I don't love Suited Connectors

Frank7Chipman said:

The greatest book ever on Holdem in Doyle's Super System, and in it he raves about Suited Connectors. Taking this advice, I religiously am playing these cards, especially calling in favorable position and sometimes betting closer to the button. While it is not scientific, I am not impressed by how often these hands pay off for me. Sure, when they do hit it is possible to win a big pot, but they don't seem to hit very often on the flop and I often am pushed off them by more premium hands. Can anybody tell me why I should love suited connectors?

Click to expand...

vinnie said:

You should remember that the games Doyle describes in Super System were not the 100xbb max buy-in games that you're probably playing in right now. His games are structured a little differently, so let's talk about how to convert them to a two blind game.

A three blind game of 25-50-100 he prefers to sit with 20,000. That's 200 times the big blind, or 114x the sum of the blinds each round. Compare that with a modern game where the buy-in is 100 times the big blind or 67 times the sum of the blinds. In short, these were much deeper games.

In that game, a pot sized raise of $400 and a call (assume the blinds all fold) will leave you with a 1,200 pot (1175 but who is counting). That's an SPR over 16. Suited connectors play really well with these high SPRs. And, the games were 9 handed and a lot more passive. You might get several callers. So, your SPR would still be fairly high, and you would have plenty of people left to pay you off. And these were minimum buy-ins, he talks about buying in higher and wanting to cover the biggest stack at the table. These were deep games. There was also a lot less three betting and four betting and so on.

In a modern game, you raise to 3.5xbb, get called, and the pot is 8.5xbb on the flop. Now the SPR is around 11. If you get more callers, you benefit by having a higher chance that someone can pay you off, but the SPR falls dramatically. If one person and both blinds call (4 opponents), the SPR is now under 7. Suited connectors don't play well with medium and low SPRs because they take time to develop. You also can end up getting 3-bet squeezed and having to fold them.

Suited connectors are fine, they are good for keeping your range balanced and making it so that you really can hit most flops. But, you won't lose much money if you don't play them 6-max and 100xbb deep at the lower limits. You don't gain a whole lot when you do. But, as you and your opponents both get deeper, they go way up in value. If you're 200xbb deep and your opponent is as well, you should be looking to play a lot of pots in position with those suited connectors.

They do have a lot of value. And Doyle isn't wrong about them, but you have to put them into the context of the environment.

Click to expand...

Debi said:

Excellent point.

Click to expand...

vinnie said:

I can say it is because I speak from hard-learned experience. I first started playing NLHE with the Moneymaker boom. At the time, Super System was the most popular recommendation for No Limit Hold'em strategy. It isn't that Doyle doesn't talk about stack sizes, but he definitely does not make it clear how significantly the stack sizes impact the way hands are played. To make matters even worse, tournaments were all the rage and I was determined to build my bankroll through freerolls without making a deposit. So, I was playing games where the stacks are under 50xbb much of the time. And, I couldn't understand how to play suited connectors in a profitable way!

Eventually, I learned more. I started to pay a little bit more attention to stack sizes before considering how hands would play. I got a sense of when to play those cards. I'll admit it wasn't until reading (and really understanding) "Professional No-Limit Hold'em" and the discussion of SPR and commitment that I truly understood what Doyle saw in the suited connectors in Super System. I went back and reread that part of the book and paid attention to the stack sizes (when he mentions them) and the SPR. Suddenly, I could see what he was talking about.

Also, his math is a little unclear and makes it seem that you can play these with 100xbb stacks. He says he wants to put in about 5% of his stack with them (maybe 10% if he is rushing). That would give an SPR near 10 (totally reasonable but on the low side). You can sometimes get this sort of situation with 100xbb stacks, but it's not common. I would think that 5% of the stacks (heads-up) is probably the upper limit on how much you can profitably invest, unless you have a significant amount of steal equity against that specific opponent post-flop. His example of putting in 5% is where he raised to $300 and his opponent reraises $700 more. So, a $2000 pot. And he talks of stack sizes of $25,000. So, closer to the SPR of 13 that make those cards pretty lethal.

So, he does talk about stack sizes with these cards, but he doesn't emphasize them. And consider what happens if he just got called in the above example (which is says is the more common thing because people don't like to play back at him). You end up with a $600 pot and $25,000 stacks. . . and SPR of 40! That's four pot-sized bets. Suited connectors play insanely well there.

I missed all that subtlety when I first read Super System. I also had trouble understanding why he thought the suited connectors were so great. Yeah, you could hit a big hand, but you lost so much those times when you missed that it wasn't making any real money.

Click to expand...