Suited connectors

    • Tim64
      Tim64
      Black
      Joined: 02.11.2008 Posts: 7,401
      Another dumb question from yours truly:

      Whenever I get dealt a hand such as 4,5s or 8,9s etc, I am very tempted to play it and often have to sit on my hands, as a short-stacker, to stop myself.

      However, am I right in thinking that there is actually no difference between a hand like 6,7h and 4,7h? - even though I am hardly ever tempted to play hands like 4,7suited.

      What I mean is that if your hole cards are in sequence (3,4s or 4,5s or 5,6s etc.) they seem better than if they are separated (4,7s or 5,9s). But in reality, they are all as likely to be good as each other - you still need the right flop to hit. It's just as likely that the flop will be 6,7,8 as it is to be 8,9,T and yet somehow 6,7s seems like a much more playable hand than 5,9s. Anyone else feel the same? Am I even correct, mathematically, about this?

      Cheers,
  • 10 replies
    • kingdippy2008
      kingdippy2008
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.08.2008 Posts: 2,107
      Well you said your a shortstacker right? Well hardly ever in shortstacking u will play suited connecters and if you do you either limp along when theres 4 limpers or more (i think) or when you are stealing or isolating. I dont know much about isolating and such but thats more higher limits.

      In general tho suited connecters do have better possiblities. You are right when you think 67s is better than 47s because it is. 67s has a lot more oppurtunitys of hitting bigger. The fact that its connected is better because instead of having a certain 3 (inside outs) it has lots more outside outs and can improve either way. Also sometimes you will also flop draws with them.

      In BSS suited connecters are played a lot more. Some of the coaches even raise 45s from UTG. But the reason they do this is for deception. Your opponents arent likely to put you on that kind of hand so if you do flop big, its likely that you see it.

      Anyway im sure one of the coaches can explain a bit better than i did but here is a general idea.

      -Kingdippy
    • TheBrood
      TheBrood
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.07.2008 Posts: 4,382
      If you are itching to play suited connectors, play BSS not SSS. You will also be able to play small pp.

      But if you think 47s = 67s I would stick to SSS

      With suited connectors the higher they are, the better and the less gaps way better. I hardly ever play 1-gappers since they rarely hit strong enough. I only play them ip and after a lot of limpers.
      47s can be very costly against a higher flush plus it needs incredible luck to make a straight. Your 2pair on a A47 flop can be beat easily vs A4 and A7. Stay away from these hands until ur a pro imo.
    • Frakkk
      Frakkk
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.01.2009 Posts: 93
      Mathematically you have better chances with 67 than 57 or 47.
      With 67 for example, you can hit a flop either 58x, 45x, 89x to have an OESD, 48x,59x, 9Tx, 34x for Gutshot.

      With 57 you you have OESD on a 46x or 68x flop and Gutshot if you see 43,48,89.

      47 on the other hand, 56x is the only flop that gives you OESD, 35x,68x for Gutshot.
      I don't even mention runer-runer straights because it is rare that you will hit it profitably.

      You have the same chance hitting a flush/draw with any 2 suited cards. Their strength is an other question.

      As you can see connectors hit a good flop twice as often than 2 gappers.
    • Smileyphil
      Smileyphil
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.10.2008 Posts: 488
      Just another question to do with suited connectors?

      Say if I play them using BSS. What is my rough chance of hitting something reasonable? (Two pair, monster draw, trips, straight or flush?)

      With low pockets there is the call20 rule. What sort of implied odds ratio would you recommend for suited connectors?
    • Ka0s
      Ka0s
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.11.2008 Posts: 722
      Originally posted by Frakkk
      Mathematically you have better chances with 67 than 57 or 47.
      With 67 for example, you can hit a flop either 58x, 45x, 89x to have an OESD, 48x,59x, 9Tx, 34x for Gutshot.

      With 57 you you have OESD on a 46x or 68x flop and Gutshot if you see 43,48,89.

      47 on the other hand, 56x is the only flop that gives you OESD, 35x,68x for Gutshot.
      I don't even mention runer-runer straights because it is rare that you will hit it profitably.

      You have the same chance hitting a flush/draw with any 2 suited cards. Their strength is an other question.

      As you can see connectors hit a good flop twice as often than 2 gappers.
      nice post!
    • kingdippy2008
      kingdippy2008
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.08.2008 Posts: 2,107
      Whats the best hand to have against AA? 89s. Although i think all the way through to 56s are equal. I still wouldnt go all in with it tho :p
    • alejandrosh
      alejandrosh
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.07.2008 Posts: 4,346
      the problem with suited conectors is that you probably flop a draw ( if you flop good ) and then you have to actually hit it and then get paid so with a 20bb stack there are not much situations where they can be played profitable.
    • Nunki
      Nunki
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 865
      Originally posted by Tim64
      Another dumb question from yours truly:

      Whenever I get dealt a hand such as 4,5s or 8,9s etc, I am very tempted to play it and often have to sit on my hands, as a short-stacker, to stop myself.

      However, am I right in thinking that there is actually no difference between a hand like 6,7h and 4,7h? - even though I am hardly ever tempted to play hands like 4,7suited.

      What I mean is that if your hole cards are in sequence (3,4s or 4,5s or 5,6s etc.) they seem better than if they are separated (4,7s or 5,9s). But in reality, they are all as likely to be good as each other - you still need the right flop to hit. It's just as likely that the flop will be 6,7,8 as it is to be 8,9,T and yet somehow 6,7s seems like a much more playable hand than 5,9s. Anyone else feel the same? Am I even correct, mathematically, about this?

      Cheers,
      What you have to remember is how stack-sizes and the nature of your opponents affect PF hand strengths.

      eg. You hold 67s with 20BB's and it's folded to you on the button. The BB is a loose player who defends his blind too often and doesn't like to fold to cbets. In this situation your hand is an obvious muck as you don't have enough FE. Your opponent is all too often going to continue past the flop and your 76s is a solid underdog (3:2) vesus the "top 70%" of hands. 76s is utter trash here. 74s has typically 3or 4% less equity than 76s versus 'top 70%".


      You hold 67s with 100BB's (effective-stack) and it's folded to you on the button. You usually have an auto-raise since when you flop big you can get paid. You also have the possibility of creating a significant amount of FE with your 100BB's.
    • Tim64
      Tim64
      Black
      Joined: 02.11.2008 Posts: 7,401
      Thanks to everyone for their responses. It was mainly the mathematical issue I was interested in; i.e. whether there was a qualitative difference between 6,7s and 5,7s.

      The difference was admirably explained by Frakkk.

      I'm not going to play these sorts of hands in SSS anyway; just wanted to understand if there was a solid basis for preferring connectors over gappers.

      Cheers all,
      Tim
    • Jaissica
      Jaissica
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.02.2009 Posts: 1,385
      You also need to consider that connectors can flop more nut straights. EG,

      Connected 78 -

      456
      569
      69t

      All give you the nut straight.

      Single gap 68 -

      457
      579

      Give you a nut straight - into a 79t flop you are losing to 8-J.

      Double gap 58 -

      467

      is the only nut straight you have. 679 you are losing to 8t.

      While triple gap 48 you cannot hit the nuts on the flop. 567 gives 89 the over straight to yours, and in such a situation you are certain to go broke.