[Optisizer]

Matt, Sunny, Ed,
First, let me thank you for a fantasic book. Easily the best NLH book ever written and published. Great work!
A few questions on target SPRs for various hand types:

1) There's a category of hands I call late-position high-card hands, holding a bunch of off-suit hands such as A9, A8, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, TJ. At first thinking is seems like these hands should be played with low SPR targets, but in so doing they are likely to be up against hands (such as higher aces, kings and high pairs) that will benefit more from a low SPR than these hands. Likewise, these hands are likely to suffer if played with a high SPR against hands such as suited connectors or suited aces (such as A9s or A8s). This leaves the mid SPR territory for these hands, not because that might be the best range for these hands in their own right, but because that SPR range is where they give away the least to the other hand categories. Your thoughts???

2) I have noticed a lot of the nosebleed-level players like to reraise with suited connectors pushing the SPR to close to 4 or 5. Then if the flop grants them a decent draw, such as a straight draw with over cards, or a flush draw with a pair, they move all in (else they just abandon the hand having cost them only 12-16 BB). I did a little equity analysis using pokerstove on this type of play and it seems like, provided a relatively loose original raiser (which basically all the nosebleed-level players are), it is indeed +EV to reraise pre-flop and move in with a strong draw on the flop, if you have managed to get the pot to about 20-25% of your remaining effective stack. This play, then, advocates a low SPR for suited connectors, you write in your book that suited connectors prefer a high SPR and you are not mentioning this type of play at all. Your thoughts???

3) When you play a low SPR type hands such as AK or AQ and you manage to create a low SPR on the flop (say 5-6), but also misses the flop, and either C-bet yourself (as a semibluff in attempt to take down the hand right there) or just call a weakish bet (as a float play) and then hit one of your cards on the turn, while the SPR has gotten even lower, should you consider yourself as commited now as you intended to be earlier had you hit on the flop? When this have happended to me a few times it seems that the hands that call me are more likely to have me beat (sets usually, made on the flop). Infact, the whole play seems to have turned into a way ahead/way behind type situation where I´m bound to win a little or lose a lot. So am I generally better off abandon the commitment strategy in a situation like this and go for a check turn, check-call (maybe bet) river, or is it just my sample that are too small to allow me a correct analysis of the situation??? Your thoughts???

Thanks again for a fantastic book. On a side note, thinking in terms of SPR and commitment threshold levels have really helped my tourney game a lot too. Specifically I have become much better at balancing my risk/reward in a hand, trying to avoid risking more then 1/3 of my stack in any hand. Also knowing before hand where I have the 1/3 point of the effective stack I can drive the betting so that I put the implicit threat of a pending all in move on my opponent. Again, fantastic stuff!!!