Playing No-Limit With A Plan

Great post Ed..

Good food for thought there.

In situations like this I find the Rule of 5 & 10 is quite useful. I believe it’s those times when you have to call between 5% and 10% of your stack that these strategic considerations you describe are vitally important, and the call surely can’t be automatic. I personally don’t call over 10% of my stack with a middle suited connector at any full table, perhaps with rare exceptions.

But for 5% of my stack or less, in cash play I will almost always call a standard raise with 76s or similar hands if I’m in one of the last 3-4 seats. I think it can be nearly automatic at that level, and I don’t think there are many circumstances that would cancel it out. I break down my odds very simply like this:

Roughly 1/3 of the time I’ll flop a very playable hand, which means either a primary draw (23%), or 2 pairs or better made (6%). When this happens my implied odds are huge.

Roughly 1/3 of the time I’ll flop just a pair, which can win small pots when no one else hits, and can improve. Certainly it can be played, albeit carefully. And sometimes it is combined with a primary draw too.

Roughly 1/3 of the time I’ll flop nothing and not put any more money in the pot.

So for risking 5% of my stack, I’m going to have a playable hand a high percentage of the time, and the chance to make a big stack-winning hand sometimes.

In your example you used 8% of the stack, and I completely agree that requires planning and strategy to play suited connectors. I may not be up to that skill level yet to risk that much on such a hand. But for 5%, the only thing that keeps me out is early position, and even then if the table is right I may call.

PokerTracker currently shows me winning 18% of the hands where I’ve played 76s, 29% with 54s, 21% with 87s, and 33% with 98s.

Just my $.02.

Sorry, to clarify: percentages I noted above are winning % for all times I was dealt the hand, not just those I put money in. Obviously the percent of wins when I put money in, is higher.

spadebidder,

The implied odds of flopping a draw aren’t nearly as good as you seem to indicate.

A really big draw might have good implied odds, e.g. an OE straight flush draw allows you to get a lot of money in at an advantage, and a 50/50 draw (flush + gutshot, flush + pair) gives you some fold equity at even money on the flop, which adds to your IO.

But most often, you’re going to flop something like a flush draw or OESD. Your hand isn’t there yet, and is an underdog to get there. You’ll probably want to call at least one flop bet, but that’s diminishing your IO. You might have to call a second bet or fold on the turn if your draw doesn’t come in then.

Moreover, if you hit a flush or a fairly obvious straight, you may not get much more action from your opponent.

Therefore, I think it’s plausible that the 19:1 implied odds you’re envisioning just won’t materialize. I agree with Ed, in a previous post — for SCs to be profitable calling a raise, you have to be willing to steal on occasion.

AKQJT -

Of course you’re right, so let me add some context. I’ve found that at low-stakes cash tables the implied odds tend to be a lot higher than they would be with better players. On the $.25/.50 tables on Full Tilt I have a nice positive ROI, and I find that most of my profit comes in big stack-size chunks 2-3 times a session.

There is always a player or two on those tables who can’t let go of TPTK or 2 Pair no matter what is on the board (sometimes even with just top pair weak kicker). I sit there all night seeing a lot of flops either as a limper or calling a 3x raise with a speculative hand, and the occasional lead when I have a big starting hand. I win a few small pots here and there, but I stack somebody probably half of the times I hit a set, straight, or flush, and make 50BB or more on the hand.

On those tables my stats might be something like 30% VPIP / 5% PFR, whereas when I play higher cash stakes or tourneys I’m probably more like 16%/10%. So I’m playing looser and more passively, seeing flops and waiting for the stack-winning hands.

I don’t play that way at all against a tough table or in any tourney situation.

Hey Ed, I would just like to say I think this is a very well written article which goes a long way to explaining why often suited connectors are over valued in NLH. The other night I was playing a live game in a casino and another player said he prefered 67suited to pocket aces. He said he had lost thousands with aces but had won loads with 67suited. I countered by suggesting as this was a live game environment and he wasn’t taking notes he couldn’t produce any evidence to prove his assertion. When I look at my poker tracker stats I find I make most money with aces.
Another friend of mine insists that “the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.” I strongly disagree with him but he is completely adamant about it. I understand than in really deepstacked games a player who plays aces really badly (by tipping the strength of his hand pre-flop and then refusing to release it post flop) a player could lose money with aces against a good player with J10 in position. But such a player will also show a loss with J10 (unless it is some bizarre player who plays J10 brilliantly but aces like an idiot). What do you think?

[...] primer lugar, os recomiendo la lectura de este artículo de Ed Miller, titulado "Playing No-Limit With A Plan". Es bastante posible que realicéis jugadas de forma automática, sin plantearos si [...]

“the pros say jack ten is a better hand than aces.”

Generally, I’d agree with you. But let’s add a qualifier to make us both happy … “to win a gargantuan pot, with a whole lot less risk.”

Why? Because you are going to let JT go a lot easier than your opponent will his AA. You basically say that in your followup.