Implied odds with SC's

This is something thats been bubbling around inside my head for a while. Does anyone use/have a general rule for implied odds with these? Say 56s - TJs? What about calling v's raising odds?

For instance if you have 100BB effective stacks and on the button and theres a 4xBB raise in front of you, thats 1/25 of the effective stacks and I believe your odds of making 2 pair or better are about 1/20? Thats pretty close though. Its an obvious raise if folded to you, since you add the chance of folds and picking up blinds, and also the potential to c-bet and take it down on the flop even if you miss, but what about calling? If you 3-bet you might up your implied odds if you do hit (your hands somewhat hidden), but if called you no longer have your odds to hit so it relies a lot on taking down pots where you might not have the best hand.

Interested in thoughts and how you guys approach it.

It's easier to suck out on 2 pair than it is a set. Also, 2 pair gives your opponent less room to hit the board.

For what it's worth, I think calling to hit something is a losing strategy unless you're multi-way and/or in a game that gives too much action. You need ot have a plan to contest some pots that missed everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnord

For what it's worth, I think calling to hit something is a losing strategy unless you're multi-way and/or in a game that gives too much action.

---

Yeah, that was pretty much my conclusion too, so I didnt like the option of flat-calling in the example given. I guess I'm interested in what the other options are and which of those work well. You're suggesting that a flat call is ok as long as I'm prepared to try to take away pots that likely missed others as well? I guess this would be best if I hit at least some kind of draw or something?

Pretty much, this is where reads help.

With less than 100bbs and being out-of-position, SCs are overrated.

There was no mention of playing SCs OOP with less than 100bbs in this thread...

i suppose something needs to be 'rated' in order to be over-rated... has anyone ever supported the strategy of playing SCs short-stacked OOP?

http://www.grinderschool.com/articles.php?article=1.1

JGB spent some time on the math and wrote a pretty good article that I think explains this well.

Thanks Jym, makes a lot of sense and backs up a lot of my conclusions (which is comforting).