Adding suited connectors to my range.

I am widening my range in order to make me less of a nit. I wanted to add 67s-10Js. I want to check I understand the basics of playing suited connectors. I am playing at the micro stake level.

Firstly you have to be aggressive with SCs. The amount of times you flop huge hands will be very few and fair between and if it's a flush you're unlikely to be paid off. Therefore you have to be willing to Cbet against players who often fold to cbets and re-raise against players who often cbet and fold when 3 bet. Therefore these stats of the potential opponents should be checked before I call a PFR or before undertaking a PFR.

The circumstances when I will play SCs

• if they are suited (3% more equity);
• if I am in late position;
• calling a PFR for no more than 5% of my stack;
• if my opponent and I have big stacks (greater implied odds);
• the potential opponents fold to a cbet often (I don't know a figure to put on this to make this profitable say 50%+); and
• or the opponent cbets often but folds to a 3bet a higher % of the time (again I have no idea what this figure should be)

Specific actions

If I catch a flush draw (2 suited cards on flop) and OESD I over bet the pot or re-raise all in if they bet.

If I catch a flush draw and GSSD I will be doing similar (not always depending on the pot odds and how many players I'm against) as above as I still have around 45% equity not including fold equity.

If I miss completely I have to be willing to c-bet a lot and re-raise c-bets to make these hands profitable. This is why I need to check my potential opponents hands before calling/raising with these hands pre flop.

If they re-raise my c-bet I will probably fold. If they call my re-raise and the turn card is a scary one I may have a go at it but I will most likely check/fold.

I would like your thoughts on whether I understand how to play these hands correctly, any advice about what %'s I should be looking for in my potential opponents stats and any other advice on how to play these tricky hands.

How big of a nit are you currently? You can get yourself out of nitdom without ever playing small SCs other than on the BTN.

6k hands 14/10. I guess the reason isn't just to get out of nitdom it's more to have a wider range that I know will be valuable when I move up the stakes.

Work on narrowing your Vpip/Pfr gap before adding anything new except on the BTN imo.

Yeah, I'm working on that. My last sessions have been:

11.4/9.2 400 hands
8.8/8 114 hands
15.7/13 256 hands.

Not perfect but all moving closer. What is an acceptable difference as PFR doesn't include calls and sometimes calling is correct with strong but not hands you're strong enough to 3bet with. eg. AQ/AJ/mid pairs.

Small volume but I think the trend is clear.

I'd say something like a 2% gap is standard for most TAGish players.

I'm not too far off then. How about my circumstances for suited connectors then WVH, sound reasonable?

I'm not a fan of calling a single opener with them in most circumstances tbh.

Is this because of the tricky situations you can end up in? I feel like I'm wasting an opportunity when I fold one of these hands in the CO/Btn with no raiser before me.

Well with no raiser in front of you opening them yourself from LP is fine.

I was saying I don't like calling a raise with them. So a player opens in EP/MP and we have 87s on the BTN. I like folding or 3betting (mostly folding) SCs better than calling

I'm with WV here. When you flat SC's, your plan for the hand is to either semibluff after the flop, or play for implied odds with a hand that isnt super great at making huge hands. Both plans kinda suck. I think you need the extra EV that being the preflop aggressor gives you to play the small SC's profitably.

However, being suited and connected does add a lot of value to a hand, especially if you're deep. Hands like QJs don't get enough love.

Yeah semi bluffs are hard in low stakes as you always have the chance of coming up against a station.

Not to mention how many difficult situations I will get myself into.

I'd try them from LP as the first to raise to hopefully pick up blinds or take the pot with a c-bet.

It looks like you're focusing on playing SCs in situations where the pots are likely to be two-handed. While you can play SCs profitably against one opponent if you pick your spots, at micros, it's not uncommon to see pots with multiple limpers. Although you don't have the same ability to win these pots via post-flop aggression, they present opportunities to limp as well. Seeing these flops is inexpensive, and when you do flop a strong hand, the chances of being paid off are better since any of those opponents can have enough to do so.

fyp

SCs are useful as air in a polarized 3-bet range or to balance your sets with big draws in your calling range.

the other thing i would consider is effective stack sizes, ie if your opponents are shortstacked you may not want to play them

Would it not be better to squeeze in this spot?

Definitely. If calling full stacks with SCs is questionable at best, calling shortys with them is horrible.
Not really a squeeze if it's just limpers but raising to collect all that bad player money is 100% correct.

Cuz balance is SO important.

Ok. Coming late to the discussion, but anyways.... I disagree with the above assertion, for the most part, in the micros.

I would only play SC under very specifc circumstances. This all pertains to my experiences at full-ring low-level micro-stakes, so for 6-max or higher stakes things may be totally different.

Anyway, for me the ideal situation is from LP, deep stacked table, with several EP and/or MP limpers (quite likely at the micros) or, at most a smallish raise and a couple of flat callers in front of me (somewhat less likely, but still happens fairly often at the micros). In short, when I risk only a small % of my stack and hope to flop big or at least a big draw.

If I play them, frequently I'm folding them- but if I do play them, I'm playing them strictly for implied odds value. I'd play them passively from LP, not aggressively. Before everyone cringes and I get flamed, remember we are talking the micros here.

Ask yourself how many times you have raised several EP/MP limpers and all or most of them have folded to your raise. In my experience this seldom happens. Generally, at the micros, if someone limps and/or raises, they are calling your LP raise unless you make it ridiculously large.

Raising with SC, then, would seem to be counter-productive unless 1) the limpers/ min-raisers will fold pre-flop to your aggression (not likely in my experience), or 2) assuming that they do come along that they will fold to a c-bet if you don't flop big (again frquently not likely that they all will fold to a c-bet at the micros).

Remember, they are generally not folding if they caught any part of the flop, they are not usually folding Ax for a single bet or c-bet, and thet are not folding any type of straight and/or flush draw for even a pot-sized bet, they may also not be folding any 2 random broadways either.

C9 and WVH seem to be fans of raising to punish the EP/MP limpers/min-raisers. And while this may be, and certainly probably is true, at higher stakes, remember, this is the micros. The limpers aren't folding to your LP raise/3-bet. After that, they are not folding on the flop if they have any chance at any type of hand (with several limp/callers at least some of them will fit this description).

Which leads me, finally, to my point. If I'm going to play them, play them IP, cheaply, deepstacked, and against players who over-value hands like TPTK. Play them passively pre since you're not folding anyone out anyway and your pre-flop equity is likely pretty bad against several villains. Assuming you flop good, then start firing away. If you just flop a draw I'd check or call smallish bets and not show any aggression that won't be respected anyway. The micros (again full-ring) is all about betting strong made hands for value and chack/calling smallish raises to see your draws cheaply.

Sorry this is so tl;dr .... Just wanted to explain my reasoning since I'm sure its likely to be disagreed with .

Playing passively against bad loose players is ridiculous.

Agreed.

Also I'm playing 10nl now after starting again at 4nl on Merge and I know C9 has played a lot of 2nl (he said it relaxed him or something like that). Trust me when I tell you that isoing limpers is a goldmine at all levels.

Depends. How do you plan to win the hand? Can we agree you are at least IP? What is your aggression from LP going to accomplish? Are you folding the limpers out? If yes then be aggressive.

In the real world, at the micros, you aren't folding them out. So, you want to play aggressively against bad, loose players when you are behind? Works well when you flop huge, less so when you don't flop much (which will be the usual outcome). SC, especially mid-range SC are rarely the best hand pre against several villains and your aggression isn't getting them out of the hand pre or post flop if they have any type of hand or draw. So, why are we being aggressive when we are behind and likely can't chase everyone out? (I'm assuming you didn't flop much here, obv.)

Ok, I might be a little more inclined to agree with this if it were possible. My premise is you usually aren't going to be able to isolate one of several limpers pre-flop And, even if you can, you are still likely behind their range and they aren't going anywhere unless you are prepared to be VERY aggressive on multiple streets. Remember, we are likely behind and our opponents will call the vast majority of our bets.

Why then are we being aggressive when we are behind and they won't respect our aggression? I'm seriously asking. I'm not trying to be smart or disagreeable. I simply don't understand your reasoning.

Still stick with this unless someone can show me a better way.

I am.

You seem to think that they know they're ahead of us. They don't. So we cbet most flops (they fold here most of the time) and continue betting on good turn cards (both scare cards and cards that give us equity).

Hmmm.... Ok, you've given me something to think about at least. Once I get back to playing cash perhaps I'll give this a try, but I foresee dire consequences for my BR.

And, FWIW, It's not that I think that they know that they are ahead of us. It's that I think they don't think that deeply/ don't care. In my experience (which is admittedly dated since I haven't played cash since pre-BF) if a couple of villains limp from EP/MP and they have, say, 2 Broadways, suited anything, A-anything, small/mid-PP, well that's a ticket through to the turn, at least, even facing normal-sized pre and post-flop bets or a PSB both pre and post-flop.

It's just by accident that they are ahead of us, not by any brilliant plan/read on their part. Never-the-less, they are ahead and are inclined to call rather than fold.... So.... I don't know. My initial thought is to play the hand cheaply, for value, until your draw gets there in some fashion. But, as I've said I'm willing to consider/try your approach although I'm skeptical of success.

You do bluff less in micros because they give your bet less respect simply due to the small stakes. But there is a difference between bluffing less and being passive.
After they call a c-bet on the flop (if they fold a high % of the time) I'm probably giving up at these stakes unless I get a card that adds to my equity or a scare card.

Hmmm.... Seems a difference of degree, then. Don't want to bluff, but don't want to be passive. Seems like a fine line. Perhaps thats why I generally just don't play SC. I consider the first bet, pre-flop, to be a bluff since you are almost certainly behind (I'm talking about mid-range SC here). Then, the C-Bet, if you haven't at least partially connected is, in essence, another bluff. And, frequently, you're playing against stations who will frequently call at least through the turn....

I don't know, just seems like not a good plan to me. I've been thinking lately if my bet-sizing isn't off or something since I'm rarely folding out multiple villains with a single C-Bet. I'm also usually not able to isolate well preflop once an EP player limps and starts a limp-fest among several others. Seems like if I raise from LP, almost for sure, either the first or second limper is going to call, and that's going to give each following limper more and more correct odds to call.

Ok, I get betting if the turn gives you a good card and a corresponding equity boost. It's the "scare card" thing I'm not too sure about. Scare card for whom? I mean assume a couple of EP/MP limp-callers pre-flop, both of whom call your C-Bet, what kind of turn cards cause you to fire again? An Ace? Surely that's a big part of what micro-stakes limpers are playing. Big broadway cards? Same thing. Something that puts flush possibilities out there? Again, many low-level players play any 2-suited cards. Just don't know what types of scare cards would/should cause me to double-barrel with unimproved SC on the turn.

As you can see, I'm kind of lost playing SC aggressively. They generally aren't profitable for me and I rarely play them. When I do, I play them passively as I've stated above. Not saying its right. Other, more knowledgeable, players certainly feel its wrong. But, I just don't see a way to play them very profitably unless you connect with the flop pretty well.

Read this. Then you may continue to talk. Otherwise, I'll just quote from that article until you get it.

OK, tried to read it.... forums down for maintenance. Will try again soon. I rarely go to "that" forum, maybe I should start. Anyway, thanks for the link, hopefully it gets back up soon.

OK, finally got the time to check out the link and its working fine now. Lots of good stuff there. I'm just getting started in it all, but right off the bat I can see that my bet-sizing IS off as I had speculated above. More to it than that of course, but as I said, I'm just getting started in that thread. Anyway, thanks for the awesome link C9.

i love playing suited connectors (78s or higher). I feel like you are very likely to hit a flop nicely with both flush and straight draws