Overplaying suited hands
I have the opinion that most people don’t understand the reason we play suited hands. Having a whopping 3% more equity is not it.
Many players think they look so pretty they play them from any position. They call a raise because they can hit a nutted hand and win a big pot.
No one welcomes discussion more than I do, as some of my ideas may be in need of an update. Ed Miller explained suited hands in a way that I understand and this is my takeaway:
The only reason we play suited hands over non suited hands is frequency. In the quest to avoid playing too many hands we play these slightly stronger hands and dump the non-suited stuff.
Thus, these suited hands are far weaker than most players understand. Now, I will shove a semi-bluff flush draw too in the right situation, but the play will be mostly about fold equity.
So, my point is that I think it’s a leak to get involved with every suited ace or connector. Playing these hands keeps you playing the right frequency of overall hands, but it should be no problem folding them utg or when the situation is not right, like at an aggressive table.
Everything is situational in poker, but it’s a leak to blindly play suited hands for their strength or value. Yet, I see people doing this nearly every session. Does the solver perspective change the Ed Miller takeaway?
9 Replies
I think Negreanu loves to play suited hands, I've seen him doing that a lot of times in his streams of online tournaments.
But indeed it makes a significant difference whether a hand that is exactly between GOOD and VERY GOOD, like A9 is suited or not. And it's not about the percentage. It's more about the additional outs that let you continue on the flop or turn when you have to decide whether you connected or not. Not to mention emergency situations, like pre flop all-in when you desperately need a miracle to win.
Three suited cards on the board are quite common, so if you hit a flush, it's a monster then. So because I have a choice - I choose suited hands too, they're quite easy to get 😀
Yeah, it's frequency and also it is harder to deny equity of suited hands than it is for off-suit ones. And they provide opportunities for very good turn bluffs.
So, my point is that I think it’s a leak to get involved with every suited ace or connector.
Ehh, suited connectors are indeed pretty garbage from early position, but suited aces are pretty good and you only fold the lowest of them from early position or against a very strong action when you are not involved. Suited connectors are still pretty strong by themselves and there are some spots where you can play them pre even against a relatively strong action, though you need to know these spots.
Suited aces also block an ace, making them a pretty neat preflop bluff and wheel suited aces have bonus wheel outs (A2s is garbage though), so all that added to their relatively low frequency due to them being suited makes them a sold bluffing candidate pre. Not to say that suited aces make nut flushes which allows you to cash out on your opponent's reverse implied odds from time to time.
I'm speaking from the positions of MTTs though, cash ranges are tighter and you may fold those much more often there, so I'm not talking for this variant of poker.
Yeah I do think the frequency aspect is poorly understood by a lot of people. Like for example on the types of flops that are unlikely to have hit anyone, if you are mostly playing suited combos that limits how many trashy unpaired overcard hands you will have. When you do have trashy overcards you will often have at least a BDFD that enables you to float or bluff at the pot.
Certain players play too many hands, calling with weak offsuit Broadways like QJo, KTo and stuff in spots where they shouldn't be. QJs is only 4 combos but if they're playing QJo that quadruples the number of combos to 16.
On a board that is unlikely to have connected with them you can attack aggressively with bluffs and there's really nothing they can do. They have to do something with all those trashy unpaired combos, and that usually involves overfolding at some point. Or if they just turn into a station and call down with king high or something you can start going for extremely thin value with weakish holdings.
All that being said hands like suited aces also have value as implied odds hands, especially at deeper stack depths. If you look at individuals' stats suited aces especially tend to perform well in many spots. There is value to being able to cooler people with flush over flush, plus you can semi-bluff a fair amount and that kind of thing.
Yeah I do think the frequency aspect is poorly understoodAll that being said hands like suited aces also have value as implied odds hands, especially at deeper stack depths. If you look at individuals' stats suited aces especially tend to perform well in many spots. There is value to being able to cooler people with flush over flush, plus you can semi-bluff a fair amount and th
Agreed, suited aces are way more valuable than suited connectors, especially at low stakes, because you run into more little flushes to dominate and sometimes discover you’re the only ace to hit the board.
The only reason we play suited hands over non suited hands is frequency. In the quest to avoid playing too many hands we play these slightly stronger hands and dump the non-suited stuff.
Related to this - a higher density of suited hands in range grants you more credibility on flush-completing runouts. Your opponent must content with the threat of running into a flush more often, and that benefits every hand in your range (not just your flushes).
3% is not small at all and that 3% is near nuts equity which has very good realization esp deep stack, so it effectively captures probably 5-6% more.
Related to this - a higher density of suited hands in range grants you more credibility on flush-completing runouts. Your opponent must content with the threat of running into a flush more often, and that benefits every hand in your range (not just your flushes).
I like the way you framed this, but
I don’t know about the credibility aspect, as my villains certainly don’t know that I’m only playing certain suited hands. But the ‘threat’ is real in low stakes where many play scared poker.
I like the way you framed this, but
I don’t know about the credibility aspect, as my villains certainly don’t know that I’m only playing certain suited hands. But the ‘threat’ is real in low stakes where many play scared poker.
This is akin to asking "does my range matter"? If your low stakes opponents aren't adapting to you, then what you represent with your actions is irrelevant.
But if that's the case, you can make sweeping adjustments to your preflop strategy. Maybe less suited trash (which doesn't get paid off enough) and more high card stuff (which gets too much credibility on dangerous runouts vs scared money players).
