Quote Originally Posted by biondino
A myth from above: suited cards are worth 2-3% more than the same cards unsuited IN TERMS OF WHICH IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN ANY GIVEN HAND. Where they differ is in the *amount* of money each is likely to win.

While flushes are easily spotted, and easily folded to, they are also often the stone cold nuts and bad players will bet into or, more likely, call bets aginst the nut flush often enough to make them considerably more profitable than the same cards unsuited. Being able to add flushes to pairs, two pair, sets and straights in your winning armoury makes a big difference.

The flip side of the coin is, as already stated, that it is VERY easy to overplay suited cards. A lot of people call bets with bad odds because they have found themselves with a flush draw; a lot of people play with substandard hands because they are suited, then carry on playing them even when their suitedness becomes irrelevant (for example, TKs on a Kxx rainbow board - you end up calling three bets and lose to AK when you'd have folded pre-flop if it had been unsutied).

After 35,000 recorded hands, my WORST in terms of loss per hand is AJs. Only one of my worst ten performing starting hands is off-suit. Makes you think, eh...
Right so your saying that because when you hit them they are often the NUTS (i.e. no paired board). Then they are worth chasing as long as you are getting implied odds on the other peoples stacks because so often they will bet into it ? I find that what your saying is correct while I don't have any stats in front of me to back it up, my instinct is that your totally correct, being that they are played in position so they are not raised to often preflop and dumped when there is no draw on flop, and bets are only tendered or called when the implied odds are present. Right ?