Settle the debate! Should BB call wider vs more players?

Interesting. Ultimately it comes down to the pot odds being offered and hand vs range equity and of course the pot odds are far worse when facing a 6bb open - which in turn means that we're meant to play extremely tight in live low stakes poker (but of course almost nobody does and in this regard their ranges are completely inelastic). Not to mention the fact that criminal rake structures also significantly reduce the pot sizes and result in even tighter defending ranges in the BB and when facing 3bets etc.

So it's certainly true in live low stakes that we're deviating from game theory recommended play, but it's for practical reasons - if you open to 2.5bbs then you're going to get a lot more action than you want. So ultimately it's a case of practical concerns taking precedence over theory (although if all players had a good knowledge of theory then play would revert to what theory suggests). It's also worth noting that the absolute dollar values in play are a factor too; these 6bb opens are virtually non-existent in higher stakes games.

Playing correctly in the blinds and minimzing the amount lost in the long run is an absolutely crucial part of being a winning player, and an area when many decent players break down and have major leaks. Most players can massively increase their win rates simply by playing much tighter in the blinds, especially against absurd 6bb opens.

Yeah I pretty much agree with this.

I agree about 66 specifically. The postflop playability I think probably outweighs the raw equity considerations. With 66, we pretty much flop a set or go away multiway. In a higher level game, I wouldn't want to do that, but when Vs are going to get over committed to two pair, draws or even just TPGK, and frequently pay you off when they shouldn't, it's a cheap bingo game. As long as you get paid frequently enough to offset when you get coolered by a higher set. And sometimes, they go all passive and you can check it down.

Generally, my approach to calling multiway is to do it if I have a hand that can flop nutted enough that I am happy to gii on the flop or flop a draw to the nuts, but isn't really strong enough to squeeze. I'll fold hands I might call vs one V like K5s or AJo are defending against one V but are going into the muck against multiple Vs. There is no hand I would call against multiple Vs but would fold against one.

Really? Suited connectors and one-gappers, for instance? I'm snap folding from the blinds vs. one player who raised, but often calling vs. a raise and multiple callers (with the right conditions).

From the bb, I'm calling one raiser with almost any two suited cards unless I'm short, the raiser is super nit, or the raise is outlandishly large.

Against multiple Vs, a hand like 56s is a clear 3! or fold to me. With multiple Vs you can so easily get flushed over flushed with SCs, get the idiot end of the straight, have a bad two pair, etc. Hands where you'll lose a big pot or even stacks. Why allow 3-4 players to see a flop and increase the odds of getting coolered?

With a sc, you have a hand that has poor equity but can often overrealize it against one player by turning it into a bluff. Against multiple Vs, you either need to smash or fold. That isn't great with a hand that will usually be fairly moderate strength when it hits. Even two pair with 56 is quite weak. Playing 56s multiway OOP is absolutely losing, even against bad players. Play 56s OOP vs one V is slightly losing if V is good, but can be close to break even with a skill edge, and more importantly, showing down a few scs improve your chances of getting your premiums paid. It's a loss leader to advertise, not a money-making hand.

If you're playing very deep (like 400bb+) it is a bit more attractive to splash around with a sc. But in a normal casino game with 100-200bb, I think calling a low sc is just torching.

Interesting. Can't say I agree with most of that. The whole point is that the table conditions are right (as mentioned in reply No. 2). Suited connectors play well against multiple opponents, and to call from the blinds vs. one player is torching money. Also, I would rather 3bet 56s vs. one player than multiple, which is also torching money.

I don't get how a sc plays well against multiple opponents. 74% of the time, you are flopping absolutely nothing and have to fold to a min bet.

26% of the time you have top pair or better, or a draw. The problem is that your flush draws might be dead and your getting stacked. You are never flushing over flushing anyone, you are the one getting coolered. So yeah, 10% of the time you flop a FD, but can you really push it? Against 1 V, absolutely. Against 3 others? You don't want to build that pot, and if the flush comes and someone is willing to get stacks in you're probably dead. Most likely, we are going into check/call mode and hoping to draw out against a pair. But are we getting paid if we hit? No. It's 4-ways; everyone expects that when the FD hits, someone has the flush.

8% of the time we flop OESD, which we can feel good about probably being good if we hit. But only about 4% of the time it will be a board without a FD or with our FD. So do we really want to start building a big pot with an OESD against a probable FD? Not really. So we can only get aggressive with about half our OESD.

When we flop one pair, do we feel good about getting money in with a pair of 6s or 5s? No. We win mostly when the pot checks down all the way to the river. We lose if people are betting or calling.

We can only be happy building a pot when we flop a made hand 2-pair or better (5.6% of the time) or when we flop OESD on a rainbow board or when our flush is the suit (4% of the time). So about 10% of the time, we can truly play poker against multiple Vs. For the other 90%, we are likely to either give up or go into passive ck/call mode hoping to connect or that our hand holds up. And even when we flop relatively strong like 2-pair, its a very vulnerable 2-pair. Not the least of which because our Vs have wide-open ranges and could easily have straight draws, flush draws, overpairs, etc.

Compare that to say A5s, now we can push our FDs because they are draws to the nuts. We are ok with getting it in against a V who might have top pair, and sometimes we will flush over flush for a huge pot. When we get two pair, our hand is less vulnerable. When we hit top pair, we can valuebet the river when it is checked down and get called somewhat frequently by the guy who thought his 6 might be good. We can get aggressive with our hand more than 15% of the time, and therefore win more pots without actually having to hit.

Or a pp, we hit our set, fh, or quads 12% of the time and we can just try to get as much money in as possible as fast as possible. If we miss, we can just check it down, maybe call a small stab and hope to win sometimes. IOW, we either are very strong, or we know we're weak and aren't putting more money in. As opposed to 56s where we have a lot of hands that need to improve and are never really super strong.

What's your logic here?

I'm afraid you might be overfolding your big blind my dude. All suited connectors and most suited gappers have a plus EV call facing a normal raise size.

The extra callers making the pot larger do not give any extra incentive to call wider, because you have to share your equity with those players too.

Suited connectors are plus EV calls in the BB and are all in all rational/reasonable big blind defending ranges.

The only relevant question is whether or not a hand was a profitable call preflop; suited connectors do, despite the fact that they can get tricky postflop of get into dangerous reverse implied odds situations. To fold them is to give our EV and by extension our chips to other players.

Not according to GTO-W. At least not at 10% rake to a x4 raise from UTG+1. In this common live scenario, most of the suited connectors go into the trash, and none of them have +EV.

I disagree. The only relevant question is how much equity we can realize in the situation. Equity that you cannot realize post flop is worthless. Whether we can expect to underrealize or overrealize our equity is something we must consider when making preflop decisions.

A 4x open and 10% rake is obviously completely different.

Sure, equity realization is important, and it's a little harder to realize equity when out of position. But SCs are connected and suited, which helps in equity realization.

In my view these hands are a plus EV call preflop but just have to be handled carefully postflop.

look man. i understand what preflop charts say but there's absolutely no way i am going to play live poker and fold a suited connector closing the action in the bb. the ev of pre stuff just isn't that high one way or another and esp at llsnl your opponents are going to make astronomical errors in comparison. from an ev standpoint they are hopefully going to play further from equilibrium or make more mistakes than you so i think the ev of alot of this stuff goes up pre anyways (murky how to quantify multiway).

Are you serious? Suited connectors play much better multiway. Have you heard the concept of pot odds? Are you just making things up as you go along?

You say that, but I ask again: Why?

I explained why I believe 56s is going to underrealize its equity more in a multiway pot than in a hu pot.

Sure. In the glossary, "Pot Odds" alphabetically comes right before "Reverse Implied Odds."

No, they don't; neither OOP nor IP fwiw.

I actually think the immediate odds have little to do with things. Yes, the extra immediate odds in a multiway case versus a HU case preflop for a piddly amount does help. But the main reason we're far happier going multiway vs HU (at least with ~nutmaking hands) is our IO, as there is just far better chance one of the doofuses in the pot makes a hand they are willing to pay off with postflop when we hit, whereas HU we have to hit and get the lone opponent to also make enough of a hand to pay off (admittedly ignoring pot stealing).

Admittedly, the extra money in the pot preflop does help out postflop as we're able to make bigger reasonable bets.

GcluelessIOnoobG

You would rather call with suited connectors vs. one opponent than vs. multiple opponents?

You're really going to have to state some major qualifiers here for this to be true (such as the defender's skill advantage over the opener is massive); in general, I flat out disagree with this.

LLSNL is a negative sum game thanks to the rake. Which means in a HU case (i.e. an opener in the field, the SB donates a piddly $1 to the pot which isn't nearly enough money to even make a dent in the rake, and a call in the BB), it isn't possible for both players to win money long term. In fact, with a loose enough open, it's actually possible for both players to be long term losers due to the rake and no significant offsetting dead money.

So you really have to ask yourself who is going to have the chance at being the sole long term winner in this case. Is it going to be the guy having the initiative in position, or the guy calling with his suited connector/gapper OOP? I'm going with the raiser every single time, and will only think of changing my mind if the skill difference between the two is massive / the defenders hand starts creeping up to premium.

GcluelessnegativesumgamenoobG

Do the immediate odds in a multiway pot really help though? Sure, the pot is bigger, but there are also several more players, making it harder for hero to realize their equity.

For sure the goal is to hit something big and enjoy the implied odds that come with it.

It really depends on how terrible versus non-terrible your opponents are, imo. If everyone at your table is going to dump in massive money postflop with extremely mediocre hands even when all the obvious draws get there, then they'll play fine in this situation. But as soon as your opponents play just slightly better than that, the RIO of these hands really start making this situation very meh.

GcluelessNLnoobG