Secret HQ Poker Forums

I'd be really interested to hear what people think about this (especially the author(s.)

Regarding suited connectors and light 3-betting:

Suited connectors do not play well in modern online games unless there is good steal potential.

They are great hands to 3-bet light with against opponents who don't tend to 4-bet. The reason is they make a decent hand often enough that it compensates for the money you expect to lose when a hand ends up with you c-bet bluffing. In other words, they play well postflop. But the higher profit comes from taking it down preflop, so if you have a good light 3-bet situation you should take it.

In looser games with deeper stacks and manyway flops, suited connectors can play better for make-a-hand value. But in a typical online $1-$2 game (6-max or full ring), they just don't have enough oomph. Remember, an extraordinary amount of online nl profit comes from taking down pots preflop.

Right idea but your calculations are only correct if you never steal the blinds preflop. Instead, you WILL steal the blinds.

Yes. I intentionally setup the calculation to ignore the times when our blind stealing was successful. The concept of raising more preflop to increase postflop expectation is only applicable to the times when villain calls preflop, as I understand it.

Now you treat the 8.5bb as dead money and calculate based on that to see if flop-betting is right. Usually it will be, but you only show an overall profit (meaning ending the hand with more money than you begin it with) if opponent folds to your pot-sized c-bet less than 4.5/(8.5+8.5) = < 4.5/17, which is less than 26.5% of the time. If he does fold that often then the line shows an overall profit. Otherwise you would normally want to raise less preflop if your opponents fold roughly the same to the smaller preflop raise.

We're saying the same thing (I think), I just did the calculation the other way around to reach the same conclusion.

(EDITED) The question is, is there any villain who calls the flop less than 26.5% of the time in a heads-up pot vs a button opener with a range that looks like any two cards? If there isn't, the concept seems to be not applicable to any villain we'll play against.

Loose players are, by definition, loose. They'll be making some marginal hands post-flop for sure, but they'll be loathe to fold them becuase they are loose.

Tight players are calling with a tight range and will hit the flop harder when they do hit it. They are not calling preflop with the intent to fold postflop when they get there. At least not for one bet on the flop, anyway. Given that their most likely holding of two big cards will pair over 33% of the time on the flop, I can't see them calling less than 26.5% on average.

Was that too convoluted? Where's Anna (our editor) when I need her? ;-)

Can she edit my posts too? I ninja edit every post I make multiple times.

but you only show an overall profit (meaning ending the hand with more money than you begin it with) if opponent folds to your pot-sized c-bet less than 4.5/(8.5+8.5) = < 4.5/17, which is less than 26.5% of the time.

I think you meant "calls your post-sized c-bet" instead of folds. We do not want villain to fold to our pot-sized c-bets less than 26.5% of the time so that our bluffing can show a profit.

I edited my post accordingly.

Regarding suited connectors and light 3-betting:

Suited connectors do not play well in modern online games unless there is good steal potential.

They are great hands to 3-bet light with against opponents who don't tend to 4-bet. The reason is they make a decent hand often enough that it compensates for the money you expect to lose when a hand ends up with you c-bet bluffing. In other words, they play well postflop. But the higher profit comes from taking it down preflop, so if you have a good light 3-bet situation you should take it.

In looser games with deeper stacks and manyway flops, suited connectors can play better for make-a-hand value. But in a typical online $1-$2 game (6-max or full ring), they just don't have enough oomph. Remember, an extraordinary amount of online nl profit comes from taking down pots preflop.

Are they part of your light 3-betting range? I get the concept that you want a nut range that you are happy to get in with, and so you want to balance your nut range with a bluff range (and that hands in the middle have too much expectation in calling to turn into a bluff by 3-betting, assuming you intend to fold to a 4 bet.) The exact nature of that range is what I can't decide on. Would you rather have big unpaired cards? Axs? Or 97s? Would you rather have big unsuited broadways against a really loose player but suited connectors against a tight one?

I am going to point Sunny and Ed to this. They put the kibosh on my theory stuff. :-)

Thank you. Tell them to stop oppressing you. We want the theory in all it's complexity and nuance.

I am going to point Sunny and Ed to this. They put the kibosh on my theory stuff. :-)

I'll second this. The raise, cbet line not being overall profitable was a bit of an eye opener.

Matt - I am having a tough time figuring out where the money comes from right now.

For example, in my last session, I played 1k hands. This was a VERY average normal session for me.

I got dealt a PP over TT once, it was AA, all in pre 3 ways, villain 1 turned a set of jacks, AQ made his str on the river.

I flopped 1 set - up against quads, ldo.

I flopped trips once - up against a boat, ldo.

I made 1 flush (nut flush) - up against a boat ldo.

Tons of other garbage where TP, 2p, etc no good postflop.

I have really been wondering if it is even worth it to play post flop poker any more. Can you break down where you think the profit came from in the games Sunny played while writing the book:

Like:

Preflop steals: 27%
Postflop steals: 32%
Showing down Best hand: 41%

or whatever?

Are they part of your light 3-betting range?

See if you can find the 3b video by "RedJoker" out there in the interwebs. It is a really good answer to your question (although off topic, I know).

I'll second this. The raise, cbet line not being overall profitable was a bit of an eye opener.

Just to be clear: not profitable in a complete vacuum, assuming you don't steal the blinds, or happen to make any sort of hand at all.

DonkHero,

Sounds like you are just running bad.

Suited connector question:

Yes they are an ideal part of a light three-betting range when light three-betting works to your advantage. There are conditions under which they are NOT a good part, but those conditions aren't often met in current $1-$2 6-max.

Matt

DonkHero,

Sounds like you are just running bad.

Suited connector question:

Yes they are an ideal part of a light three-betting range when light three-betting works to your advantage. There are conditions under which they are NOT a good part, but those conditions aren't often met in current $1-$2 6-max.

Matt

I still dont see it , i will have to wait till i get to the 3beting light section in the book but until then im never going to 3bet my 78s , i just dont see why i would.

Page 67

Example 1. Your 27/9 opponent limps under the gun, and you
make it $10 on the button with Aâ™ 6â™ . The blinds fold, and the limper
calls.
The flop is J♦9♠8♦. Your opponent checks.
Bet about $15. This flop is coordinated and leaves you with few
prospects to improve. It hits many of the hands your opponent might
have limped in with. Overall this situation is relatively inhospitable
for a continuation bet.
Yet we think you should bet anyway. The flop misses many of
your opponent’s hands, just as it also hits many of them. And often
when your opponent has hit the flop and does call, he’ll have hit the
flop weakly, holding just a draw or a weak pair. Depending on the
turn and river cards and action, you may be able to steal a fair
percentage of pots on a later street. Your opponent plays weakly
enough that you should try a continuation bet even in this relatively
poor scenario

I dont think ive ever came across a video , article or post that said cbet this flop , to me its one of the rare flops i wouldnt cbet , but now that im cbeting here is it right to say vs a weak tight opponent my cbeting stat should be 100%

It's hard to put yourself in the head of people who limp call utg, but if the utg limping range is small pockets, suited connectors and random big cards I think you're going to get a fold around 50% of the time, but it really does depend on the player.

If you get called, you're always behind, even to the odd ones that will happily float you out of position with the AQ they bizarrely limp called with.

Page 67

Example 1. Your 27/9 opponent limps under the gun, and you
make it $10 on the button with Aâ™ 6â™ . The blinds fold, and the limper
calls.
The flop is J♦9♠8♦. Your opponent checks.
Bet about $15. This flop is coordinated and leaves you with few
prospects to improve. It hits many of the hands your opponent might
have limped in with. Overall this situation is relatively inhospitable
for a continuation bet.
Yet we think you should bet anyway. The flop misses many of
your opponent’s hands, just as it also hits many of them. And often
when your opponent has hit the flop and does call, he’ll have hit the
flop weakly, holding just a draw or a weak pair. Depending on the
turn and river cards and action, you may be able to steal a fair
percentage of pots on a later street. Your opponent plays weakly
enough that you should try a continuation bet even in this relatively
poor scenario

I dont think ive ever came across a video , article or post that said cbet this flop , to me its one of the rare flops i wouldnt cbet , but now that im cbeting here is it right to say vs a weak tight opponent my cbeting stat should be 100%

I would agree that vs weak-tight opponents love to fold, you should really fire away on c-bets. It's also worth mentioning that if this player were weak tight, his UTG limp/calling range is probably almost exclusively pocket pairs lower than TT. Unless he flopped a set, he is probably very scared of this board and wants no part of it.

With looser players, it gets more complicated. As a general rule though, if you only get a fold 50% of the time, I think it's an easy bet. Every breakeven bet you make will help craft an image that you can exploit. If you're betting all the time, when you manage to flop a great hand, people aren't going to believe you and you'll have a much easier time getting paid off.

I think I've seen videos that advocate 100% c-betting vs opponents who have a fold to c-bet over 80 for a decent sample.

It's hard to put yourself in the head of people who limp call utg, but if the utg limping range is small pockets, suited connectors and random big cards I think you're going to get a fold around 50% of the time, but it really does depend on the player.

Small PP - missed , most likely will fold

SC - Hit this flop from so many sides its very unlikely hel fold to a cbet

Random big cards - Jacks hit , good chance hel also call with overcards w/ straight draw or gutshots and or FD / backdoor FD

The more i look at the flop the more hands i see that will call a cbet , and the more i want to go back to my old ways of checking a missed flop so wet , i dont think the fact that he limp/called from UTG changes thinks , i get the impression the authors want you to cbet this flop a large % of the time weather villian limp called or just calls our PFR IP/OOP