[jhasper]

Do you play a hand differently if its suited compared to how youd play that same hand if it was offsuit? A lot of pros have different opinions on this topic. Some say it does make a major difference where others like Cloutier say it is a small luxury but shouldn't change the way you play a hand. I know what I think about it but I was just wondering about the forums opinions and thought it might be an interesting topic. Oh yeah the one hand I think everyone will agree that being suited matters is small/medium connectors so leave those out of the discussion (include 2 big cards, large connectors, Ax and Kx if you play them)

[pritz]

Suited is always better than non-suited.

Ex... in LP, i would play suited hands like A8, K9, or 10 8

In the same position, depending on how many people are in, raises, etc, i might chuck those hands.

Suited hands are so much more appealing than non suited hands. Huge difference in my opinion... for the execption of AK AQ AJ KQ... those hands i play in all positions, suited or not.

[lork]

I think suited is good if it's ace something, I will usually limp in with these hands hoping to catch the nut flush. Other than that I wouldn't play the hand different unless im on a flush draw or of course if you catch the flush.

[chris]

I disagree. Of course suited cards are better than non-suited cards. But I don't think it should alter whether or not you play a particular hand (w/ the exception of low connectors). The chance of flopping a flush is less than 1%, and a lot of the time, playing a flush draw post flop is a -EV play if against tough players. I also am against playing Ax suited because of the amount you lose when you hit an ace and are stuck in the hand outkicked is far greater than the amount you make off the flush. I just don't think the flush percentages are enough to shift any marginal hands from -EV(offsuit) to +EV(suited). So basically I agree with TJ here, its an added luxury, but shouldn't effect play. If you have a good argument for playing some hands suited that you would much offsuit, please post because I'm trying to decide if this is the "right" position, if there is one. Thanks.

[ballen]

My take on this is that both sides are correct but in different settings. Like you said, TJ believes you should never play a suited hand if you would not have played it offsuit, and I think in tournament situations this is correct. In tournament play top pair/top kicker are going to be much more likely to win a pot. However, if you're playing in a low limit no fold em game, how many pots are won with TP/TK? Far less than 50% from my experience, making the possibility of hitting a flush much more important.

Doyle Brunson in S.S. makes a huge distinction between offsuit and suited big cards, saying AQo is a trap hand while AQs is something you will play. The nature of NL ring games, since you're going to move in much more readily than in a tournament (at least if you play like Doyle), makes those extra outs more important.

So I'd say the importance of suited cards goes like this, from most important to least important:

1. No foldem limit games
2. Other limit games
3. NL cash games
4. Tournaments

[ThomasR]

I would say if they are high cards, I'd still play them AK, AJ, on or offsuit I would play those cards to a reasonable extent.

However, I would be more inclined to play lower value cards if they are onsuit and look for that flush. It can be a risky stunt as anyone with higher suited cards has an advantage, but I wouldn't play 5-7 offsuit, yet I may well play 5-7 onsuit. Not always, but sometimes. 5-7 offsuit I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot bargepole.