Why Raise with Suited Connectors? (NLHE)

[alanbrown]

because betting on the later streets is a function of the pot size. You make the pot twice as big and the flop/turn/river betting all double also. Therefore your implied odds (which are the relationship between the amount you have to bet and the amount you expect to win if you hit) will stay the same.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
because betting on the later streets is a function of the pot size. You make the pot twice as big and the flop/turn/river betting all double also. Therefore your implied odds (which are the relationship between the amount you have to bet and the amount you expect to win if you hit) will stay the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, if the stacks were infinitely deep. However, in most structures it only take a few called pot-sized bets to get to the point where someone thinks about pushing. And obviously if someone pushes your implied odds are definitely worse if you raised preflop with a drawing hand.

[alanbrown]

True enough. The stacks have to be something like 50BB+ for you to be able to raise 3xBB before the flop and still be sure to have enough behind if you hit your draw.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
True enough. The stacks have to be something like 50BB+ for you to be able to raise 3xBB before the flop and still be sure to have enough behind if you hit your draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got numbers FAR higher than that for many common scenarios. For example:

2 limp, standard PF raise to 6BB (4 + 1/limp) limpers call. Now you've got a 19.5 BB pot.
You get your draw, and one of them bets pot into you. Other limper folds, you call. Pot is now 58.5 BB. With 50BB, we're out of money on the turn no matter what, so in fact we shouldn't have called the flop, and therefore should not have played at all.

To be able to call a full pot turn bet, and min-raise a half-pot river bet (thereby really getting our implied odds licks in if we hit), we're going to need stacks over 200BB, which is bigger than max-buy is most places.

However, had we NOT raised, we could get our licks in with less than 100BB, which coincidentally IS often max-buy.

That's all I'm getting at. If stacks are infinitely deep, sure, raise it on up.

[NMcNasty]

I think your implied odds in terms of the ratio do actually decrease when you raise, but your +EV may increase.

For example if ur in a 5/10 game in a multiway pot against horrible players and u raise to $40 your EV equation might be something like .10(600) - .9(40) = $24, with $600 being on average what you make when you hit your hand about 10% of time (this is a crude example). Then if you limp, your implied odds are better so you make on average 20x what you initially put in when you hit as opposed to 15x: So ur EV equation is: .10(200) - .9(10) = $11. So even though ur ratio is better by limping your EV is lower. Of course you're right, you will hit a point where stack sizes come into effect. If your opponent only has $1000 and you raise to $100, you aren't getting very good odds .10($1000) - .9(100) = $10, and thats only if an opponent stacks off every single time u make ur hand which of course is unrealistic.

I guess just the point is considering u probably didn't read all that math is that your implied odds ratio is just a tool you use to help maximize your EV, its not something that dictates your decisions alone.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your implied odds in terms of the ratio do actually decrease when you raise, but your +EV may increase.

For example if ur in a 5/10 game in a multiway pot against horrible players and u raise to $40 your EV equation might be something like .10(600) - .9(40) = $24, with $600 being on average what you make when you hit your hand about 10% of time (this is a crude example). Then if you limp, your implied odds are better so you make on average 20x what you initially put in when you hit as opposed to 15x: So ur EV equation is: .10(200) - .9(10) = $11. So even though ur ratio is better by limping your EV is lower. Of course you're right, you will hit a point where stack sizes come into effect. If your opponent only has $1000 and you raise to $100, you aren't getting very good odds .10($1000) - .9(100) = $10, and thats only if an opponent stacks off every single time u make ur hand which of course is unrealistic.

I guess just the point is considering u probably didn't read all that math is that your implied odds ratio is just a tool you use to help maximize your EV, its not something that dictates your decisions alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a certain amount of sense with one stipulation - you're against very bad opponents. You may have the choice of playing a worse scenario for higher stakes, or a better scenario for lower stakes, but they're both still very good because your opponents are very bad, so you'd take the higher stakes.

My advice was in the context of much better play.

[NMcNasty]

I agree in general, see my response to the original poster. In fact I sort of contradicted myself with my response to you, I wasn't really trying to show that raising is in fact better, I was just trying to give an example of where theoretically your implied odds ratio is worse but your overall +EV is better.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree in general, see my response to the original poster. In fact I sort of contradicted myself with my response to you, I wasn't really trying to show that raising is in fact better, I was just trying to give an example of where theoretically your implied odds ratio is worse but your overall +EV is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure - that's a good point. With sufficiently bad opponents I absolutely believe that can happen. Especially if they underbet made hands and then the rest of them gang-call with air after the flop.

It's just that it's very hard already to draw profitably in NL against a tough lineup. Hell, you could go your whole life and never try to do it except on a semi-bluff and be a winner. But anyways, it's so hard that I think you need every edge you can get including maximal implied odds.

[alanbrown]

You laid out a worst case scenario. I don't think we should be calling pot sized bets with an OESD or flush draw on the flop. And bare in mind I'm proposing sweetening the pot here, not trying to drive people out (though I don't mind if they fold).

So...

2 limpers. I raise to 4BB and they both call (let's say the blinds both fold). Pot == 15BB.

case 1) First limper makes a pot sized bet, second limper folds. I fold 'cos I don't have the right odds

case 2) First Limper makes a c-bet (8xBB). 2nd limper folds. I get 3:1 on my draw with good implied odds behind if I hit it. I call. Pot is now 31xBB and I have 38 behind. If I hit the turn (1 in 5) then I need to get all his money to make it worth my while.

case 3) First limper makes a c-bet and the second limper calls. I call too. Pot is now 39 and I have 38 behind. I only need to get 1 caller if I hit in order to be paid off (just)

case 4) Both limpers check to the raiser. I then get to choose whether I want to milk my FE or take a free card. Ideal.

Seems to me that Case 4 is the most common case and case 1 is the least common. Case 1 is also the least attractive outcome for us of course.

Other benefits are that we get to stop people limping so we can put villains on hands better and therefore play into them with a wider variety of flops. That is to say there's more opportunities for stealing if we take the lead in the betting.

Another key point here is that SCs are a great disguised hand after a PF raise. They're a drawing hand that looks like a made hand. And there's a lot of value in that.

Raising with SCs isn't my main line, and I think that with <50BB it's value must be sought in reasons other than implied odds but I still believe that with a (minimum) stack of 50BBs it can pay off if played correctly.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
First, to get good answers (not saying any of the above are not) go to one of the potlimit/nolimit forums and post this question. Poker theory is where everyone starts, because its first, AND its "poker theory". Once they start posting more, they find their true homes in other sections (for the most part).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're probably right about the tendencies, but to my understanding it's ass-backwards. The NL forums should be about play at specific stakes, and generally end up being mostly about specific hand histories. I think Poker Theory is a great place to ask a question like this, and perhaps expect answers that contrast the way you play at different stakes.

But in practice, PT ends up being "Beginners" for people who can't find the real Beginners. In this case, I think the OP is very appropriate for PT, or for general Hold 'em.

To the OP, some reasons for raising SCs are:



<ul type="square">[*]As a semibluff to attempt to take down the blinds[*]To set up additional semibluffs when no one hits the flop.[*]To provide cover so that opponents can't assume you only raise with hands with good showdown value.[*]Possibly to build up a pot for when you hit. Note, however, that SCs play much differently than pocket pairs because you rarely flop a made monster, so it might be you instead of your opponents who gets roped in by the pot size![/list]
Now against that, you have the decreased expressed and implied odds -- expressed because you've limited the field and are getting fewer calls, implied because more is going in relative to future expectations of called bets (whether limit or big-bet, for different reasons).

So it's not a clear play. It's a better play when you're either winning a lot of pots through your flop continuation bets or at a table so tight that you routinely get no action on your premium hands. (That's not a very good table to be at, but you may as well steal with a hand that could flop big if you get called; you're not hoping to be called, however.)

Against players who get stubborn and defend against a CB with something like 44, you should raise with SCs less. In limit you should certainly bet your draws for value, because you expect to get called several ways. In NL you should just hope to get some free cards and make a big hand.