Just a general strat question. I only recently turned my attention to cash NLHE after focusing primarily on tourneys and other games. I'm starting to think one of my leaks has been playing too loosely with connected cards. It just seems like their value is so limited in most situations. I've started really tightening up in this area and only playing connectors in mid-late position, either open-raising and CB'ing or limping behind in multiway pots. I've basically stopped calling raises with them (unless I'm attempting a late position call and steal postflop move, in which case the cards don't really matter anyway) because they're virtually useless in heads-up pots against a raiser. Most of the time I'll whiff on the flop and end up folding to a CB, or in the rare occasion I actually flop an OESD I'll end up facing a CB that gives me incorrect odds to chase the draw (unless we're both really deep and the implied odds are juicy).

I know it's always player and situation dependent but I'm wondering what your general approach is with connected cards.

Tighter is better, as you're finding. Playing nectars to raises is a leak most players have, and which most won't correct until they're told to by some reputable poker authority. Much like small-medium pocket pairs, connected cards have developed a mythology around them, with stuff like implied odds, to justify loose and unprofitable plays. They aren't even good for stealing against many low limit donks. I'd rather have K5 or Q6 than 87 when I'm on the button against passive calling stations; the object against these guys is to make a good pair, like kings, and value bet it. W/87 you're not often going to make a strong pair and you're going to be looking for extremely rare situations (two pair+) to extract value instead.

Start folding them and notice how many times they would have won the hand. Try to note how many times you would have lost money vs. the money you might have won.

The one difference between the connectors and small-med PPs is that the latter are easier to play because you're looking for a set or that's it. Connectors can get you in trouble because you can end up calling bets to chase the draws or get caught with marginal pairs. I lost a pot last night in just such a situation, open raising on the button or CO with 98, BB calls, flop comes 955, I CB, villain calls, turn is a 4, I fire again, villain calls, river is a 6, I throw out a blocker, villain calls and flips over JJ.

I recently downloaded the free trial of HEM so before my time runs out I might look back over my starting hands and see how I've done with connectors. I have a feeling they will turn out to be the biggest losers for me.

For me, the times that I have tried to play connectors, it usually ends up costing me more than I ever gain. You sometimes win huge pots with them but most of the time they cost you a little bit of money. After watching the main event last year, I started trying to be as clever as Daniel with small cards. It took me a while but I finally figured out that I am not Daniel Negreanu. The thing is, when you are a small/micro stakes player and you lose your small/micro stakes money, it takes a long time to grind it back up.

You need a super aggressive image to play sc's.
You need to push big draws hard, hard, hard and take advantage of FE.
Playing sc's can help you broaden your range and will give you a huge boost in action for your big hands.

Whoa whoa whoa...that's not a pre-flop problem. That part's probably fine. What you did with it post-flop is your problem. You can c-bet the flop (though checking's an option too), but there's really almost no point to firing the turn. I mean, what are you trying to do at that point? He's not going to fold a better hand, and there are very few worse hands that he can call a shell with. Basically, let's try to get to the river cheap. If he bets the river, we have a bluff catcher (and should decide at that point whether it's worth calling). The river's probably not a bet for the same reason that the turn wasn't a bet. There's no such thing as a blocking bet in position.

I'll post more on the topic later.

Turn bet is fine IMO. At those stakes you're called by worse all of the time, ace-highs, lower pocket pairs. When faced w/a situation like that, I prefer to bet/fold the turn than to check behind and "re-evaluate" on the river, which basically means guessing from a 20 hand sample. Plus it's always nice to take the pot down w/ a marginal hand like a pair of nines which is so vulnerable to overcards.

River is a check/behind though

I guess what I'm saying is that three streets of value is generally asking way too much for TPMK in NLHE.

ya I agree w/that, definitely, when the TP is 98;I'd just rather bet/fold the turn than check/bet[call] the river in most circumstances

Most people are going to **** this up if they try to do this from memory. I think it's generally better to focus on the players in the hand and forget about the cards we folded.

It's better to get used to hand reading at micros and putting people on good ranges rather than worrying about how often you would have hit or missed on folded hands which is absolutely meaningless anyway.

I'm def with cobalt on the 98 example.


About 3 months ago I went through a ton of the plugging leaks stuff on HEM, and one of the more surprising things I found was that I was losing overall on suited connectors (25k hands). The other more interesting and more telling sign was that I was losing more with hands like QJs and JTs, than with 56, 67 etc. I was pretty shocked by this, as I like playing these hands, and at 6-max which I play exclusively they are pretty vital. I was profitable with KQs.

Never play connectors out of the blinds in a raised pot. Don't even call raises in position with them. When say MP or CO raises and you are BTN with 98s, from my experience and learning raise > fold > call. If you are going to play connectors you need to play them aggressively or not at all, as I think mtdesmoines said. They do play well in position when you are the aggressor, as people never expect you to have a hand like 56 when you 3-bet. They are a great way to add hands to your 3-bet range, as they can hit a flop hard and hardly ever get you into bad spots against peoples bet/call range. The only big pot I have lost with Sc's since doing the plugging leaks was a huge cooler (top 2 vs top set, I was in pos after 3-betting).

Great discussion, guys, thanks. And good comments on my 98 hand.

Would it be safe to say that the value of connectors is reduced even further at micro stakes (I play .02-.05 currently), where getting too creative can be -ev?

This I don't agree with. People seem to call flop bets pretty lightly and then fold to 2nd bullets. I used to be a fairly strict raise, CB, check turn guy with marginal hands (probably from my tourney experience) but I've learned to increase my turn bet % because of how common floating the flop is at these cash tables. He could have easily called the flop with any combination of broadway cards. I think my decision to fire again on the river was marginal, however.

The point wasn't that he didn't call you on the flop light. The point was that there's not as much value in betting the turn, because he's going to have a somewhat difficult time calling you with worse than what you have and is unlikely to fold a better hand than you. So basically, when you're firing the turn, you're occasionally getting value from a small pocket pair or protecting against 6-outers.

Also, the value of connectors is rather dependent on what type of opponent you're playing. Against loose-passives, try to get in cheap and hit something that they'll pay you off with. Against LAGs, you're going to be able to semi-bluff more often. Against TAGs that only fire one bullet, you can float rather lightly in position with backdoor draws.

All that said, the stack sizes and positions have to be good to play them.

Why would you think that villain will call a bet on a flop of 955 and then fold on the turn when the 4 hits?

I see what you're saying. I guess it's unlikely I'm going to convince him I'm holding QQ-AA and get him to fold.

Let's say he's holding something like AJ. He calls the flop to test me and to see if he can hit something, and when I fire again on the turn he thinks, "I guess he's got a hand and I missed, so I might as well fold."

Every thing Cobalt wrote in this thread is gold and should be read and reread until it's mashed into your brain for all eternity.

Someone has a man-crush on Cobalt...

QFT. I love a man who 3 bets PF with 6 high and wonders how hard to play his pair of 4's on the turn.

You should put that on a bumper sticker.

<3

If he has AJ, you have the best hand, and he's drawing to a slimmish 6 outs. He's probably not going to call the turn, but he might try to bluff the river or try to pick off your "bluff" (in actuality, value-bet) on the river.


Ha. Thanks.


I'm missing the reference.

It's hard not to when he's so freaking good.

Sure, but in reality I don't know if he's holding AJ, AQ, AT, KQ, etc. So suppose I check the turn to induce a bluff on the river. Even though he may be drawing to 6 outs, any broadway card is going to be a threat. If he fires the river on a T, J, Q, K, or A, It's going to be a tough call for me to make (depending on the size of the bet).

so in other words, a hand that you are beating anyway?

If I get called on a 955 flop with that hand, against most players, I am going to assume that I am beat. I am waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to fire a second barrel if the turn is an overcard to the 9, with the understanding that I am no longer value betting, I am bluffing.


obviously, there are some players who are prone to float the flop with any two, but those are players I'm probably not trying to play too many pots with anyway.