The value of suitedness in live game according to Ed Miller

I recently read Ed Miller's book "The Course" which is focused on how to play 1/2 ,2/5, 5/10 live games. Although I generally like the book I find myself very much in disagreement with some of his pre flop hand selection he suggest. Specifically the value he places on suitedness and to some extend connectedness. But in case I'm wrong I want to here the counter arguments people have for this logic and Ed if you're on here please chime in. I'll explain my thinking below.

As an example here's what Ed Miller suggest for early position which he defines as all spots to the right of the cutoff:

22+
A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs+ -76s+
AKo, AQo

I personally play more offsuit broadway cards and would cut out the weaker Axs and lower SC.

So Ed's arguments goes like this. He agrees you'll rarely flop a flush but he says playing suited cards makes sense cause you can semi bluff with a flush draw. He also says that because flushes are a big hands they can win big pots.

I also would add I here somewhat related arguments from players and websites that go something like this: "If I call for $2 I can stack the person with my SC if I hit a straight or flush". Maybe in some touristy areas this is true but in my area (Philly) this is generally not true. These people tend to group low pairs and SC together as "implied odds hands". I agree low/mid pairs have huge implied odds but I think it's a myth that SC do cause everyone can see 3 of suit or 3 coordinated cards on the board.

Here's why I think suitedness is overrated:

Hands like AJo hit the flop about 1/3 times and even when the flop comes low the overcards give them some drawing potential. So if you're going to play a hand like a low pair that only hits 1/8 times it needs to have a big payoff potential to justify the fact that you're going to miss far more frequently. Low/mid pairs have this potential because a set is possible on any board.

Suited hands DON'T have this potential for 2 reasons. First most of the time you flop a DRAW not a flush (11% and 1%). You are still an underdog in the hand with a draw if you're up against even 1 pair. Yes a flush draw may turn a modestly -EV stone cold bluff into a modestly +EV semi bluff but the fact that the bluff doesn't always work and you're more likely to lose than win in those spots makes this considerably less +EV than say flopping a set with a low pair would be where you have your opponent crushed.

Second when you do make a flush it's not as easy to get paid off as people pretend. First of all everyone can see 3 of a suit on the board and if a 4th comes it really kills the action. Also most of the time you complete a flush it's on the river (6%) versus the turn and flop (3% & 1%). This means you have a limited number of streets to build the pot. Most of the times I see flushes win big pots it's in one of these scenarios:

1) The pot got very inflated before the flush hit. In which case you're not "getting in cheap" for something that rarely hits.

2) The other person had a strong draw. This may be a 1 card draw to the nut flush or a person that flopped a set or more rarely 2 pair. In these cases you may win a big pot and it is profitable but you're going to get outdrawn a lot which is going to hurt the profitability of this spot a fair amount.

3) Flush over Flush. This scenario is very rare and if you're playing SC expect to be on the losing end most of the time. Also a 4th card of the suit will probably kill the action anyways.

4) The person has a reputation as a compulsive bluffer

Balancing your range

This is one other argument I here for these cards is that how do you bluff when the flop comes low if you don't play these hands. Well if you play pairs (big and low) then people have to fear you have an overpair or a set. And since a set can be on any board it doesn't have the limitations that SC and Axs have on rainbow boards.

Please feel free to present the other side if you disagree with me