@Chopper,

When I first constructed that hand chart, I put the emphasis on made hands, drawing hands, 2Pair, TPTK and Ace High. I fond that the highest % of the hands I won for substantial pots were from Sets, Straights and Flushes in that order and that K(Q-T)u, Q(J-T)u and JTu were losing me a substantial amount of cash when I was raising with them before the button. Despite referring to Sklansky's hand chart for guidance, I was still running KQu into AK and AQ and spewing chips to cold callers that were in position, so I was forced to relegate those hands to assaulting the blinds.

T(9-4)sc and J(9-4)sc1, despite having a reduced odds of winning a pot, have a much higher chance of getting paid off when they do win a pot, and they are much easier to get away from when you miss your draw but hit a pair. I'm aware that some of those hands are ranked "off" of their Sklansky Values, but instead of thinking of hands based on their odds of winning a hand over the course of 5 cards, I think of hands based on categories that correlate to how they actually play thru' 4 rounds of betting. For instance, it didn't make sense to me to categorize 99 in one column and 55 in another column when I was playing them identically, and it didn't make sense to play them differently (i.e raise with 99 and limp with 55) and create a tell.

When I read the GAP Concept, I realized that it didn't take into account setting the opponent with middle/small pocket pairs and drawing with suited connectors, but instead served as a warning to fold hands that relied on face cards for their value against a UTG/EP raise unless your face cards were better than there's, so A(Q-T)u, A(9-2)s and K(Q-T)u, Q(J-T)u and JTu ended up further down the chart than Sklansky would rank them.

I may or may not be too loose (ok, I probably am too lose), but I do end up ahead in the end. I think the reason for this is that even tho' I have a lot of starting hands in the Suited Connectors range and bleed chips, when I do hit, I hit hard. I'd rather be too loose with Suited Connectors than too loose with a couple of face cards.

Also, to clarify, I'm capable of letting any hand go, so it's not like I'm limping, raising or calling with Suited Connectors every time they're dealt to me. Sometimes I'll just sit at a table raising with AA-JJ and AK and stealing the blinds until I can get a read on the opponent's and develop a tight table image before I start to go into LAG mode.

@IPLAYTIGHT

I understand what you are saying, and in multi-way, that's how I have always played position. But in heads up, I think there is a lot to be said about betting first. In all of your examples, you're visualizing defeat. For me, I don't plan on limping, calling, raising or re-raising out of position unless I plan on betting the flop, the turn or both. I want my opponent to visualize defeat and fold, and it often works (largely thanks to Double Barreling like its going out of fashion) because the opponent expects you to have a bigger hand than his when you call out of position, even tho' I usually have a draw or a small pair if I re-raised him. Both players miss the flop the majority of the time, so you may as well be the first player with his hand in the cookie jar. You can throw in some check raises here and there on the flop and the turn to mix things up, and since I tend to have a drawing hand in these positions, I make a huge amount of money with these hands if I hit The River.