It's also important to think about 43s is weak here. Most of why we're playing suited hands is to make semibluffs that still have equity when called. Plan A isn't to get to showdown but rather to have hands with equity that give us confidence to try to win at showdown. Plan B is to make a monster. Plan C is to make a moderate hand that wins when no one else has anything.
We can't play every suited hand for a raise because even bad players will notice we rarely have good hands. So we need a way to narrow them down to a reasonable number that still exploit our opponents postflop while balanced by a decent chance that we have a good hand when we raise.
We could just pick suited hands on a whim because we saw someone drag a big pot with them once, like T
4
and J
5
. T4s is as likely to make flush draws as 87s, and if we don't get to showdown (Plan A) it doesn't matter what's printed on the front of the cards. But they're worse for Plan A and B because they don't connect. We flop fewer straight draws so we have fewer spots to aggress with equity (Plan A). And we back into fewer straights (Plan B).
As for Plan C, backing into mediocre winners, J5s will make top pair more often than 87s. But 87s is better than 43s because it can back into middle pair more often. Plan C isn't where most of the value comes from, but we may as well start by adding middle SCs rather than little ones. Not that anyone was advocating playing 43s but not 87s, just making a theoretical point.
So then:
- If we play too many hands, we end up with a weak range that even mediocre opponents can figure out is weak and often call down light.
- If we play the right number of hands but a silly mix (play J5s but not 87s) then we're just giving up marginal bits of equity.
Sticking to middle SCs OOP is mostly a way of avoiding too wide a range but if we're maintaining a certain range, may as well pick the best hands.