3 More Questions

1) Lots of people advocate playing suited connectors and no one seems to question such plays. However, one of the biggest noob mistakes is to get excited when the hole cards are of the same suit. And that they're suited has little influence on your hand or your chances of making a flushGood .

With this in mind, why are suited connectors advocated so much?


2) Is there any one famous or not so famous who is succeeding at poker after crashing out time and time again? I'm getting sick of reading about the guys who turned a one time $30 investment into $500,000.

I have high standards, and often judge myself unfairly, but right now I'm feeling the heat a little. Even the fact that I successfully made money and just lost it through bad management is of litle consolation.

You can take succeed any way you want: pro or amateur, as long as they are earning big bucks.


3) A real noob of a question now. As the numbers dwindle at the final table, so your starting hand requirements loosen up and hands like A9 and K10 become more playable.

I always took this to mean any situation where it's short handed, even if it's a 10 man table where most have folded, and I've played as such. Is this true or is it a case that you only do so when there really are just 3 left because in tourney play, any bust out is softened by a money finish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

1) Lots of people advocate playing suited connectors and no one seems to question such plays. However, one of the biggest noob mistakes is to get excited when the hole cards are of the same suit. And that they're suited has little influence on your hand or your chances of making a flushGood .

With this in mind, why are suited connectors advocated so much?

---

In LH, you often have odds to draw to those hands, and they hold up well in the typical multiway pots LH generates. In NLH, they are selectively useful for different reasons. NLH is a game where you make or lose money in big pots. The suited connectors from late position in a multiway pot often lead to situations where you can play a big draw for huge +EV. The reasons for playing sc's from late position in NLH:

1. Big and deceptive draws. Example, 87 suited w/ a flop of 9 8 6, two from your suit. Depending on the action, you may even be ahead here with your medium pair. If not, you have 9 flush outs and 6 more straight outs. In a multiway pot where everyone has bet small, you're expecting hands like A7 and J9. If they hit the flop hard enough, especially with straight outs, you are very likely to take down a big pot. You have plenty of muscle for small and medium pots, too. And you're hard for an opponent to put on a range since so many cards help your hand.

2. Better pot odds. Folks who see the draw-happy boards often raise bigger than normal with made hands to deny you the odds to call. They may bet 2/3 of the pot which, if you only had flush outs, would be enough to make your call a bad one (ignoring implied odds, assuming that they'll dry up if the 3rd flush card hits the board). But here, you're getting 3 to 1 on your bet and are only 2 to 1 against hitting it. Also, even a pot-sized raise on the turn will give you even money on a call, plus a chance to win more.

3. SC's are easy to lay down when they miss. Example: you have 76s and have the flop come A J 4 rainbow. No problems folding. It's often much more clear cut when you're ahead (or have the draw/pot odds to get ahead) than with an unpaired high card hand like AJ.

Given these benefits, also remember this. The more people to act behind you pre-flop, the less likely you are in to find yourself in the type of pot you want. Play these late, late, late. For newbiews, they should start playing these from the button. I know you get hands like these in the blinds, too, but they're extremely difficult to play out of position at times. Pick your spots, play them a few dozen times, and you'll get a feel for it.

As to high cards and suited-ness, being suited doesn't add all that much value to AJ, since you can win a lot easier by pairing the A or J than by making a flush. But in very specific situations, playing suited connectors can lead to huge draws that are deceptive, strong, easy to play, and likely to get paid off.

1) suited connectors are good hands to play in multiway pots when you can see the flop pretty cheaply, it is a good hand because usually both a str8 and a flush is a very strong hand and often pretty disguised, on a flop of J87 the AJ or KK will usually not fold and will go all the way.

Thew tricky stuff about SC is to know when to fold them when you hit something like TP or 2 pair on the flop

3) As the table get short handed your starting hands requirements drop of course, first of all, you are facing less opponents, so there is less of a chance of running into stronger hands, and second thing is that the blinds come around more often, so you have to play more otherwise you will be eaten alive by the blinds.

It is not a strict rule and a lot of it depends on the looseness and agressiveness of the table, but as a very general guideline you want to be involved in around 1.5-2 hands per orbit on average

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

3) A real noob of a question now. As the numbers dwindle at the final table, so your starting hand requirements loosen up and hands like A9 and K10 become more playable.

I always took this to mean any situation where it's short handed, even if it's a 10 man table where most have folded, and I've played as such. Is this true or is it a case that you only do so when there really are just 3 left because in tourney play, any bust out is softened by a money finish.

---

No, its a probability question. Compare playing on the button in a 10 handed table vs. playing 3-way. When everyone folds to you on the full 10-handed table, that means 7 players have announced that they had cards that suck. That's 14 cards (or 7 combinations) that have many fewer Aces and Faces. You obviously know your own cards, so nearly a third of deck can be guessed at in general terms - there are proportionally MORE Aces and Faces left in the deck for the SB and BB to wake up with than normal.

I can do deeper into calculations if you're interested (I'm a math professor), but 10 people getting hands have a MUCH greater chance of being dealt good hands than 3 people, because every sucky hand dealt takes away from bad cards to go in the other hands. I assure you that random distributions will put them behind you often enough that you should be careful. You can steal blinds successfully from this position, but you need better values to play from the Button at full tables than extremely short-handed.

Robb, if it doesn't taka ages I would actually like to see the maths behind your post, or at least some kind of workable percentage by which the blinds are likely to have A Good Hand of some kind. My suspicion is that there is less of a difference than you may instinctively think but I really can't tell if that's false instinct without the numbers!

(an example - yes, people in MP and EP are likely to play high aces, but maybe only 1/4 of all aces will be strong enough to play, so it is likely a lot of them will have been folded, and even more so with kings, queens etc.)

1. You need context. In a 6max game where its folded to you on the button and you can steal, 98s becomes a monster. Raise!
Fr, UTG raises and you get two callers to you on CO with 98s. Call!

Just remember that 98s is crap versus AK long term, but when lots of players enter the pot its value rises as it makes nut hands, not just tp hands.
PPs make nut hands versus a raising range, in a multiway pot a set still has $$$$$$$$$ value but flush draws too as do combo draws etc.

N00bs play bad because they play sooted stuff without thinking, better players realise why the play. you could flop tp with sc's and still know you are folding. Thats the key difference.

position is key however when thinking about this hand, implied odds are also important but overrated a lot.

2. Im quite sure there are people out there who dont do as well as is perhaps advertised. Im mean christ, my br is 20k and i havent had a wining month for 3 months in cash games and i have 100 buy ins behind. I could bust back down to 4k, where i started!

3. You need to consider what playing such hands in the situation you mention actually acheives. Are you going to stack someone if you get all in pf with 5 people left with A9o? probably not, but will you put pressure on others and make their stack dwindle by stealing blinds? Sure.

[quote="Robb"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

You can steal blinds successfully from this position, but you need better values to play from the Button at full tables than extremely short-handed.

---

Yes I somewhat agree with this proposition. But at the same time you need to remember that a full table the starting hands need to be much stronger from EP, so UTG someone can easily fold AT/AJ KQ etc UTG. SO ppl can fold good hands UTG as there are so many ppl behind, also they will be OOP for the rest of the hand.

Robb,

The point I was making was that as the competition lessens, so more hands become playable. Now perhaps that is wrong - but it's what I've learnt from reading books, scouring the internet & watching the shows.

Eg: A10 UTG, 10 handed isn't a good hand. A10 heads up is.

My question was simply a case of whether it can be applied in a context where 10 players are still in the tourney - just not in the hand.

All I know is that loosening up of hands is what I've been told should occur when it gets short handed as their strength increases. Regardless of whethever maths backs this up, if you accept this the advice I've been dealt with concerning loosening of hands, then does it still apply to short handed situations when there's still a full table?

However, even though I am not a mathematician, I don't necessarily agree that just because 7 people fold, that there are proportionally more aces and face cards for the SB and BB to hold. A6, K2, Q3, J5, K4 and Q6 could all feasibly be dealt in the same game and thrown away by every one.

Re: #2

Doyle Brunson mentioned being busto numerous times early in his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

]Robb, if it doesn't take ages I would actually like to see the maths behind your post, or at least some kind of workable percentage by which the blinds are likely to have A Good Hand of some kind. My suspicion is that there is less of a difference than you may instinctively think but I really can't tell if that's false instinct without the numbers!

(an example - yes, people in MP and EP are likely to play high aces, but maybe only 1/4 of all aces will be strong enough to play, so it is likely a lot of them will have been folded, and even more so with kings, queens etc.)

---

This has proven exciting. Didn't think the mathematics would quite this hard. Here are the assumptions:
1. Hero is on the button in an unopenend pot (7 flods, no limpers).
2. Here has T9 or worse, and wonders about the chance of facing overs from the blinds.
3. All players who folded would have opened any pp and all unpaired face cards except QJ. Not arguing this is best strategy, just suggesting it because it makes the math reasonable. And it makes some degree of sense.

First, let's look at the odds of hitting these hands in general given the 1326 different starting hands possible:
AA 6 ways to make it, so 6 /1326 = 0.04525, or 0.045% chance
KK - 22 same as aces, so total pp is 13 x 6 / 1326, or 6% chance of pp
AK 16 ways to make it, 16 / 1326 = 0.0121 or 1.2% chance
AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ are same, so about 6% chance of these holdings

Recap: 6% chance of pp (actually 5.88%), 6% chance of AJ or better, KQ, KJ (actually 6.03%).

EDIT: TLR WAS RIGHT. THE 2 PARAGRAPHS CONTAIN AN ERROR (IN BOLD).

We don't know exactly what folders had, but we do know what they didn't have. We can rule out the 80 holdings that are pp J or better and the 54 pp that TT or worse. The hands we are ruling out are Aces/Faces to T or worse in a 3:2 ratio.

We've inspected 8 hands, so we "know" 16 cards came from combinations NOT in the premium category. Round this to 15 cards, and the 3:2 ratio suggests that 3 MORE Aces/Faces ought to remain than average random dealing would suggest.

EDIT: I WILL CORRECT MY POST BELOW, SO THE THREAD WILL STILL BE READABLE.

This leaves two hands to be dealt from the remaining 36 cards of which, normally 4/13 would be Aces/Faces (about 11). Here, however, we're anticipating a slight over-representation of Aces/Faces. So assume on average the breakdown can now be assumed to be 14 Aces/Faces and 22 other cards. Now there are only 630 combinations possible for starting hands (36 choose 2). Here is the same breakdown as above assuming the 14 cards leave us with 4 Aces, 4 Kings, 3 Queens and 3 Jacks, on average.

AA 6 ways to make it, so 6 /630 = 1% (actually 0.95%)
KK 6 ways, so 1%
QQ 3 ways, so 3/630 = 0.5%
JJ 3 ways, so 0.5%
AK 16 ways, 16 /630 = 1.2% chance
AJ 12 ways, or 12/630 = 2.54% chance
KQ and KJ same as AJ, so 2.54% chance each

Recap: 2.86% chance of PREMIUM pp JJ or better, and 12.7% chance of AJ or better, KQ, KJ, nearly double their typical frequencies. :shock:

If solid/premium holdings occur 10% of the time in general, then we would have an 81% chance typically of facing two random opponents WITHOUT a premium holding : (1 - 0.1)^2 or 0.9^2 . Now we have a situation where premium holdings may be as much as twice as likely, so we have a 64% chance of facing the SB and BB WITHOUT them holding premium hands : (1 - 0.2)^2 or 0.8^2.

Critique this as much as you like. The assumptions are not necessarily representative of true game conditions, but the basic facts are startling, even for me. With some conservative tweaking suggesting the Aces/Faces might be a bit less over-represented than we assumed, we can still guess that the actual likelihood of premium holdings from the blinds in this situation is at least 50% greater for each of them, and there is as much as a 10% greater chance of facing a premium holding out of the blinds in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

1) Lots of people advocate playing suited connectors and no one seems to question such plays.

---

Here's a HH to illustrate:

Holdem No Limit $0.10 (Real Money)

Button - HERO ($20.60 in chips)
SB ($19.45 in chips)
BB ($39.12 in chips)
UTG ($18.60 in chips)
UTG+1 ($20.28 in chips)
CO ($5.35 in chips)

*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to HERO [8h 10h]

UTG - Folds
UTG+1 - Calls $0.10
CO - Calls $0.10
HERO - Calls $0.10
SB - Folds
BB – Checks

*** FLOP *** [6c 4h 3h] [Total Pot: $0.45]
BB - Checks
UTG+1 - Bets $0.20
CO - Calls $0.20
HERO - Calls $0.20
BB - Calls $0.20

*** TURN *** [6c 4h 3h] [Kh] [Total Pot: $1.25]
BB - Checks
UTG+1 - Bets $0.10
CO - Folds
HERO - Raises $0.70 to $0.70
BB - Calls $0.70
UTG+1 - Folds

*** RIVER *** [6c 4h 3h Kh] [Jc] [Total Pot: $2.75]
BB - Checks
HERO - Bets $1
BB - Folds
HERO - returned ($1) : not called
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($2.75) | Rake ($0.10)
Board [6c 4h 3h Kh Jc]

Analysis: I'm unhappy the SB folded pre-flop. Decreases pot odds. Flop, I LOVE this bet from EP and everyone calling it. I'm getting 4.25 to 1 with about 3.5 to 1 against making my flush on the turn. Instacall w/ only 1 player left to act. Turn is nirvana. Value raise gets 1 caller. I'm slightly worried about a higher flush, but things are shaping up. River is a blank. Hoping to get another call here (and you will about 2/3 of the times in this spot on these tables, imo).

Hand was easy to play, only invested a total of $0.30 to see the turn and take a shot at $1.25 plus whatever I can extract. Low risk, high reward. You are about 7 to 1 against hitting 2 or more of your suit on the flop, so remember that you really need to extract value every time you hit to make this profitable since you'll have to fold these at various times in the hand, even if you hit the flop. Getting only 16 BB earn is too low, but often the river bet will make money, too.

wow, thunder, you really have a knack for getting long responses.

1) SC's are underneath raising ranges of most, as well. meaning they will play well on smaller flops when opponent is likely to cbet. when they pick up combo draws, they are actually favored on the flop over AA, and thus, easy to get it all in while ahead. they are deceptive from the tighter player because the table automatically puts you on high broadways, so when the flop hits you hard...the table thinks you are cbetting and is more likely to give you action.

all in all, they are a great little number to balance you out. and, you dont tend to take them as far as other holdings because when they miss a flop...they really miss it. and when they hit, they really hit.

2) sounds like you should read more about Mike Matasow. but, usually, players who go busto time and time again dont return to the top of the poker world. therefore, their stories lack some sizzle.

3)they are leaving out a key component to opening your range. and thats IN POSITION. A-high wins a lot of pots HU, but any pair also wins a lot. so, you really have to be able to read your opponent or rely on luck to open your range significantly. really, imo, all you are trying to do that late in tourneys is take control of the tourney with raises and steals. when you hit a solid flop, try and stick him in. and, hope for the best.

i am not the best player to talk with about tourneys because i view HU and 3-handed as more of a crapshoot online. it would be different if you had seen these guys a lot before.

Robb, that's amazing - I am going to take your working as correct because I'm afraid a B in AO level maths in 1990 just isn't enough here :)

Let me just clarify: there is an 81% chance of two random holdings being OUTSIDE the top 10% of hands, but a 64% chance of the same after 8 players have folded (or raised in hero's case) non-premium holdings.

That is a much bigger difference than I was anticipating (I had predicted something like a 2-5% difference in my head). Thanks again for taking the trouble!

Robb, I am trying to follow your math

Basically what you aer impling is that out of remaining 36 cards there are 4 A, 4 K, 3 Q and 3 J.
This implies that out of the 14 discarded cards, in which A+K+Q+J should represne 32% in random distribution the A+K+Q+J actually represent only 2/14 = 14%

This makes little sense to me

Why doesn't it make sense? In general, 7 random starting hands (or 14 cards) would only have between 4 - 5 face cards. All we're saying is that there were fewer than normal, so maybe only 2 - 3. Just taking 2 fewer than normal still makes the premium hands more than 50% more likely than normal.

Here are the probabilities for drawing 7 starting hands and having 0, 1, 2, ... Aces/Faces show up in those hands.

P(0 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 0.21%
P(1 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 2.09%
P(2 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 8.49%
P(3 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 19.02%
P(4 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 26.15%
P(5 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 23.25%
P(6 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 13.70%
P(7 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 5.40%
P(8 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 1.42%
The sum of the remaining probabilities (i.e. virtually ALL 14 cards in 7 hands being A/F) is less than 0.3%.

It should be clear that the average is near the middle, and we're expecting ~4 Aces/Faces in 7 random starting hands. About 10% of times, 2 or fewer A/F will appear in those hands. About 30% of the times, 3 or fewer A/F will appear. That's in general. Under the conditions thunder asked about, we can make a reasonably informed guess toward the shorter side of the A/F frequency based upon the fact that all the hands have been folded. Then we recalculate the odds of the premium holdings (see post above).

Then we pick our spots to raise and make the play at the blinds with suboptimal holdings, understanding we have some increased chance of running into a premium holding. But we still have a decent chance of taking down the blinds using position and aggression.

Hey Chopper,

I can't help it if people take big interest in my threads ;)

Regarding SCs, I agree that they can be deceptive. My question wasn't why do people play them or why doing so is an understandable move. Instead it was about the fact that suited cards have little bearing on a hand - and that it is a noob mistake to think they are worthwhile. Therefore by default, SCs should be no more playable than unsuited connectors, or (if you do want to go down the flush route) J6 suited.

As for late in tourneys, I agree that a big aim is to steal blinds but again, I can only reiterate what I have been informed many times: that the strength of hands increases with lesser numbers. Thus K10 against 2 opponents is far stronger than against 9 - in battle and not just trying to push people off their blinds.

And despite the maths produced in this thread to the contrary, the line of thought that has been extolled is that fewer opponents mean fewer chances to get beaten - hence K10 stands a very good chance of being the highest starting hand.

And so I was asking that, if this is so, is it true at any stage as long as there are fewer people involved in the actual hand. Ie: not only very playable hand when there's only 3 left, but on any occasion when there's just 3 in a hand?

And I don't think it's answered as yet :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

Regarding SCs, I agree that they can be deceptive. My question wasn't why do people play them or why doing so is an understandable move. Instead it was about the fact that suited cards have little bearing on a hand - and that it is a noob mistake to think they are worthwhile. Therefore by default, SCs should be no more playable than unsuited connectors, or (if you do want to go down the flush route) J6 suited.

---

Whilst you are right that suitedness only adds ~2% to the showdown value of a hand, the reason that SCs are more playable than unsuited connectors is that you can flop all sorts of combo draws (eg. OESFD) that give you another way to win (and which you can happily shove on the flop giving you FE). Unsuited connectors can't flop this sort of monster draw which, as Chopper said, means you are a favourite to win on the flop against TP/overpair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

And so I was asking that, if this is so, is it true at any stage as long as there are fewer people involved in the actual hand. Ie: not only very playable hand when there's only 3 left, but on any occasion when there's just 3 in a hand?

---

It depends on whether it's folded to you or whether there are limpers in front. If you have KT in the BB, UTG raises and Button calls, the chance of KT being the best starting hand is much lower than if it's folded to you on the button (because the blinds essentially have two random hands).

If it's folded to you on the button I agree with your proposition, the chance of KT being the best hand is exactly the same whether it's a 10 player table where the first 7 players have all folded or whether it's a 3-handed table and you're first to act.

taipan got the short-handed question answered almost exactly the way i would. iow, yes, if you are folded to on the button that is ESACTLY why you "steal blinds" with KTo...it IS likely to be the best hand out pf. but if there are only 4 ppl left at a final table and i am OTB, i dont know that i am raising if someone in front limps...half the table is still to act pf, and i dont have enough info to raise someone showing interest (the limper UTG). but if folded to, i bust it up almost everytime.

as for SC's vs OSC's...that 2% is a HUGE thing. no, not in the grand scheme, but in "confidence."

we should be looking for 3 factors in a starting hand (which i'm sure you've already heard): 1)TP ability w/ good kicker, 2) suitedness, and 3) connectedness. if your hand has only 1 of the 3 qualities...its trash. and 67o is that holding. however, 67s has both strong connectedness and suitedness, making it much stronger, imo. it simply has MANY more ways to win because it hits more draws...and the flush draw scares the crap out of people because it hammers straights. but, when you are drawing for the straight and flush simultaneously, when you miss the flush and gain the straight, you get paid still, and can be aggressive still because you may have been string along a better flush draw that missed because he only had ONE option with which he could be aggressive...you had two.

that was prolly confusing, but in short...SC's are much more than 2% stronger because of combos, flushes, straights, god-forbid straightflushes. they are stronger because of the IMAGE you are not afraid to represent because they are not one-sided draws...they are often two-sided.

The flushedness of the SCs means that you can raise/call with confidence AND odds far more often than you can without. Your flush draw will only hit 35% of the time, but you can use it as a weapon 100% of the time. Remember, the majority of poker hands don't go to showdown, so the showdown value of the cards becomes an irrelevance - their power on earlier streets is the key.

Thx guys, you pretty much confirmed what I already thought. But I like to ask and get a definite answer :D

I just find it interesting that the suitedness of the hole cards is not that big an advantage in getting a flush. In TLGB, Gordon says "suited cards will only outperform their unsuited cousins around 3-4% of the time. In other words, the main strength of a hand comes from the rank of cards, not their suitedness"

Additionally, throwing the cat amongst the pigeons, I *think* I also heard Lederer saying that unsuited cards gives more flush possibilities than suited cards.

Hmmmmm!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

I just find it interesting that the suitedness of the hole cards is not that big an advantage in getting a flush. In TLGB, Gordon says "suited cards will only outperform their unsuited cousins around 3-4% of the time. In other words, the main strength of a hand comes from the rank of cards, not their suitedness"

---

This is true in a preflop all-in situation BUT when you are playing with deep stacks (either in a cash game or early in a tourney) playability is more important than hand strength over 5 cards. Eg. with deep stacks I'd much rather have T9s than A8o even though A8o is a favourite to win in an all-in preflop situation, because T9s can flop all sorts of interesting draws, and if the flop comes T or 9 high you can let the hand go easily if you get serious action. With A8o if the flop comes A or 8 high it can be difficult to know whether your hand is good. The same goes for small to medium pocket pairs - if you can see a cheap flop early you either flop a set or don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

Additionally, throwing the cat amongsth the pigeons, I *think* I also heard Lederer saying that unsuited cards gives more flush possibilities.

---

Haven't heard this before and I can't imagine why it would be the case.

lederer is an idiot. play some poker once in awhile...geez.

(sacasm alert)

Lederer seems to be an idiot, yes, but then again, most of the "pro's" that are famous are idiots
cough *jennifer tilly* cough


The one guy I respect and admire is Patrick Antonius, and the sob is just as old as I am

If I could've found poker 3, maybe 4 years earlier...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

SC's are much more than 2% stronger because of combos, flushes, straights, god-forbid straightflushes. they are stronger because of the IMAGE you are not afraid to represent because they are not one-sided draws...they are often two-sided.

---

Also, how excited are you about your pot odds when the board 2 flushes and your connectors are unsuited? Here's the math. In general (ignoring any starting hands including hero's), the board will 2 flush 67.9% of the time, evenly distributed among the four suits.

When we take hero's suited connectors into account, the flop 2 flushes 60.4% of the time. Obviously, the three times it's two suited but misses hero's holding suck (48.6%). But 11.8% of the time, you'll have a 2 flush in your suit.

Also, without suitedness, flopping an inside straight draw is almost useless. But consider the same inside straight draw with a board that just 2 flushed in your suit. Congratulations, you just added 3 outs to your pot odds, typically going from almost 3.5 to 1 (38 to 9) against hitting your draw to less than 3 to 1 (35 to 12), by the next street.

All this means exactly what chopper said: suited connectors will be playable post-flop a lot more often than unsuited ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

Why doesn't it make sense? In general, 7 random starting hands (or 14 cards) would only have between 4 - 5 face cards. All we're saying is that there were fewer than normal, so maybe only 2 - 3. Just taking 2 fewer than normal still makes the premium hands more than 50% more likely than normal.

Here are the probabilities for drawing 7 starting hands and having 0, 1, 2, ... Aces/Faces show up in those hands.

P(0 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 0.21%
P(1 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 2.09%
P(2 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 8.49%
P(3 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 19.02%
P(4 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 26.15%
P(5 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 23.25%
P(6 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 13.70%
P(7 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 5.40%
P(8 A/F in 7 starting hands) = 1.42%
The sum of the remaining probabilities (i.e. virtually ALL 14 cards in 7 hands being A/F) is less than 0.3%.

It should be clear that the average is near the middle, and we're expecting ~4 Aces/Faces in 7 random starting hands. About 10% of times, 2 or fewer A/F will appear in those hands. About 30% of the times, 3 or fewer A/F will appear. That's in general. Under the conditions thunder asked about, we can make a reasonably informed guess toward the shorter side of the A/F frequency based upon the fact that all the hands have been folded. Then we recalculate the odds of the premium holdings (see post above).

Then we pick our spots to raise and make the play at the blinds with suboptimal holdings, understanding we have some increased chance of running into a premium holding. But we still have a decent chance of taking down the blinds using position and aggression.

---

My logic runs as follows, under your assumptions:
We haev T9
50 unknown cards
7 opponents fold anything but PP, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ
Our question is how many AKQJ will remain on average after dumping the 14 starting hand, your conclusion was 14

My logic runs as follows:
Random distribution, 32% of the cards are AKQJ, so out of the 14 dumped cards 0.32*14 = 4.48, so 11.52 remain out of the 36 cards

There are 16*12+6 ways to be dealt Ax
16*11+6 ways to be dealt Kx, x<>A
16*10 + 6 to be dealt Qx
16*9+ 6 to be dealt Jx
total = 16*(12+11+10+9) + 6*4 = 696
Out of this 696 we elimanted AK,AQ,AJ,KQ,KJ and all PP = 5*16+24 = 104

104/696 = 0.15
So I expect 85% of the normal distribution of AKQJ = 0.32*0.85*14 = 3.8
Which leaves me with 16-3.8 = 12.2 AKQJ instead of the 14 you have figured out.

Another point that I need to point in your calculations is that you assumed that the missing cards are Q and J, if you assume the missing cards are AK then your calculations change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TLR

Another point that I need to point in your calculations is that you assumed that the missing cards are Q and J, if you assume the missing cards are AK then your calculations change.

---

Of course. But all other things being equal, Q's and J's are more likely to be represented in the hands that folded.

About my logic, you quoted my assumptions by saying: "7 opponents fold anything but PP, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ." Actually, we don't what ELSE they would have folded. We only know if they had certain cards (Aces/Faces), they would NOT in general have folded nearly as often. So the most playable cards MUST be under-represented. We only disagree to the degree of under-representation.

I'm looking over my assumptions, now. I like your approach to the calculations, and I'm admitting I may have made a mistake in how I threw out A/F's. I'll will post when I get back to my other computer and can check over those calculations.

Taipan,

It's interesting what you say about all in pre flop as Gordon wasn't talking about such a situation, but commenting on how noobs over rate their starting hands - with the biggest error being an unwarranted belief that 2 suited hole cards are very playable and much stronger than they really are.

Robb has gone into the maths in this thread and Gordon was stating that the chances of landing a flush aren't that significantly higher with 2 suited than unsuited.

I understand what Chopper says about having straight and flush opportunities just that, even this being the case, there really isn't much difference between being suited and unsuited. In fact, just a few percent.

If you all agree that that isn't the case, then I will have to look at disregarding what Gordon and others have mentioned on the topic (though I wonder why they stated as such in the first place).

And as a final question on SCs, Are they more playable when you have a low M or are they less playable? I have heard contradicting advice. Some say your hand requirements widen considerably as your M gets smaller and others say you have no chips to waste on such a weak hand.



Robb,

Can you explain what you meant by

Quote:

---

Obviously, the three times it's two suited but misses hero's holding suck (48.6%). But 11.8% of the time, you'll have a 2 flush in your suit.

---

Also, why do you say

Quote:

---

without suitedness, flopping an inside straight draw is almost useless.

---

I find it interesting about the board landing 2 flushes over 2/3 of the time because these days, I get really nervous playing anything less than a flush. When I land trips or 2 pair, it's quite profitable to let them bet into you, to check raise or to smooth call. However, I find myself seeing 2 flushes land a lot and thus betting big to secure the hand there and then due to being burned by draw chasers. Naturally, this scares off many opponents, I lose the chance to build a pot and, in fast moving MTT play, lose a vital chance to take out a challenger and move up the ladder.

my response in relation to your "m" is...

it would make sense if your M is under 10, then you would not play any speculative/marginal hands.

but, that could be EXACTLY why you play them. if you are a tight by nature guy, then these can be deadly for image.

but, as rare as we run into the same people online, i would only use such a tactic in the Guantlet here at FTR.

in a MTT or SNG online, i would rather push any A with a critically low M because i can win with high card. 78s isnt going to win high card with anyone that calls your open-push while short-stacked. therefore, you need to be both live and non-dominated...never mind you are only pairing 1/3 of the time. i dont like those chances when short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

Tnoobs over rate their starting hands - with the biggest error being an unwarranted belief that 2 suited hole cards are very playable and much stronger than they really are.

---

Okay, I think you're in danger of furthering your misunderstanding here. By far the biggest reason noobs lose money with any two suited is because they end up losing substantial sums in hands where they don't make a winning flush. Whether that's 85s being coolered vs a higher flush, or A8s losing half a stack to AQ on an Axxxx board, they are playing bad poker with crappy hands against the ranges of the people who are playing back at them. Sometimes they'll hit their flushes - luckily for the rest of us, they'll hit them often enough to keep playing these cards badly.

Secondly, flushes are tricky hands to play because when you DO hit them, you have three cards or more of the same colour standing out like beacons, making top pair hands and the like fold when you need them to call. They aren't nicely disguised like sets, two pairs or a lot of straights, so they tend to take down smaller pots - and they're hard to lay down so when you're up against a bigger flush, or a boat, noobs will almost always call regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

I understand what Chopper says about having straight and flush opportunities just that, even this being the case, there really isn't much difference between being suited and unsuited. In fact, just a few percent.

---

No, I don't think you do understand! The SHOWDOWN difference is a few percent, but the power of having a flush draw, often in tandem with other draws or made hands, is enormous in terms of opportunities to semi-bluff or even value bet. You can't simply look at one mathematical aspect (of many) and assume that tells you everything there is to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunder

And as a final question on SCs, Are they more playable when you have a low M or are they less playable? I have heard contradicting advice. Some say your hand requirements widen considerably as your M gets smaller and others say you have no chips to waste on such a weak hand.

---

They are less playable, though they retain their semi-bluffing strength and they are often "live" - i.e. if you are called when you push with 67s, it's unlikely that the villain is holding either a 6 or a 7 and thus dominating you - you're only a small dog even against AK. But you can't play them in the hope of hitting a monster because you simply won't hit often enough to make it worthwhile. So they can be a pushing hand, but they are almost never a calling hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunder

Can you explain what you meant by Obviously, the three times it's two suited but misses hero's holding suck (48.6%). But 11.8% of the time, you'll have a 2 flush in your suit.

---

This is pretty straightforward - he means each suit has a roughly 12% chance of appearing twice on the flop, so there is a c. 50% chance of a suit OTHER than the one you're holding appearing twice and only a 12% chance of your suit appearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunder

Also, why do you say without suitedness, flopping an inside straight draw is almost useless.

---

Because you only have 1/3 of the outs!! A gutshot + flush draw has 12 outs, a gutshot on its own only has 4 - i.e. you're very seldom going to be in a position where you have the odds to play a gutshot, whereas you're very seldom NOT going to have the odds to play a gutshot + FD.

the very latter of bion's points is why suited gappers are so much fun. they are so hard to see coming and have the FD + gutter so often that when you show them down, you get called a "donkey/chaser" by the table rockTAG almost everytime.

i just "lol" in the chat and know my "image" is effectively destroyed with him.

I think bion and chop have explained well what I meant. The combo draw is what you're looking for with these hands. And, yes, almost 2/3's of the time you'll face a flop with 2 cards of the same suit (on any hand). When they aren't in your sc suit, you're in NO WORSE a situation than with unsuited connectors. When they are in you suit, you can push your 4-flush, especially if some version of straight draw hit, too. It's about having confidence that you won't be WAY behind in the hand.

About low M. The great thing about sc's 98 and lower is that they are rarely dominated by the 20 and 21 hands (AK, KQ), so they hold up well when you have to go all-in, rarely much worse than 60-40 dogs except to PP. If you have to shove all-in due to a dangerously short stack, you're often in better shape with a mid-range sc than with AT, KJ or some other easily dominated hand. The key is get the correct pot odds and shove first, so you also have some fold equity. Can you get busted out this way? Sure, but it's better than being blinded to death.

[quote="TLR"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

In general, 7 random starting hands (or 14 cards) would only have between 4 - 5 face cards. All we're saying is that there were fewer than normal, so maybe only 2 - 3. Just taking 2 fewer than normal still makes the premium hands more than 50% more likely than normal.

---

TLR was more right than I suspected. My error was in assuming only 2-3 A/F would be gone. TLR was right when he said about 3.8 (actually 3.66) A/F should be gone. His was TINY error. Mine was HUGE. So I recalculated all the odds for the premium hands. Here's calculations for both 4 and 3 A/F left. The true average should be approximately in the middle.

Given 3 A/F were present in the first 7 starting hands, and that the remaining A/F are 4A's and 3 of every other card, we would have:
AA (6 ways)
KK - JJ (3 ways each)
AJ or better (12 ways each)
KQ, KJ (9 ways each)

This is 69 out of 630 possible combinations, or 10.95%. In general, the probabilities of getting this range of hands is 104 out of 1326 possible combinations, or 7.84%

Given 4 A/F were present in the first 7 starting hands with the remaining A/F distribution being 3 of each, would have about a 9.05% chance of getting a premium hand.

RECAP OF REVISION:
TLR was right. On average, we expect 3.66 A/F in the first 14 cards dealt. The probability of being dealt AA - JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, or KJ is:

General Case (all 52 cards present): 7.84%
If 4 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 9.05%
If 3 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 10.95%
If 2 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 13.02% *

*This is corrected from earlier post. Yes, another mistake.

Wow. I really f***ed up. Sorry for the errors. It appears the true average for premium hands under these conditions are slightly less than 10% compared to just less than 8% on average. So, yeah, the blinds are going to have premium holdings 5 times out of 50 instead of 4 times. That's not really enough to make much difference in how we play. Good work, TLR!

[QUOTE="Robb"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TLR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

In general, 7 random starting hands (or 14 cards) would only have between 4 - 5 face cards. All we're saying is that there were fewer than normal, so maybe only 2 - 3. Just taking 2 fewer than normal still makes the premium hands more than 50% more likely than normal.

---

TLR was more right than I suspected. My error was in assuming only 2-3 A/F would be gone. TLR was right when he said about 3.8 (actually 3.66) A/F should be gone. His was TINY error. Mine was HUGE. So I recalculated all the odds for the premium hands. Here's calculations for both 4 and 3 A/F left. The true average should be approximately in the middle.

Given 3 A/F were present in the first 7 starting hands, and that the remaining A/F are 4A's and 3 of every other card, we would have:
AA (6 ways)
KK - JJ (3 ways each)
AJ or better (12 ways each)
KQ, KJ (9 ways each)

This is 69 out of 630 possible combinations, or 10.95%. In general, the probabilities of getting this range of hands is 104 out of 1326 possible combinations, or 7.84%

Given 4 A/F were present in the first 7 starting hands with the remaining A/F distribution being 3 of each, would have about a 9.05% chance of getting a premium hand.

RECAP OF REVISION:
TLR was right. On average, we expect 3.66 A/F in the first 14 cards dealt. The probability of being dealt AA - JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, or KJ is:

General Case (all 52 cards present): 7.84%
If 4 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 9.05%
If 3 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 10.95%
If 2 A/F present in first 14 cards dealt: 13.02% *

*This is corrected from earlier post. Yes, another mistake.

Wow. I really f***ed up. Sorry for the errors. It appears the true average for premium hands under these conditions are slightly less than 10% compared to just less than 8% on average. So, yeah, the blinds are going to have premium holdings 5 times out of 50 instead of 4 times. That's not really enough to make much difference in how we play. Good work, TLR!

---

Don't worry about getting mixed up, we all do at one point or another

Hi Biondino,

you're both right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

Okay, I think you're in danger of furthering your misunderstanding here.

---

No, I'm fine. I exaggerated by saying it's the biggest mistake but seeing 2 suited cards, say Q9 or A10, pull noobies in as they believe they are stronger than they really are. And the point that Gordon was making is that having suited cards, pre flop, is negligible. So if you'd chuck Q9 and A10 os then don't get all in a bother just because they're suited :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

I understand what Chopper says about having straight and flush opportunities just that, even this being the case, there really isn't much difference between being suited and unsuited. In fact, just a few percent.

No, I don't think you do understand!

---

Again, I do. I was talking about pre flop only. Eg: 78 suited vs 78 os.

Quote:

---

This is pretty straightforward - he means each suit has a roughly 12% chance of appearing twice on the flop, so there is a c. 50% chance of a suit OTHER than the one you're holding appearing twice and only a 12% chance of your suit appearing.

---

Now I am confused! If there is a 67% chance that the flop will contain 2 suits, what is the 12% you mention? And be it 12% or 67% why the mentioning of the three times it's two suited but misses hero's holding? And I'm lost on the remaining figures of 48.6% and 11.8%.

As for seldom having the odds to flop a gutshot, I agree. I misread the sentence and thought the straight had been made. Even with the word "gutshot". I know. Stop tutting.

*bump*

Thunder you're doing it again. There is no point in purely viewing the strength of suited connectors pre-flop because this value changes HUGELY post-flop, i.e. 78s on a 9QAr board and 78s on a 69A board giving you a flush and straight draw. Pre-flop strength only matters when you're all in, and in all but the mid-late stages of tournaments this isn't usually the case.

The flush question - what we're saying is that although the flop is two suited 60% of the time, it will be YOUR suit a little less than 1/4 of 60% of the time - there are 4 suits, ergo the quarter of the time your suit is the one that hits a flush draw. This works out at approx 12%, or 1 time in 8. That's all you need to know.

why the bump?...let it go, man.

Chopper,

The bump was because I didn't understand the maths that Robb provided and I was getting lost. Sorry if you think I should let that go when it's an intrinsic part to understanding probability of flush draws etc.



Biondino,

We always seem to have a miscommunication problem! :)

I am not viewing hand strength purely from a preflop perspective and I am well aware that post flop, things can swing wildly. I was just commenting that, from a starting hand perspective, with both 78s and 78os being almost equal, where nobody knows what the flop will bring, that one is deemed very playable yet the other would raise eyebrows. I may have mentioned earlier that experts/commentators or whatever would not bat an eyelid if someone played 78 suited but would often question if the 78 were os.

Unlike KA, where you can win with high card alone, unless you hit the flop, both 78s and os are pretty tame hands. And that is the point Gordon was trying to make, many seem to think their chances of hitting a flush increase by 20%: just because your cards are suited, don't assume they are playable/more playable than they really are; and that the chances of hitting a flush are not significantly increased by having to paired hole cards.

Anyway, thx for clearing up the maths!!!!!!!

The assumption that leads to our miscommunication is that you don't consider how much stronger 78s is than 78o WHEN IT DOES HIT/PROVIDE A STRONG DRAW. The reason I said you are too preoccupied with pre-flop/showdown values (which amount to the same thing as the only fixed info we have on the strength of hands pre-flop is how they show down).

So, what I am saying is that although, at showdown, a flush draw with 78s will lose to ace high, DURING the hand we can play that same draw as if it were a strong made hand, thereby winning lots of pots through the villain folding or through our draw hitting. Obviously if all we did was checked or called, you would be correct - the value of the hand would be very low. But it's because we can be so aggressive with it (and because it can win stacks) that it is such a favourable hand to play.

[quate]
Unlike KA, where you can win with high card alone, unless you hit the flop, both 78s and os are pretty tame hands. And that is the point Gordon was trying to make, many seem to think their chances of hitting a flush increase by 20%: just because your cards are suited, don't assume they are playable/more playable than they really are; and that the chances of hitting a flush are not significantly increased by having to paired hole cards.
[/quate]
If you hold AK it is correct the suitness does not add much

However with 78 you play to hit the flush or straight, not top pair

Common odds when holding two suited cards:

flopping a flush (including the slight chance of a straight flush in some cases) 0.842%
flopping a four flush 10.944%

Common odds when holding connectors from 54 to JT

flopping a straight (including the slight chance of a straight flush in some cases) 1.306%
flopping an 8 out straight draw* 10.449%

So when playing for str8 or flush only, you almost doubled your chances by playing 78s to 78o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TLR

So when playing for str8 or flush only, you almost doubled your chances by playing 78s to 78o

---

And the times when BOTH hit, you're probably ahead in the hand even without a made hand on the flop. So you can jam it.

Cards have 2 types of features: suitedness and straightness. Suited cards like Q2 aren't very playable 'cuz you need to flop a flush draw. Unsuited connectors aren't very playable for two reasons: you need to flop a straight draw AND have the flop not help someone else's flush draw. However, suited connectors are playable whenever connectors are and whenever suited cards are. And huge combo draws are possible, a third feature neither of the others can have without lightning striking.