Suited Connector Myth
From the article I linked to in the previous post:
When we add the next highest ranking 8 cards to the Sweet 16 [Skansky Group 1 Hands: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs], we reach what we consider to be the smallest playable subset of starting hands.
In doing so, however, we encounter what we have chosen to call the "Medium Suited Connector myth." Like most myths, it contains some elements of truth. But the truth has been blown way out of proportion.
*T9s KQ 88 QTs *98s *J9s AJ *KTs
There are four hands in S&M's Group 4 that do not belong. In the case of one of these, KTs, it got moved up to Group 3 and was replaced by JTs, which was demoted from Group 3. This was a relatively minor adjustment in hand rankings.
But we are left with 3 suited connectors (T9s, 98s and J9s), the valiues of which keep being rediscovered every year or so, but whose true values have not been put in perspective in practical terms for the regular hold'em poker player.
We need to consider here the overall context, to look at all of the medium suited connecotrs together, to gain some perspective.
Figure (not shown here) shows the rank for each medium (and small) suited connector, starting with T9s and working down through 54s. The mean rank of these hands is shown for each of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
You will note that the classic 10-player showdown results (T5) show a very simple, linear deterioration in the relative rank order of these starting suited connectors as the value of the top card gets smaller. This was discovered sometime around 1972.
A few years later several people discovered that some of the smaller suited connectors (such as 87s and 76s) sometimes played better than their larger cousins (such as T9s). This reversal of the 10-player showdown results was both surprising, and held as a professional holdem players' trade secret by many. This U-Shaped effect is clearly visible in the HE Table 1 results shown in Figure____.
The problem is that playing in the extremely tight games, such as those we characterize here by HE Table 1, it is difficult to make any money: the pots are small (which is the natural consequence of tight players), and these medium suited connectors, even though they improve dramatically, never rise to the level of being powerhouse starting hands.
In fact, as the games become looser there is a clear trend visible in Table ___ for the showdown linearities to dominate. Even if you think you're playing under the ideal conditions for medium suited connectors, if one player leaves or a new player joins the game your assumption may suddenly no longer be correct and intertia could easily lead you to end up playing what are just relatively weak hands.
Another thing that is potentially dangerous is to rely on various "probe" software packages common available today that allow you to pit one hand against another to a showdown, seeing which of them is better.
These would be fine, and the results reliable, so long as there do not exist any underlying non-linearities of the type visible in Figure __ for medium suited connectors. But we DO know that assjmption is incorrect, and it has been known to be incorrect in the poker literatures for decades. We recommend that, unless you already know the answers to the questions you're seeking and simply want to be precise, you do NOT use isolated one-on-one type simulations at all (the U-Shaped function we've already discussed is not the only one in the underlying fabric of Texas hold'em).
Turning back now to the Sklansky Group 4 hands, we need to replace the 4 deviant hands by better ones.(A8s, A9s, JTs and AT). Because the T4 and T5 HE Table conditions still have positive power ratings two of these (J9s and T9s) have a high enough overall power index to just be demoted to Group 5 while the third (98s) slips down to Group 6.
When we add the next highest ranking 8 cards to the Sweet 16 [Skansky Group 1 Hands: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs], we reach what we consider to be the smallest playable subset of starting hands.
In doing so, however, we encounter what we have chosen to call the "Medium Suited Connector myth." Like most myths, it contains some elements of truth. But the truth has been blown way out of proportion.
*T9s KQ 88 QTs *98s *J9s AJ *KTs
There are four hands in S&M's Group 4 that do not belong. In the case of one of these, KTs, it got moved up to Group 3 and was replaced by JTs, which was demoted from Group 3. This was a relatively minor adjustment in hand rankings.
But we are left with 3 suited connectors (T9s, 98s and J9s), the valiues of which keep being rediscovered every year or so, but whose true values have not been put in perspective in practical terms for the regular hold'em poker player.
We need to consider here the overall context, to look at all of the medium suited connecotrs together, to gain some perspective.
Figure (not shown here) shows the rank for each medium (and small) suited connector, starting with T9s and working down through 54s. The mean rank of these hands is shown for each of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
You will note that the classic 10-player showdown results (T5) show a very simple, linear deterioration in the relative rank order of these starting suited connectors as the value of the top card gets smaller. This was discovered sometime around 1972.
A few years later several people discovered that some of the smaller suited connectors (such as 87s and 76s) sometimes played better than their larger cousins (such as T9s). This reversal of the 10-player showdown results was both surprising, and held as a professional holdem players' trade secret by many. This U-Shaped effect is clearly visible in the HE Table 1 results shown in Figure____.
The problem is that playing in the extremely tight games, such as those we characterize here by HE Table 1, it is difficult to make any money: the pots are small (which is the natural consequence of tight players), and these medium suited connectors, even though they improve dramatically, never rise to the level of being powerhouse starting hands.
In fact, as the games become looser there is a clear trend visible in Table ___ for the showdown linearities to dominate. Even if you think you're playing under the ideal conditions for medium suited connectors, if one player leaves or a new player joins the game your assumption may suddenly no longer be correct and intertia could easily lead you to end up playing what are just relatively weak hands.
Another thing that is potentially dangerous is to rely on various "probe" software packages common available today that allow you to pit one hand against another to a showdown, seeing which of them is better.
These would be fine, and the results reliable, so long as there do not exist any underlying non-linearities of the type visible in Figure __ for medium suited connectors. But we DO know that assjmption is incorrect, and it has been known to be incorrect in the poker literatures for decades. We recommend that, unless you already know the answers to the questions you're seeking and simply want to be precise, you do NOT use isolated one-on-one type simulations at all (the U-Shaped function we've already discussed is not the only one in the underlying fabric of Texas hold'em).
Turning back now to the Sklansky Group 4 hands, we need to replace the 4 deviant hands by better ones.(A8s, A9s, JTs and AT). Because the T4 and T5 HE Table conditions still have positive power ratings two of these (J9s and T9s) have a high enough overall power index to just be demoted to Group 5 while the third (98s) slips down to Group 6.
posted by Rog at 10:47 AM
<< Home