live 6/12 - I need a suited connectors check up

[Esso]

I was wrong about it being a 2+2 book. It's in Middle Limit Holdem by Ciaffone and Brier. I had thought this was 2+2 because the cover design was so similar to other 2+2 books but after looking at it I don't think this is a 2+2 book.

[mrcunningham]

Everyone, thanks for the feedback.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: I was tempted to 3-bet, but ended up deciding that I wasn't going to protect my hand with a 3-bet in this huge pot...

[/ QUOTE ]

Protect what? I think you played the hand pretty standardly (well) at each point.

[jeffnc]

The Ciaffone book is notoriously tight, and it applies to tougher, usually higher limit games, not the type of game you were playing in.

However, the concept they raise is sound. And by the way, it applies to the nut flush draw as well as lower draws, in this way. You have fewer outs than you think. If you see good evidence that someone else is on a flush draw, then even if you have the nut flush draw you have to start realizing that you might be drawing to 7 outs instead of 9. If you have a low flush draw, it's even worse since you're probably drawing dead of course.

But that's not necessarily the case in this hand example.

[Grease]

I can see the debate brewing between folding at some point during this hand, calling all the way and praying to hit, and raising the flop for value/trying to take a freebie on the turn.

When someone brought up the hand example from a supposed 2+2 book, I instantly thought of the Briar/Ciffone book. We know that lots of people like their hands on the flop, but the thing is, they are loose and could be calling with God-knows-what, probably because the pot is large as it was raised PF. The BB probably has some sort of PP, and MP could have some J, two pair, a set, or something like QTs. The pot is gigantic, we have position, and we have a legitimate chance of winning here. The 3 gave us even more outs on the turn, so first off, I think folding the turn is out of the question. I'm torn between raising and calling the flop. Given the fact the pot was raised PF, I might 3-bang and try for a freebie, but we don't have the NFD, so I don't mind calling at all.

I think the most debateable street is PF. Your general strategy of playing any suited connector or one gapper on the button is too loose, IMO. I'm pretty tight, so maybe some other posters here could refute me (which I'm perfectly open to), but, given a table with 5 players to a flop on average, I'll probably draw the line at something like 56s or 67s OTB, but as you add more players, I'll add more hands, and as they players who are limping get worse, I'll add more hands as well.

[Overseer55]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: Huge pot, I'm along for the ride even if this capped, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played low-limit HE live for a long time (always play 20/40 or higher), but playing a hand like this vastly increases your variance and, IMO, is slightly -EV. I know this doesn't sound 2+2'ish, but no well-timed raise on this hand is going to buy you a free card and you have very little ability to estimate your number of true number of outs, which makes your presence in the pot (along with your optimal betting pattern for this hand) very arbitrary. On the flop, you had anywhere between 0 and 9 non-nut outs + a BD str8 draw. On the turn, you have anywhere between 0 and 14 non-nut outs. For you to have 14 non-nut outs, no one can have a flush draw, a set, or a better two pair. This seems unlikely. In my experience, the number of times that the calling on every street (in this type of situation) is the correct play is far fewer than when it is horribly, horribly wrong.

Admitting that you're "stuck" for calling 4 bets and then another bet (or 2) on the river if one of your non-nut outs hit is massive long-term spewage.

[Carlson411]

[ QUOTE ]

PF: Generally, I will call any suited 0 or 1 gappers on the button in an unraised pot with >3 limpers. Is this too loose? If so, how about in this hand with 5 limpers in front of me?


[/ QUOTE ] Bro this is to loose IMO. To keep it simple don't do this on the button(IMO). If suited hands are your preference at least make sure they are connected i.e. 23s,34s,56s, J,10s etc. The reason why is b/c you will be dominated most likely by a larger suited hand. 53s has no connectivity and no strength. This is one of the most basic requirements you should be looking for and is also in SSH by Sklansky. He has good advice for you preflop and postflop. Im not raising with that hand either unless I hit two pair or trips with the 5 b/c the hand is dominated so many times. Its a hand thats just lacking so much its not worth it even suited. Suited cards come in 24% of the time a hand is dealt. You can be patient. You'll get that good suited hand. You should also try the gappers, but at least do the gappers with some strength. J9s, Q9s, etc.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wrong about it being a 2+2 book. It's in Middle Limit Holdem by Ciaffone and Brier. I had thought this was 2+2 because the cover design was so similar to other 2+2 books but after looking at it I don't think this is a 2+2 book.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some very good advice in that book (I especially like the chapter on missing overcards), however, there are quite a few hand examples with rediculously weak tight advice.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PF: Generally, I will call any suited 0 or 1 gappers on the button in an unraised pot with >3 limpers. Is this too loose? If so, how about in this hand with 5 limpers in front of me?


[/ QUOTE ] Bro this is to loose IMO. To keep it simple don't do this on the button(IMO). If suited hands are your preference at least make sure they are connected i.e. 23s,34s,56s, J,10s etc. The reason why is b/c you will be dominated most likely by a larger suited hand. 53s has no connectivity and no strength. This is one of the most basic requirements you should be looking for and is also in SSH by Sklansky. He has good advice for you preflop and postflop. Im not raising with that hand either unless I hit two pair or trips with the 5 b/c the hand is dominated so many times. Its a hand thats just lacking so much its not worth it even suited. Suited cards come in 24% of the time a hand is dealt. You can be patient. You'll get that good suited hand. You should also try the gappers, but at least do the gappers with some strength. J9s, Q9s, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

SSH says to play 53s here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But to be fair it is the lowest of these type of hands that it advises playing. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it hs no connectivity though because clearly it makes straights using both cards while T3 does not.

[Befolder]

Can someone please tell me how we can protect a hand that hasn't become one yet?

As far as how you played it OP, fine.