My VPIP from SB is like 25% or something...maybe a little higher.

My pf preferences may not be the best, but I'm pretty comfortable with them.

[Yaboosh]

Playing Axs and suited connectors differently seems strange to me. I don't really see how you can play A5s for top pair value. I think you need to rethink your preflop strategy if you treat them differently. Not saying that you should not be raising Axs (with x being below 9 or so) in early position, but to think that Axs is better than 67/89s seems strange to me.

[Leviathan101]

I raise AXs in LP all the time. You're likely to be better than any limpers in front of if you flop an Ace, and flopping two pair is usually good enough to stack other aces. Pair + nut flush draw is a really good semi-bluffing hand, and I like Axs to push people of marginal hands. The biggest danger of Axs, is overplaying Top pair. Especially if a player to act after you calls, you have to be very aware that your kicker is probably subpar, and you have to be willing to fold TP. (Which is still hard for me, but I think I'm starting to get it.)

Suited connectors I play very differently, because 1 pair with a SC is a very marginal hand. The reason I like SC, is that they all play the same way. It allows me to draw to a hand and bluff a lot of different turn cards. I feel its easy to represent a lot of diffent hands. Additionally at these levels, I feel that players tend to overplay their hands into dangerous boards, the kind of boards SC like.

Limping these hands are fine, but I don't like it without knowing I'm going to get the odds. by raising with them, I feel the additional FE makes these hands very playable from all positions, but EP. (I think these hands are pretty poor OOP)

I play an extremely LAG preflop and postflop. I'm a bit of a maniac. I think I run like 30/20/4 on most tables.
To be fair, I don't have a great win rate, (I actually think it's in the negatives right now. Damn those 2+2 tables.) so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

[bmk67]

Suited connectors: First in, I raise the larger SCs from any position, smaller ones from late position. I don't like to open limp with small SCs but overlimping is fine. I generally just call if the pot has already been opened, except with the highest of them. The smaller suited connectors are high implied odds hands against the right opponents. Under the right circumstances (villian, position), I would call a raise using the 5/10 rule.

AXs are fine hands. I will usually open them for a raise or fold, unless the pot is going multi-way. Proceed very cautiously if you flop an ace with no draw. I play nut draws aggressively. These are hands which can get you into much trouble if you can't lay them down.

Completing from the small blind: This is a matter of preference. You're OOP for the entire hand. It really depends on the table, but I generally play tightly from the SB, hands that are a little weaker than what I'd play UTG, plus hands that play well OOP (small pairs, SCs, etc.). If you're going to raise, you probably want to take it down right there. This blind strategy is exploitable, an observant player will steal your blinds frequently. You will need to pick your spots to play back at them when this happens. Playing out of the blinds is generally -EV, and I am very willing to make a laydown here, even when the pot odds look compelling.

[Sir Winalot]

Use the 5-10 rule. It is basically that you should allways call with these hands if you are investing less than 5% of the effective stacks and never if you invest more than 10%. If it's between 5 and 10, use your judgement.

[gimmetheloot]

[ QUOTE ]
Use the 5-10 rule. It is basically that you should allways call with these hands if you are investing less than 5% of the effective stacks and never if you invest more than 10%. If it's between 5 and 10, use your judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for calling raises with these hands.

OP: try not to play SC's/Axs OOP. Play them in position, and limp them after 2 limpers, or raise them if opening/1 limper. This is generally how I treat PP22-77 also.

[munkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Use the 5-10 rule. It is basically that you should allways call with these hands if you are investing less than 5% of the effective stacks and never if you invest more than 10%. If it's between 5 and 10, use your judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for calling raises with these hands.

OP: try not to play SC's/Axs OOP. Play them in position, and limp them after 2 limpers, or raise them if opening/1 limper. This is generally how I treat PP22-77 also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only quoting because this is my standard play and I recently incorrectly have deviated -so self- note to munkey too.

If the tables got manaics that are likely to raise I do limp SCs/highish Axs in EP aiming to hit flop hard -I don't want to have to play a reraised pot with JTs.

[VorShot]

All the comments are super helpful.

If anyone from the morning crowd has something to add, please do.

[VorShot]

Does any of this advice change from shorthanded to full table?

[bmk67]

[ QUOTE ]
Does any of this advice change from shorthanded to full table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I'll take a shot at it.

Perhaps this is grossly oversimplified, but as I see it, there are really two crucial differences between full ring and shorthanded play. Let's use full ring 10 player and a full 6max table to illustrate.

At a 10 player table, conventional TAG wisdom says you should play very tight in early position. Why? If you get a call, it'll usually be from a player who has superior position, and who probably holds a very strong hand (remember the gap concept). You can open up your game a bit in middle position, and really open up in late middle position, the cutoff, and the button. You're more likely to have position, which of course is crucial in NL. You play big hands in early position because you need a big hand to overcome the positional disadvantage, and because you have a higher likelyhood that someone behind you will wake up with a real hand.

Contrast to 6max. UTG in 6max plays more like MP2 in full ring. Simplified, if it's a hand you can open with in MP2 in full ring, open with it for a raise UTG in 6max. However, see the next note.

The second crucial difference is the effect of the blinds. Full ring, you'll pay 15BB/100 hands in blinds. 6max, you'll pay ~25BB/100 hands. This implies that you must play somewhat looser, and you must play more aggressively than in FR. I personally have no problem with raising with 87s or 22 UTG in 6max (and c-betting same), things I would (almost) never do in FR, except in late position. If you play TAG FR, you probably need to play 50% more hands in 6max. If you're a good LAG, you probably don't need to make many adjustments.

IMO, 6max is a much tougher game than FR.

[Vammakala]

There was a nice thread made by (I think) goofyballer, try searching it up. It was about flopping frequencies for different kinds of hands and draws to help figuring out the odds and implied odds. Basically I don't like calling with sooted connectors as much as I love raising with them. Sets are easier to play and quite often, pretty well hidden too.

[VorShot]

The only other thing i'd love some comments on are...

I'm assuming the preflop raise with SC is to mix up your play.

When playing 10NL, is there a real need to mix up your play?

[bmk67]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming the preflop raise with SC is to mix up your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising with SCs (under the right conditions) should be a standard part of your game. Both for deception value (anyone who's half paying attention will notice and will give you more action), and for implied odds when you flop big.

You don't want to be a predictable player. When you come in for a raise, you want everyone wondering if it's AA, 99, or 65s.

Much like an earlier poster, I do not like calling with SCs, except against a predictable player where I have position. By predictable, I mean his raising range is well-defined, and I think he'll stack off with top pair / overpair type hands - or I know I can outplay him postflop. Against a typical raising hand, you're typically a 3:2 to 4:1 dog so you either need to flop big or be able to outplay your villian postflop to make calls profitable.

[ymu]

Can't add much to the above - it all makes sense.

Completing from SB:

On a loose limpy table I complete with quite a lot of junk, and a lot of slightly better junk for the ubiquitous minraise - the odds are too good and the reverse implied odds are around zero for a hand that's easy to fold. Most of the time you hit nowhere near hard enough to carry on past the flop, but occasionally you will stack someone, which makes it profitable. I'm currently slightly better than break even from the SB completing around 60% total (47% call, 13% raise) - but this is over a very very small sample (4k hands since I started using PT). One of Pokey's well posts - and/or a post that he links to from that thread - talks about this strategy and results over a much bigger sample (and a much better player).

Note that both the sites I play at have a lot of chronic limpers/minraisers who rarely c-bet, so this strategy works well - I wouldn't recommend it at a more aggressive table.