Correct me if I am missing the point, but doesn't SPR play a part here?

As in one of the problems of being in a multi-way raised pot, when the stacks aren't deep... is that your implied odds will be stunted because you will be facing larger flop bets while you are drawing (because the pot is bloated) and no one really has the money behind to pay you off when you hit?

So even though the hand likes to be multi-way, the SPR in this situation limits it's EV?

This in itself explains a concept well that I agree with whole-heartedly. A lot of plays I see just intuitively strike me as bad/good and I can't explain why. It's how my brain works, and that's whatever. Other people need to conceptualize things with mathematical reasoning, others use intuition and feel, it's just how it is. It's like the old school regs who played well and never heard of forums or ICM or FE or RIO or "ranges", but they utilized all these concepts because they knew they were good, but they couldn't explain why, they just knew. Obviously as we deal with a forum where the objective goal is to identify and express strategy, we sometimes have to try our best to fabricate the expression behind our almost "subconscious" reasoning.

/derail

It's live, ostensibly you have some reads so use them. It depends on how the PFR plays, and how PFR thinks you play. You aren't calling 100% of the time in a vacuum.

Having said that about 20:1 implied or greater for SCs is standard.

Oh, dear. Two v. respected posters have gone all omphaloskeptical. Be careful, chaps, we are heading for an ideas vortex where anyone´s response to this post would be a critique of an analysis of someone´s analysis of their own analysis.

Not sure why, but I feel like the only thing dumber than ronflair's post ITT is this one .

Yeah I know, that's why I wrote "/derail" as a disclaimer. It was just a random philisophicalization as a reply to quesuerte, carry on!

The point I was making that started this bru ha ha was that there is some math that justifies calling sometimes with suited connectors. Ikestoys link shows that math better than my post, but it was pretty similar and while controversial it was far from mind blowingly bad. Canoodles' post about how someone can have the concept right but not be able to explain it as well as someone else applies to my post and the followup link by Ikestoys. I was surprised at how my simple math came up with almost identical results as the complicated math in the link. The more I studied it, the more I realized why. It is because when you have EV in a hand, it does have the value it says it has. I hope I am not being mind blowingly confusing.

And to the logical rebuttal to my post by slipstream, I would say that there is a similarity to setmining though you should not play it exactly the same. I setmine when I know someone with as weak a hand as TPTK and 2 pair will pay me off. I play suited connectors when I know that someone with TPTK, 2 pair, and a set will pay me off WHEN THE BOARD SHOWS A FLUSH POTENTIAL. This doesnt happen as often so it is not always right to play suited connectors the same as set mining, but the point is that it builds on the concept, and in some situations the math is right.

One way to measure your ability to play postflop is to compare equity in pots with your actual wins/losses. If you are good enough to realize the equity in the pots over time, you can use the calculation I used. If you are playing these hands in position, not only should you realize the equity, but you should be able to figure out how to get paid when you hit.

As far as hitting second best hands, I studied it one time and came to the conclusion that if you (or your opponent) are playing about 120 BB or less give or take, it doesnt happen often enough to hurt us. This is the same concept as - how deep do we have to be to fold KK or QQ preflop. There is a number. Although it is situationally dependant so pay attention to your villains.

The point of this entire thread was to come up with the math that shows when playing drawing hands is profitable. My post was the first to attempt to justify when. There are lots of posts that say it is never justifiable to play these hands unless you steal lots of pots. Even if that was the case, you could play any two cards using that logic. When the only attempt to actually answer the question was attacked without any reasoning, of course I defended myself. I don't agree that such snipes have value because they create debate (as they did in this case.) More often it just derails the thread and causes a pissing contest (as it also did in this case.) IF your goal is to further debate, attempt to explain why you disagree and even if you cannot fully explain why, rely on the genius of fellow two plus twoers to fill in the gaps. We could have gotten to the same debate if you simply add because..... at the end of your 7 word post.

Cliffs: As Ikestoys link points out, there is a large contingent of 2+2ers who believe that suited connectors can be profitably played building on the concepts of playing small to medium pairs, and for the same reason - implied odds. My point was exactly that, and I agree that they should be played differently. Calling that concept mind blowingly bad is simply wrong because at the very least, it is debatable.

So here is the thing. I hit 25% of the time. When I hit, the hand is either big or potentially big. It is not a hand like middle pair vs tpnk. So I am betting the pot on 25% of my hands. You have to decide whether I have a made hand or if it is a semi bluff. Since I am 3 barrelling pot sized bets, it will cost one of our stacks to find out. Remember, I am only betting pot on 25% of my hands, so it is not a standard c-bet with AK high.

If I am playing suited connectors and the flop comes 679, you know I am betting. you dont know If I have 45,56, 67,78, 89, 66, 77, 99. You have AA... should you call? Now throw in a couple suited cards and include any connectors in that suit... should you call? If you call the flop, you have to call the turn, because if I was drawing I probably missed and your equity increased dramatically on the turn, and you will be pot committed on the river since by then I am bluffing about 30% of the time. You are making a stack decision on the flop probably with a pair.

If you are good and are lucky enough to get a set against me and have it hold up, you can exploit me, but for most of the people playing this game, I also have fold equity and they usually fold on the turn, so this play is very profitable. When I lose, I dont lose much because 40% of my bets are instant equity and if I get called, it is 80%.

Would you risk your stack knowing that I am 50% to have a made hand and if my hand isn't made you are only slightly better than a flip? If you thought I was on a pure bluff half the time, the call would be questionable. Since I have 40% equity when I am bluffing, a call by you against a range of all 2 pair and set combos and all big draw combos and all OESD and FD combos with 1 and 2 gappers is a mistake. Please call. Keep in mind that against half my range, folding is a mistake half the time with even as bad of cards as bottom pair or 22. So I am either forcing you to make a mistake against my range or make a mistake half the time vs my actual hand. Since you can only play properly against my range, you must fold knowing you are making a mistake half the time. This will mess with your mind until you make the mistake of calling. Also keep in mind that with my mindset I am just as happy and excited to see a double belly buster as a set because I only get to continue 25% of the time, so any tell I give is a tell of strength. A raise by you gets it in now because it lets me off the hook of having to semibluff the turn which is my biggest mathmatical mistake. I just do not see it as bluffing the turn since I made the decision on the flop to bet the turn. On the flop I have correct pot odds to call anything, so I did not make a mistake.

IF you are the type of player who only continues with drawing hands when the pot odds are favorable against one more street, do not play suited connectors. But if you understand implied odds and fold equity and can exploit these concepts, play suited connectors when you can get paid the times you hit.

Yeah, the point is that you while you 'hit' something you can continue with 25% of the time on the flop, 20% of those times you're giving out huge reverse implied odds and only 5% of the time are you truly dropping nuts in faces.

You clearly missed that.