I have some questions on how to play these things. In my B&M game, I've been going with a limp from MP3 or LP, but I just added up some EV figures (estimated winnings for various hands) on the hands I'm playing and am not happy with the win-rates they yielded (basically, in order to hit my target of 20 BB/100, I'll either need to play some more hands than I'm currently thinking, which is around 15%, or else make more profit than I'm projecting on the ones I am playing).

Here's my basic plan, bet or raise (fairly hard semi-bluff) any flop on which I have a draw to a nut straight, playing the flush pretty soft and cautiously. In this game, I'd also like to play the 1-gappers as well for deception value. But it looks to me like they only give you half as many draws to a nut straight. Just as an example: With 76, you're looking for 45X or 58X but NOT 89X, which puts you on the ignorant end of it--hence, I intend to just let that go. With 75, you only have 46X, since 68X won't give you a nut straight if a 9 hits. While it may sound pretty weird to have people play T7, I don't exclude it at all at this kind of table. For the moment, anyway, I'd like to be drawing to a possible nut hand in case I get callers (and they are starting to fold enough for me to consider the semi-bluff to be a reasonable play). Anyhow, although I'd really like to play the one-gappers, too, it seems to me that they just don't give enough draws to nut straights to make them profitable. Someone please correct me here if I'm missing something!! (do the double gutshots ever yield 8 outs to the nuts?)

The reason I've been playing them up to now only in LP is that I like these draw-type hands MUCH better with position. Essentially, you can often get your free card to the river if you miss the turn by betting the flop fairly aggressively. Out of position, it's a lot more difficult, although a lot of players at these tables are pretty passive on the turn, so I'm thinking it might be worth a try still--hopefully won't have to give it up.

So, my second question: How do you deal with these hands out of position? At least at my current tables, check-raises seem to have little effect (as a result, I'm actually starting to run them occasionally on sets).

My third question relates largely to ice's (or anyone else's) experiences with raising them. I think it was a pretty bad play in that KK hand that was posted yesterday or today for the opponent to have made a minimum raise. I would assume that most of us here are pretty much in agreement that whatever one's raising range is PF, the raising quantity should stay consistent--even moreso in this B&M game, where I'm playing a large number of hands against the same opponents, and I think tipping one's hand with raising quantity is a much bigger mistake in that case.

But I was skimming over a John Vorhaus article recently recommending the raise on suited connectors mainly for flexibility. I typically am not a big Vorhaus fan, but he did have a point with regard to betting an A or K flop as if one had AK, then betting flops where you hit reasonably well, as a lot of raggedy flops will. But I'm still tending to view this as a strategy that's a lot more viable against a tight field.

My argument against (at looser tables, anyway): You really would like the pot to be multi-way, so why limit the field. If you're putting in $5 along with 5 other players, why put in $20-$25 and get only 1 or 2, who indeed may miss the flop, but you probably will, too, and a lot of players don't realize how bad it can be for their KQ to hit a K to a raise.

So, basically, I'd like to hear any experiences good or bad about raising these things, when it's good, when it's bad, stuff like that.

What I'd really like to work toward is a strategy where, to the extent possible given board variations, I can play sets, TPTK usually, nut straight draws, and nut flush draws pretty much the same way at least on the flop. But, with the draw hands, I think position is a much bigger factor (on a set, I'll probably be able to bet the turn, on a draw, I probably would prefer not to).

In the few times Ive played live, I dont think I would dare raise a suited connector because I get way too many callers.

That kills have of my reasoning for raising them, which is that I can win the pot with nothing when I get it heads up and bet the flop.

With alot of callers, I have to hit the flop hard and Im going to have to draw or fold.

However, if you limp in, I do think you should be betting your straight draw escpecially if you are near the last person to act.

Thanks, that already says a lot. Basically, I'm sticking with the raise being a good strategy at tight tables. Reasons: You're not getting it multi-way anyway as a general rule (and if you are, it's probably even better because you're likely to have a lot of low cards left in the deck), and, secondly, you have a very good shot at taking down a decent pot quickly uncontested.

At least with the players who know me, I think I now have plenty of betting credibility for making the semi-bluff. They're more or less always expecting a set whenever I bet but haven't raised PF.

But the out-of-position semi-bluff is a bit tricky. I guess, if you just bet ouf to begin with (as I say, at these tables, I'm not enthusiastic about checkraising), you still have 3 opportunities to win: 1) They fold, 2) You hit the turn (best opportunity), 3) They screw up on the turn by betting it too weak and let you make your hand on the river.

Your last paragraph is right on.

Although, I prefer not to do it TOO far out of position. In other words if I was UTG (which I wouldnt be with a suited connector but might be with AJs and a QT9 flop), I would check to see the action but if I was last or next to last, I would bet the pot.