All I'm saying regarding this range is that you'd better damn well be expert postflop (which the last two posters may very well be). Suggesting this as a range for less expert players (I won't go so far as saying for everyone, although I think arguments could be made for that) is a recipe for disaster, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Actually you just need to be average at postflop to make that range profitable (expect maybe 76s-87s from EP). However that range fails to include other profitable hands such as AJo and KQo.

I think you might be very pleasantly surprised if you decided to simply follow their advice for maybe your next 10-20 sessions. I think your long term results can stand this small deviation.

I usually play 22+ from EP, but I think realistically 22-44 should most often just be dropped. I think AJo/KQo/67s/A5s all do better for me than these hands. Or maybe I'm just on an awful run with my flopped sets for the past gazillion hours...

As I say, if anything, I'm tinkering my game to actually play *nittier*, so I'm actually dropping a lot of these hands from my limping range in EP and simply folding them (most of these are very speculative hands, imo, and I'm not convinced they are profitable OOP at raisey tables against all but the absolute lol worst of opponents). I'm not sure where the cutoff line should be with regards to small pairs, but lately if I'm dealt a 6 as the first card in EP I don't even look at my second card before folding.

GeachtotheirownG

Oh that is nitty, love it lol

Suited connectors are great, because they allow us to defend against C-bets on the flop with hands have have a good chance of improving their equity when the turn card comes.

Example: A flop of A 9 4

I would rather have the 7 8 than 8 8

This seems crazy to me. How often does 87ss improve to a hand that's better than 88 by the river? Can't be significantly more often than 88 makes a set by the river. At least with 88 we're ahead of his bluffs.

The folding-when-only-looking-at-one-card is a trick I picked up somewhere (perhaps here?); it's purpose is to prevent tilt when my folded 55/A5s would have won a big pot and perhaps put me on tilt.

GIfakelookattheothercardjustsonooneknowswhatI'mdoi ngG

You can't become an expert without trying.


I believe his point is that you will never feel comfortable with 88 here unless an 8 binks. With 87s there are a lot more good turn cards that can improve your hand and allow you to barrel with confidence. I'd much prefer that Ace be the spade though.

I think a better example would be A7x2x, would you rather have 87 or 88? You should be a lot more confident barreling with 87 given that your equity is 2.5x better than 88 vs AK/AQ/AJ type hands that are unlikely to fold.

This thread have becomed really good, lots of good posts and food for thought from several posters.

Your example is much better. In your example we already have a bluff catcher but have more ways to improve. The main benefit of having 88 in your example is that we're ahead of A7.

In the prior example 88 is a much better hand.

ty Sol Reader!

Yeah thanks Sol Reader. Excellent posts ITT.

Ok. 1st of all, I need to try & textplain myself, which is extremely hard to do. Which is why you thought I was knocking your posts.

Your posts are very enlightening & I concluded that your knowledge was abundantly deeper than mine. Your posts & the fact that you've traveled all over the world, as noted in an earlier post in the thread, led me to believe that you do not normally play 1/2. Who can travel the world playing 1/2 & 1/3 NL?

Just because I say that I can't wrap my head around playing A5s UTG, doesn't mean I think you're wrong & I'm right. Or, that your thoughts on playing A5s has to somehow make you a weaker player in my mind, since I've always believed A5s UTG [8 handed] is garbage. Well, not if I can limp in with a minor raise to $5 & get 6 callers who play bad post flop.

Sol Reader, I don't know who you are, but it became obvious to me early on that you are not a 1/2 & 1/3 player. IMO, you play higher stakes games. That doesn't mean your posts are not beneficial to me. Anyone who can make me think, or question my own beliefs, is a good poster. I hope you keep on postin'!

I just hope I can question what you say without you thinking I'm putting you down. Teachers can't teach if they don't let their students question!

As far as the range I gave them go that I gave them, yeah, it was too tight.

Point taken.

So you're saying that by me o/r UTG with A5s that some of my Vs will fold A6s-A9s? Certainly not ATs/AJs & will definitely call with AQs+, or raise.

So that's more suited ace combos than A2s-A4s.

If there folding A2s-A4s & A6s-A9s, that's 21 combos removed from the tight range I gave them. So what hands do you make that up with & then add even more to come to a higher calling range than I?

Well said!

Yes, but I was agreeing with you about T9s, while still debating A5s.

You can't blame me for saying to myself, everything but the bold part: "Self, so much of what he says is point on, I'm looking forward to reading more of his posts. This A5s UTG position of his seems off base, however, due to the fact that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, I'm going to start playing it. Even though I have no idea who he is."

Would you think that way?

Then it got really out of hand, as I either didn't come close to textplaining myself, glossed over what you had previously written, or both.

Anyways, apologies if I insulted you. Hope to read many more posts from you.

In your raise to $5 UTG scenario, typical 1/2 players will call insanely wide, I figure something like {88-22, AJs-A2s, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T3s+, 95s+, 85s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, AQo-A2o, K2o+, Q5o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o}.

"Tight" ones might just call with {TT-22, AQs-A2s, K2s+, Q6s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, 54s, AQo-A2o, KTo+, QTo+, JTo}

We have plenty of raw equity against both ranges even 5-way.

And if half the table is typically calling, they have to be calling closer to the top range.

Thanks for the kind words everyone, I'm glad I've been of some help.

I want to reiterate that this is not some information unique to me, and I am for the most part just sharing what I had learned in reading, learning, discussing, and sharing information with other good poker players. As always, one should be careful in simply taking the word of one supposed authority or expert, so for those who are interested or newly introduced to these perspectives, I highly encourage you to look at a lot of the information out there by consistent and long term winners, or simply hand histories posted of them, finding trends, and trying to understand why those trends are (not all trends are correct, and some often revert back to their original states, but it's useful to find out why good poker players attempt them, and go through those experimentation though processes "with them" so to speak)

Aside from RIO, Doug Polk give some very accessible content that is easily bridged with more complex concepts applied with rigour.

I've played like 1000 hours+ of 1/2, though admittedly, the 1/2 in Europe and UK often have higher caps and might play closer to 1/3. I've played 600+ hours of 1/2 with less than 500GBP cap though, and have a very high winrate relative to what is usually posted on these forums. I've posted a bunch of stats and graph in the bankroll and finance thread. Most good players don't stay playing 1/2 and 1/3, which is why you don't see many of the higher bounds of potential winrates posted. The reason I have is that after blackfriday I'd lost 80% of my roll, had to rebuild it, and played it a lot of lower stakes, and kept taking failed shots and having to grind it back up again (also 1/2 in UK is a bigger game than 1/2 in America generally speaking so it wasn't so bad).

Nowadays while waist listed on higher games (there are usually few tables of 5/10 or even 2/5 in the UK, so you have to wait to get on) I still play 1/2 and 1/3, and I try to treat whatever stakes I play seriously and as a learning experience.

I find that player lower stakes can train you in playing against fish/worse players, and allow you to experiment with alternate bet sizings and speech plays.

Fair enough, I very much do respect that. I think there were several people disagreeing, some being more disrespectful than others, that it's hard not to mix the sentiment of various posters a little.

I meant the offsuit combos. I assume people don't fold the suited combos, no, but there are way fewer suited combos of Ax that we would run into as well.

As for you playing it, I personally think experimentation a great way of learning, but you could always take it slowly and start by reading up hands by good players where they open these smaller suited aces, see the various situations they get into, and how they manoeuvre them, instead of jumping straight into it. Even if it IS profitable, you'd have to learn a different skillset than before, after all, so you can't expect to immediately do well with it. That said, I think it's a lot easier to avoid losing a lot of money than one might think if you just keep in mind you have a speculative hand that has lots of barrel potential, and hitting an ace only doesn't generally make you a value betting hand, unless headsup, and then, only for a street or two usually.

A simplified but practical way of looking at it if you're just starting is if you play it like KK on an Ax board, but which you block one of the Ax so your opponent might be a bit less likely to have an ace.

No harm done, I don't mean to be aggressive. Sometimes when you have to explain something that feels obvious to you to many different people over and over again, you end up either being less patient, or just give up explaining altogether. I think a lot of people choose the latter, and perhaps sometimes I feel a little entitled to be a bit impatient since I do choose to take time to explain, and sometimes I get a bit rude. I guess that's just how posting in forums are though, please don't take it as a personal thing.

What range would you rather play? I think it's supposed to be about a 14% range.

I get the opposition but I'm pretty sure they don't get the tightness of a mostly suited range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think AJo/KQo are +EV from EP to open unless the table is super soft. Dominated by better way too often. Would rather open 65s than AJo.

I open all PPs from any position cause sets (even bottom set) are just insanely +EV at the stakes I play. If it's not +EV to open 22 UTG that's a sign I need a table change.

I've finished reading Ed Miller's "The Course" and the OP has mischaracterized Ed Miller's conclusions regarding suitedness. His summation of Ed's arguments leave out the most important points and distort others. For reference here is the relevant portion of the OP.

Ed Miller actually says you should virtually NEVER limp with these suited hands for $2 hoping to hit a flush, because that's what all your opponents are doing, and because you're likely to win a small pot when you hit. Instead, raise these hands to build a pot. He also doesn't mention range balancing as a reason to play suited hands.

Here are the counterarguments in favor of playing suited hands, straight from the horse's mouth.

Ed spends a lot of time explaining the value of bluffing and in particular, barreling.

He gives an example of an opponent who folds 1/2 the time on the flop, 1/4 the time on the turn, and 1/8 the time on the river, and shows that in a vacuum a triple barrel bluff with any two cards will be profitable here. However, opponents would quickly catch on, so it's important not to play too many hands to maximize chances your bluffs work, which is why the frequency we raise is important.

And in selecting those hands, you should choose hands that have the most equity-when-called, as Ed calls it, to maximize profitability of these bluffs.

Suited hands have more equity-when-called than any other type of bluffing hand. Yes, you flop a flush .84% of the time. But you flop a flush draw 11% of the time. And most important, you flop a backdoor flush draw 41.7% of the time. Note combined, you flop at least a backdoor flush draw 52.54% of the time.

With a flush, you should triple barrel.

With a non-made-hand flush draw, you should typically bet the flop and turn (double barrel) and bet the river (triple barrel) depending on board texture and your reads on your opponent. Even if the flush doesn't come, there are usually other scare cards we can bet (for instance, overcards, cards that pair the board, or cards completing a straight).

With a non-made-hand backdoor flush draw, you should typically bet the flop with the plan of firing again on the turn if you improve to a flush draw, and then fire again on the river depending on board texture. In addition, when you make a flush this way it will tend to be disguised, increasing the probability your opponent calls the last bet.

Note SCs can make even better barreling hands. Take 87 on a AT5 flop.

We should typically bet this flop hard, then fire again on the turn for any club, J, 9, 6, or 4, and possibly other scare cards like any heart, T, or 5, and to a lesser extent any K, Q, 8, 7, 3, or 2. On this particular board we can fire again with a strong draw on 23 turn cards, and turn our hand into a pure bluff on most of the rest. For example, if the turn is the 4, we can still barrel the river as a bluff for any heart, T, 6, 5, 4, 3, or 2, and to a lesser extent any 8 or 7, though these may have some showdown value if villain was drawing.

Many players would not bluff the heart, worrying villain is on a heart draw, but there are only 55/1176 heart draw combos possible (assuming villain plays all hearts), and once the third heart hits, this drops to 45/1128 (4%) heart flushes. It is much more likely villain has a straight draw or {AT+). Just AT+ (no suited hearts) accounts for 41 combos, almost as many as every possible suited heart combo. Considering villain likely drops weaker suited hands from his range in a raised pot, representing the heart flush should be profitable against villains who don't overvalue top pair.

Yea, I came here to say this exact thing. I'm not sure if OP only read the first 80 or so pages and stopped or what. Either that or he just didn't comprehend the follow up points ED made after listing those ranges and points about suitedness. He very clearly states (multiple times at that) the answers and counterpoints to OP's original questions/assertions. He explains why suitedness is so important (Realizing your equity, Equity When Called, Barreling, ect). Anyways, OP did make a follow up post that seemed much less antagonistic and more along the lines of questioning in order to stir up discussion (which is fine ofc).

Plus, this thread has provided some great posts (from SOL notably) which only help to understand the importance of suitedness and how hands like Axs and SCs are playable from EP.

I agree. It's a great thread. I just wanted to point out what Ed Miller actually says and argues in the book, since this thread is titled "The value of suitedness in live game according to Ed Miller," yet does not actually present the value of suitedness in live games according to Ed Miller.

Whether the OP intended to distort Miller's arguments or did so through misunderstanding the book or not finishing it is unclear, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was unintentional.

Consider this hand - it's 2/5NL with 1k stacks. You o/r in the CO to $15 with Ac4c. The SB reraises to $55. BB folds & U call.

$115 in the pot & $945 behind.

The flop is 853

The SB bets $70. You min-raise to $140 & he calls.

There's $395 in the pot and you have $805 behind.

Turn: 853T

The SB checks & you bet $270. The SB calls.

There is $935 in the pot & you have $535 behind.

River: 853TQc

You made a flush. I guarantee that the moment you see that river card, you will be mentally fish-pumping as hard as you do at a poker table.

This is the flush that matters. In this hand, making a flush & winning a huge pot was Plan D. Plan A was to win the pot preflop with a blind steal. When that didn't work, Plan B was to win the pot on this favorable flop. When that didn't work, Plan C was to win the pot on the turn with a fairly massive bet. When that didn't work, it became fairly clear that the small blind held a big overpair.

It was time for Plan D: Suck out.

If you are like most no-limit players, you rarely, if ever, play hands like the above. Maybe you fold pre. Maybe you just call on the flop rather than raise. Maybe you even fold the flop. Maybe you raise the flop, but you check it back after you get called when turn the flush draw.

If you don't play hands like the above, then you're doing it all wrong.

Ed Miller - "Poker's 1%" starting on page 13.

What he left out: Plan E: Rebuy.

When I read this, I was sure all the casinos had chipped in to fill a few briefcases full of 100s & had someone tell Miller it's his. All he has to do it write a book, that will induce action & bring the games back to life like the ol' days.

Now my way: I am in a lively & loose 1/3NL game yesterday. Players had been there all night. It's 11am. I got there around 730am.

One hand, a guy goes all in for $185 & gets 3 callers. QQ wins unimproved & it wasn't the guy who went all in. It was the guy on his left. Guy on my left called, because he was last to act & had 77. He didn't have enough behind realize 7:1.

After hours of being card dead & not playing anything but the top 9.5% of holdings in the 1st 3 seats to the left of the BB, I pick up 98.

I raise to $17 [$695 stack] & get 5 callers as expected.

Flop: T76 I flopped the str8

I get 3 callers to the turn, but only the player with 76 [2pair] called my turn bet. He was sure I had nuttin' but an over pair. He didn't have enough left on the River to consider folding.

Big difference between 200bb 2/5 and a looser than average 60bb 1/3. Turn barrels are much more effective when they threaten a river bet. Also when players fold.