|
|
 Suited Connectors and Bluffing
Daven and I got together and decided to write some cool articles to help us improve as well as spark discussion/thought in the BC as well. Enjoy.
The Bluff Call
By JKDS
Introduction
We’re playing some random holdem game (HU, 6max, FR, w/e) at some random stakes (100bb deep no antes). Some villain raises, and we look down at a small suited connector like 76s. We have roughly 3 options. We can 3bet bluff, call, or fold.
3bet bluffing is fairly well talked about http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...he-163171.html qed. Read this article as understanding why we might want to 3bet bluff instead of call will be critical. In short though, if villain is folding enough preflop then we can pretty much just 3bet any two cards and show a profit. Preferably, we might want a hand that has blockers so that villain folds more often. Alternatively, we could have a hand that flops well so that if villain does call we will have solid equity post a good amount of the time. For this latter reason, 3betting with a suited connector like 76s could be profitable. Doing this in position is preferred as well since we’ll see more free cards, can bluff post flop with more information, and can control the size of the pot better. There are other reasons as well, but those are probably the most important in this case.
Another option is to just fold. Our hand is seven six high, realistically we’re behind everything in villains opening range for even the most ridiculous villains. Maybe villain has tendencies that make him an unprofitable target for a 3bet bluff or a call…maybe theres villains behind us that will give us trouble a lot. Who knows, but folding is always 0 EV so its not a bad play for sure and it should be the standard option with this type of hand. We can 3bet bluff more successfully with hands that block villains continuing range and we can call for value against villain with hands that we’re strong enough to 3bet for value. Adding a hand like 76s to either range means we’re gonna be bluffing at some point and at micros this might just not be profitable and we just don’t really need to do it to beat these games. This is gonna be the standard response with such a hand.
The last option is the most interesting to me and is going to dominate the discussion in this thread. I welcome any discussion about 3bet bluffing or folding as well, but I feel these topics are well talked about and aren’t as interesting. So let’s get cracking on why Im calling a call a bluff call (ha im so witty).
Calling for Value in General
There are basically two ways make money in poker, we either do something for value or do something as a bluff. We can bet for value, and bet as a bluff…which is fairly common knowledge on this site by now. If not, feel free to discuss. Less well known, and the reason for this post, is that we can also call for value and call as a bluff (obviously, if its as a bluff we need more cards to come). I’m going to discuss what I mean by that shortly.
Perhaps the best example of calling for value is when we have a hand that won’t have enough equity against a continuing range to 3bet but is a favorite against the current opening range. For instance, suppose we have AJs on the btn and a 12/10 with a 30% ATS opens in the co. We guess that his range is about the same as a pokerstove 15% range (not accurate of course for most villains…but this is my villain and this is what he opens :P). Just thinking about calling or raising for value, we have 54% against his current opening range. However, we also estimate that if we 3bet, his range shrinks to 77+, KQ, AJs+, AQo+ which we have 41% equity against. However, when we called villain had worse Jacks and worse Aces in his range and other broadways that might pay us off when we hit. A lot of money for a hand like AJ at the micros comes from ripping it out of hands like A8 which flopped TP and cant get away. If we 3bet though, these hands fold and we’re likely taking a less ideal route than just calling since we’re now not only behind villains range but also because villain will be less likely to put money in while behind Think that if we flop TP against his new 3bet calling range, we don’t dominate anything, are dominated sometimes, and villain will have a set every now and then. We get owned basically and lost value.
Another way to call for value though is the concept of implied odds. For instance, suppose a super nit opens in early position and we know his range is AA exactly and that he’ll always stack off regardless of what the flop is. We might consider then calling with 88 for value, since if we hit a set we will stack villain with him putting in more money with a worse hand. This is the premise for setmining, another well talked about topic. A more concrete argument is the following:
We will flop a set about 10.7% of the time. Let us assume villain always stacks off and can never improve past his pair of aces. Then if he opened for 4x and we’re 100bbs deep, our expectation is
EV = 100bbs *10.7% -4bbs*89.3% = 7.1bbs.
We then might assume that villain might not stack off so much so on average we only make 60bbs when we hit a set, or that he might improve to beat us (say villain flops a set when we do 1% of the time which is about right). Then our expectation might look like this
EV=60bbs *9.7% - 100bbs *1% -4bbs*89.3% = 1.2bbs so still profitable
So then we might reason that if we hit often enough, and villain stacks off often enough, and villain doesn’t improve to beat us often enough, and we wont get raised out preflop, then we can profitably call someone for value without being ahead preflop. That’s a lot of conditions! With hands like 88 though, we might also be good enough without hitting a set so theres that as well.
Cliffs: We can call for value with a hand that is ahead pre but cant profitably 3bet or with a hand that has sufficient conditions to call while behind (like set mining).
Calling for Value with Suited Connectors
Well our old friend 76s, as we mentioned in the ‘we could fold’ part, is just 7-6 high. Its not hard for someone to raise a range that is completely ridiculous and still be massively ahead preflop. So we cant call for value in the sense of it being ahead of our opponents range.
What about the implied odds angle? Well remember those conditions? We need to make enough money when we hit to overcome what we lose by calling in the first place. In the setmining example, we hit 10% of the time, stacked villain fairly often, and villain couldn’t improve too often. But what happens now?
Same approach, suppose we always stack villain and go from there. We’ll flop two pair + about 5.62% of the time. Our EV then is 5.62%*100bbs -4bbs*94.38% = 1.85bbs. Do you see a problem yet? I do. Our EV dropped by 5.9bbs in the set mining example as soon as we factored in that we lose a little bit when we get stacks in and also don’t stack him as often. However, sets are well disguised hands…two pair, trips, flushes, striaghts, and quads are not or leave the deck crippled. We wont be paid as often. Also many of these hands can get sucked out on more. For instance villain might have a flush draw 50% of the time (look at ps for proof) when we flop a flush and win 30% of the time. That’s more than the 1% where we lost before. We can already see that we’re gonna have a bad time.
For curiosity sake, how much changes if we’re unsuited and unconnected?
We’ll flop 2pair+ now about 3.47% of the time. 3.47%*100bbs – 4bbs*96.53 = a negative number. So calling for implied odds with like 53o is definitely bad regardless of circumstances ever ever ever ever ever except for games with more than 100bbs.
So just to be clear here…when we call with a suited connector type hand or a connector hand IT IS NOT BY ANY MEANS FOR VALUE OR IMPLIED ODDS
Calling as a Bluff
Ok what I mean here is that we’re calling with a hand that is certainly not the best hand now, but we feel we can exploit villain enough post flop that it doesn’t matter. Obviously, it helps to be in position when doing this.
Who is a profitable target for this? Maybe someone who c/fs too much instead of cbetting. Maybe someone who cbets too much and then c/fs the turn. Someone who cbets and folds all but two pair + to a raise. These are all good ppl to call bluff against. Things we’re considering are basically the same as 3bet bluffing. We want a hand that might block villains continuing range, or a hand that has solid equity when called. For instance, if we hold KQ and the flop comes J72, we might reason that not only is this a dry flop for most villains, but KQ also blocks several Jx combos that he might have and by bluffing we might get Ax to fold or like 44 to fold or something. Our original plan was probably calling for value preflop in this case, but when we missed completely we find ourselves in a good spot to bluff. Alternatively, we might reason that 7s6s might be a good hand to bluff a habitual cbetter on a 852r board. We expect villain to fold a lot, and when he doesn’t we will hit our draw enough to still show a profit.
So what hands might you want to call preflop in order to bluff later? Suited Connectors!!! Suited connectors will hit boards that miss villain like a 852 board, they will flop a draw about 20% of the time and a pair like 30% of the time yielding a good chance to improve to two pair or a straight/flush if villain continues after we bluff. We also do have that 5% chance of flopping two pair+…but that’s not our main incentive in playing the hand as explained earlier. There’s also something about Shania here that I could talk about, but I’d rather not. Other hands that might be good include hands we originally called for value with but missed the board because they might block villains continuing range. Any hand that either rmakes it more likely villain will fold or makes it so we’re not hating life when villain instead calls is great.
Call Bluff or 3bet Bluff?
This is for you to decide. Ive written a lot and am tired, but basically you look down at a nice suited connector…and villain opened in mp. Do we A) fold (std option remember) B) Call bluff, or C) 3bet bluff??? Which villains is one preferred over the other? What are we considering when we bluff? What factors help us out? Did you see why suited connectors work out well?
Some thoughts on playing suited connectors and one gappers
By Daven
Introduction
"basically, whenever you call or raise with suited connectors you are beginning a bluff" - the IRC, yaawn, spoon, and others
"but they're sooted" - the beginner circle
"calling as a bluff is one of those things that sound sophisticated. Many things sound sophisticated. Dr. Anger sounds like a sophisticated internet poker pseudonym, until you realise…. Designer drugs sound sophisticated. Thing is that, if you’re not careful, all these sophisticated things can end up in disillusion – sophistication can fuck you up” – me
Ok, so suited connectors (SCs) are hole cards of the same suit that have no gap between them. Examples are 8s7s, QsJs, etc. Suited gappers are cards of the same suit with a one card gap in between them, e.g. 5s7s, 9cJc, etc. and play so similarly to SCs that this whole discussion applies to them as well.
In general you are playing these cards in the hope of flopping unexpected nut hands (weird 2pr, flushes, straights), high equity draws (e.g. open ended straight + flush draws), or successfully bluffing with low equity (why?!). Thing is, most of the time you’ll flop air or middle pair types of hands… As for all hands, playing these is much easier in position than out of position, and with initiative.
Playing suited connectors – by position.
Early position
facing a raise = fold, pretty much end of story
unopened pot = Never limp. If you always open fold these hands at the micros you’ll do fine. If you add one or two combos only to your ep ranges it won’t cost you much and will probably be slightly +EV. If you’ve just read about Shania for the first time and decide to start opening all SCs and suited gappers from EP then you’d better check that you still have easy deposit options available to you. This is due to the Fundamental Theorem of Micro-Donks = “micro-donks (they?/you?) call too much”. Remember that most of the time SCs and gappers flop not much. Which means you will often have to bluff to win the pot, cos you don’t even have high card showdown value. Having to bluff to make a positive return from too much of your EP range is going to result in many situations where stations beat your bottom pair 6-kicker when they call 2nd pair 3 streets. That’s ok tho. You then get to moan about how hard it is to beat the micros where everyone calls too much and you can’t even bluff. You’ll enjoy receiving the inevitable advice to “move up where they respect your raises” and you should consider taking this advice if you’re hell-bent on running endless bluff-lines vs nits and you don’t want to improve (I suggest full ring on full tilt poker, at stakes between 50 and 200nl, kthx).
Middle and late position
After limper(s) = you can fold. Again, this is rarely awful. You can limp behind. This is ok if you are confident that there won’t be a lot of raising going on behind you. This is especially relevant due to multiple limpers inducing a raise too big to call profitably. The later position you are, the more likely it is that you will get to see a limped pot in position = the less spew from limping behind. You can raise. If you raise you will likely be taking it down preflop (win) or playing a raised pot in position vs a fish (should be win). At micros, and even small stakes, it is also unlikely that you will be facing a 3b bluff so this isolation play is fine – but note that it is better to isolate either vs chronic fit-folders, or with hands that will end up with some showdown value.
After a raise (with or without callers) = folding is never bad. Calling raises with SCs may seem cool (they can flop so good!) but it’s overrated. This is mostly because you haven’t really considered the raison d’etre de call. Are you hoping to stack villain, or hoping to bluff villain? Thing is, if you are calling as bluff and then get all surprised when you flop a nut straight and win a small pot. Or you call for big pot postflop nuts value (spew) and then get annoyed that your postflop bluffs fail. Calling multiway gets better, but only because you add cooler-value to your hand. Downside is that calling multiway opens you up to being squeezed and taking the preflop call-fold line which isn’t typically profitable.
Or you raise.
Raising = 3betting in this situation. This heads into the “polarising your 3-betting range” territory. There are loads of articles around that address 3-betting. Typically, 3-betting should occur with 2 sub-ranges
1 = nut/value (e.g. QQ+/AQ+)
2a = air with blockers (A7s, AQ)#
2b = air with ok equity vs a likely calling range
2c = air that is kinda worthless
SCs fall clearly into the 2b-2c subranges.
These ranges should be weighted according to villain’s tendencies. As an example, against a player with 30% fold to 3b, 65% call, 5% 4b it should be clear that you should simply widen your value range and dump most of the bluffs.
What does this mean? It means that when you 3b your SCs it is clearly as a bluff, and that you don’t expect villains to be calling with worse. Cool thing is that you can comfortably fold to a 4bet and are in position with a well disguised hand when called. You win preflop often which is always good, and it’s good for your nit image. But… a word of caution. Choose your spots. Your 3rd 3bet vs the same villain at the same table should probably not be with 46s. Don’t be 3-betting the 6-2 who opened from UTG and was called by the 7-3 in UTG+1.
Some quick points to consider for calling vs raising with SCs.
a) how likely is it that you will be bluffed at?
b) Which is likely to result in taking down a reasonable pot with air preflop?
c) When are you likely to play a medium sized pot in position and with a well disguised hand?
Hopefully it is clear that you should be folding most of the time when holding SCs and facing an EP open, 3-betting occasionally, and calling only very rarely.
From the blinds = 3b or fold, mostly fold except occasionally as squeeze vs a weak open range with high fold to 3b, or vs a steal with high fold to 3b. Call very occasionally vs a steal, if you must. But folding is better.
Not all SCs are created equal.
This may be the most important thing that is commonly overlooked. High cards are better than low cards. Some SCs have higher cards than others. Obvious?
QJs >>>>42s
This comes down to showdown value. When your KsJs 3b is called by a range of 66-TT you end up winning at showdown a lot of the time that you choose to pot control. The same cannot be said for 54s. You’re a lot happier stacking off with JsQs on As7s4d2s than you are with 3s4s on the same board. QJs is a whole lot nicer than 67s on 89T.
Later I’m going to add a whole bunch of hand histories as examples.
For now, it’s davenout.
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by d0zer
. Gonna reread and think about it for a bit and I'll revisit this one tomorrow.
