Low connectors against a medium raise

[Defendant]

Danny Ns column in cardplayer magazine made me think about this situation a good bit: he sees 75 suited and raises, and a few seats behind gets reraised for about 3 times the size of his raise. He calls with the logic that he thinks the raiser has a high pair and if he catches his straight or flush, he can break that stack (also that his cards are completely live).

Now heres what Im wondering. Its along the lines of implied odds here...So lets say youre reading your opponent for AA, which is what you want here. For calculating your implied odds when you hit, how much of your opponents stack goes into consideration here? If you flop 689, how sure can you be your opponent is going to push in against a non-threatening board? This question is significant, because it determines how much of a raise you can call preflop with that hand.

Now lets say you misread him and he is only holding QQ...you call, expecting your opponent to push against a non-threatening board, but if you play back at him, those queens are a LOT more likely to hit the muck than the aces, and I honestly think it is close to impossible to distinguish AA from QQ preflop...How does that play into your overall implied odds?

Same thing goes for a strong ace, big slick etc...all those hands will be played quite similar, and while your cards are still live and non-threatening, those hands cut down severely on your implied odds, i.e. your opponent is far less likely to push if you hit...

So, smart play or not by Danny here, and in general with the medium suited connectors?

Defendant

[junYUN]

that's a tough call, and i would say danny n is most definatly a better poker player than me... so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[eddo31]

i think it is a smart play by danny, but only because he can get away with it. i woul dnever be able to make that play. my 75s would be in the muck preflop, but he is good enough at playing postflop that he can get away with these types of plays.

this just indicates how important deception is. it seems like danny, and most other top pros, would rather have a deceptive hand than a big hand.

[2Tone]

is not right for me.

In theory, I understand Daniel's logic. But in the games I play, I can't see putting that much faith in 5/7 suited, pot odds or no. I'd like to say that I'd factor other elements into play -- the nature of the table, the size of my stack, etc. But the truth is, I'm not going to defend that hand against a decent size raise.

Good post, BTW.

[omahilo]

I like connectors when I have position... if its folded to me on the button or one position off the button I will usually raise and if one of the blinds have a hand they might reraise but if its down to me and the BB, the BB might just call, trying to trap me with AA or another PP.

[johnbaker]

Daniel's theory is based entirely upon implied odds. Why do you think someone would fold QQ on that flop but not AA? That makes no sense at all, the only difference between those scenarios would be if someone held KK or AA against the QQ. If you hit your flop with suited connectors like that, and you know your opponent has a high pocket pair, then your implied odds have paid off. Simply make an overbet, make it look like a steal, and the other guy WILL go all in with a high pocket pair 99% of the time (unless hes a genius or a pussy), and you will get paid off beautifully. If your opponent had AK or AQ or something, then they will only call with a flushdraw, and you can (and should) go all in on the turn if a blank hits.

-jB