So you don't want to raise pre-flop because people can't fold, but you don't want to limp because when we bet on the flop, people will fold....

People don't just call 3 streets every time with A-high (although it would be great if they did) And if people fold every time you bet the flop, we can bet the many draws that we will flop with our SC.

The stacks don't have to be insanely deep to justify getting involved, especially with a hand this flexible. You have to be careful when you raise though, cause the KJ that limped might only have 16bb's left and just stick it in.

"If it's not worth a raise it's worth a fold" is not really true. Many hands will be worth getting involved with multi-way, that you won't want to raise.

Also the "pro's play vs pro's so they can bluff" thing is only minimally true. A better statement is: When pros play pros they need to bluff, while you don't need many bluffs at $1/2 live to get paid.

Of course there's going to be a guy or two who would fold it rather than limp. Not saying there's a lot, but they definitely exist.

David Grey?

(1) you sneaky little bear, you caught me! I sort of misspoke. AGain since most of the value from SCs comes from fold equity we should be raising if opponents are capable of folding. If they are stationy they don't fold enough to make pumping the pot for fold equity to be worthwhile but stacks often have to be superduper deep and villains have to be superduper stationey. To rephrase, we want to raise to make taking down the pot postflop with a c-bet worthwhile. If we can't do that we shouldn't raise.

Now, if we aren't raising should we limp: well, we have to be super sure that our opponent will pay off because of how often we'll get coolered (with low SCs it's more often than you'd think). Since pots grow geometrically (and we can insure opponent has a somewhat playable hand by rising) we have the most probability to get paid by raising.

If we are in a situation where we don't want to play low SCs for a raise we should not limp it.

(2) if this is the case then we should BE RAISING PREFLOP. My argument is on the playability of suited connectors. I recommend playing them from late position but we have to be aware that they are so playable from late position because of the copious amount of things we can do with it. My argument is against limping.

(3) SCs are not incredibly strong multi-way. The reasons for this have been outlined by ed miller here: http://www.cardplayer.com/cardplayer...ted-connectors

(4) I think, as online poker nerds, we really overvalue balancing our bluffing and value bet ranges. Ranges sort of balance naturally in most bluff spots if we're playing well. Every once in a while we may have to eat a -ev bet to balance but it's really not that often.



To be certain, I do not advocate folding SCs on the button with 4 limpers. I also do not advocate limping. But if we are not comfortable enough with the hand to raise we should fold it.

This depends so much on just what type of "bad" these live players are.

If they habitually overvalue one pair in relation to other hands, and overvalue pairs which aren't top, then you'll need two pair or better to be able to reliably break these people. By overplaying these hands they're setting themselves up for some hefty -EV in the long run, but in the short term the variance is too high trying to determine whether a flop of K94 rainbow is being heavily bet because of AK or J9, or even a stupid A4 from UTG.

It's hard to put these people on a range when that range includes any one card they like, any suited cards, or any connectors.

These types will lose huge when they don't anticipate two pair or a set when they have TPT/GK on a dry board.

Going for two pair or better requires limps. We want to see cheap flops, fit or fold, and not become to attached to that middle pair.

Still: Raising>Limping>>>>>>>>Folding.

If they overvalue their hands so much, why do we need a monster to get value from them?

Limping to try and make a monster shouldn't really be your game plan, just in this particular situation it is acceptable. Still we're not trying to make a monster, necessarily. An array of draws and pairs will be profitable.

I am not persuaded by the pro-limping argument. We need to stop looking back through rose-tinted goggles at our play. I have thought long and hard about the limping argument. We are picking scenarios where limping is preferable to folding but limping is never the best option. If we are not good enough (hand wise or skill wise) to put in a raise we should put in a fold for meta reasons alone. Remember, I'm anti-limping not anti-playing.


Simply put: SCs are not great for showdown value hands. We can go way to far with them way too often and get taken way more than we'd like to think with them. The term "great multi-way hand" gets thrown around way too much.

The hands that do the best multiway are, more often than not, the hands that do best heads up.

I'm also relatively "anti-limp, but there are many spots where a limp is fine. Always raise or fold if you're the first in the pot is a decent motto. But once several have limped in front, and there is a climate of limping which isn't being exploited, then many situations will allow for a limp.

Ugh....in the 76s otb example, it all depends on how deep we are and how deep the other players are. To just suggest a plan to only raise or fold is idiotic without considering stack sizes, rake, jackpot drop or other variables.

Playing live full ring neccesitates having a limp range....hell even an open limp range.

fine. not good. Certainly, we can pick spots where limping is preferable to raising in such a situational game in terms of pure ev. Just as we can think of a spots to fold AA w/o reads preflop (I can think of one). The overarching theme is limping is almost never the best option. As i said before, I'm not a huge proponent of meta. We should not be going out of our way to satisfy shania but limping is a way that our play flat out pisses her off.

I disagree that raising 76s behind 4 limpers is always going to be > overlimping. It depends a lot on the villains and what they normally do post flop. If they're call machines and stack sizes are 60-100bb then limping is absolutely fine. Yes you get coolered sometimes but if you can hand read well then you don't get stacked on the turn when the flush card comes in against a loose passive when he goes ape****.

This above quote that states it is necessary to have an open limp range is bad. I mean dude seriously what games are you playing where this is necessary? I can beat 5nl for over 10bb/100 while 24 tabling and its probably around equal to the level of play at 1/2 live and I never open limped a single time. People who aren't even good at poker are crushing 1/2 live for like 30bb/100 lol.

I think the chances of 76s winning a 5-way limped pot, on the BTN is far less a probability than pre-flop raising it and narrowing the field to perhaps 2 callers. That, plus a standard c-bet of 50% of the pot is almost guaranteed to pickup an easy pot with little effort.

Plus, if the villain(s) stick around, you're still in position. Plus, you may get lucky and have a flush draw. Plus, you may get lucky and get a low flop where you either pair up or have a straight draw.

I think its rather nice myself.

I disagree. The value of low SC or suited gappers is that when they hit the flop, they can hit it EXTREMELY hard and usually be the only hand that does. Flopping middle or bottom pair can cost you money if you refuse to accept that you're beat. However, when you flop a flush, a straight, or two pair, you almost always have the best hand. You do have to be cautious of a flopped flush, because the ace of the suit may stick around, even if only on a flush draw. IMHO, at stakes where calling stations abound, there is little fold equity in any hand. Until the fourth card of a suit hits the board, a lot of players will pay off a small flush.

I think it's best to evaluate suited connectors as part of a larger plan for the entire hand. I think most people here agree that we've dispelled the conventional wisdom that says we play SC's for small bets, in position, with huge implied odds. Rather, we play these hands for raises, in position, and then proceed with a balanced attack of bluffs, semi-bluffs, value-bets and folds post flop.

Before we make our play pre-flop, we need to envision our plan for executing that balanced attack. We need to consider what bet sizes are likely to be called, by which players, with what hand ranges.

If we limp, we go to the flop with about $10 in the pot, with about $200 left behind. That's alot of successful betting that we'll need to accomplish in order to stack someone when we make huge hands. Also, such a small pot completely destroys our ability bluff/semi-bluff on favorable flops. We should be making money betting 2/3 of the pot when the flop is K75, 85J, TsKs8h, etc. However, if that bet is only $7, we aren't going to induce many folds and will simply be building a pot when we're behind.
If we raise in this spot, we may get 3 or 4 way, instead of 5 or 6 way, to the flop with a pot of $30 to $40. Now our c-bets represent real fractions of our opponents stacks. In addition to bluffing and semi-bluffing more successfully, we will be able to glean more range narrowing information based on villains reactions to meaningful bets. It also makes it easier for us, in position, to pot-commit villains when we hold extremely strong hands.


Consider another scenario. You're in a tournament with 40BB's. Three players, with stacks of 15 to 30BB's all limp to you on the button with 76s. Here a limp is ok. First, you don't want to re-open the action to the player with 15BB's since he may shove. Second, the pot going to the flop will represent between 15%-30% of villain's remaining stacks. This is going to increase the success of our bluffs and semi-bluffs.

So what about only completing the small blind: raise or fold?

Choosing to fold this hand, just because of the "raise or fold" rule is ridiculous. The 6-1 you're usually getting after the blinds check is a tremendous price. And you think your 76s creates playability problems? What about the Q8 that someone has, or 74? Your hand has an equity edge, plus you should have a post flop skill advantage, I really can't believe someone serious enough about poker to post on here would prefer a fold to a limp....

Once again, theoretically a raise is better--I agree. But I have wet dreams of picking up SC in 7 way pots. I think I'd be playing 70% of my hands on the button after 4 limps. I trust my reading abilities that I won't lose 2-3 bets with second pair or a gutshot.

Great article. That's really helped. I was usually raising with 76s on the button to get limpers to fold, although I wasn't sure if that was more profitable than limping, but Miller's article clearly explains why SCs are not as good multiway as I used to think.
I also used to think 76s was pretty bad heads up against any ace, but 76s vs A4o has 47% equity. With the benefit of position, the suited connector becomes a pretty good hand heads up.

Why do people believe Ed miller but not me? What, is he some sort of respected author or something?

So just to be clear, if I have one of you guys sitting behind me, I can profitably open-limp or over-limp atc with the intention of 3betting your enormous raising range, correct?

This implies raising range is super-wide. The reason I raise is b/c I have better average equity (skill+pott+position) to justify the raise.

So to avoid being exploited by aware opponents (even if the limpers are fish you have the blinds to worry about) you'll be throwing away like 85% of hands when a few people limp to you on the button - sounds pretty wrong to me. And what will you do with ATo when you have three limpers who are never folding to a raise? Raising would be pretty bad but folding would be ridiculous. Lastly, limpers are often playing <100bs so there's a lot to be said for keeping the SPR high and maximising the number of decision points throughout the hand. Even at 100bs or more the presence of multiple limpers will have already reduced the SPR considerably and the same thinking applies.

Again, no. But on the button we shoudl be playing a ton of hands profitably b/c of our positional/skill advantage. ATo vs. 3 limpers is 100%a raise for value. We are so far ahead of their range.

I don't think % of decision points is that necessary against terrible limpers. I played a hand yesterday vs. a few terrible players and I didn't make any "decisions." It was just a process of "this guy has called with the nut low. Bet and pair for value"

Unfortuantely, he hit a 2-outer with 1 to come and I lost the pot. But the long and short of it is that even if there are no "decision points' bad players still tend to make bad decisions.

Why? Against a crowd, you will need to hit the flop twice to win. Against calling stations, your (semi-bluffs) will be insuffient and you're playing show-down poker with low card hands.

When you hit your miracle flow against a LAG, you have insuffient implied odds as the LAG will frequently not have a strong enough hand to continue.

Against a TAG, you also have reverse implied odds.

I have wet dreams of playing suited aces against people who frequently limp with SCs.

Well we're probably going to agree to disagree on this one but I remain sure that in many spots you're either throwing away profitable hands or losing more postflop edge than you're gaining in preflop edge. Cue cliche: 'it's a balancing act'.

I have to rad this a bit later