$11 NL HE STT: To C-bet or not to C-bet? That is the question

[fundiver199]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Table Format

STT

Buy-in

11

Currency

$

I have shared a number of hands recently, where I and/or the opponents made some sort of hand and needed to figure out how to best play it. And for sure these hands are important, but in some ways the bread and butter of low stakes poker is hands like this one, why we isolate against limpers or get called by the blinds, we flop nothing, and now we need to figure out, if we want to C-bet or not. And if we do C-bet and miss the turn as well, if we want to continue basically bluffing. So C-bet flop or not, and as played barrel this turn or not? Game is a regular speed 8-man SnG on ACR Poker. UTG+1 is an unknown, MP+1 has stats of VPIP 29/PFR 18 with a 3% 3-bet over 86 hands.

Winning Poker, Hold'em No Limit - 15/30 (3 ante) - 8 players
Hand delivered by CardsChat - https://www.cardschat.com/hand-converter.php

UTG: 1,579 (53 bb)
UTG+1: 2,048 (68 bb)
MP: 1,919 (64 bb)
MP+1: 2,252 (75 bb)
CO: 2,317 (77 bb)
BU (Hero): 1,955 (65 bb)
SB: 1,932 (64 bb)
BB: 1,998 (67 bb)

Pre-Flop: (69) Hero is BTN with K♣ Q♠
1 fold, UTG+1 calls 30, 1 fold, MP+1 calls 30, 1 fold, Hero raises to 135, 2 players fold, UTG+1 calls 105, MP+1 calls 105

Flop: (474) T♦ 6♦ 4♠ (3 players)
UTG+1 checks, MP+1 checks, Hero bets 190, UTG+1 folds, MP+1 calls 190

Turn: (854) A♣ (2 players)
MP+1 checks, Hero?

 

[primrose]

The only continuing line that seems good to me is something like betting the Turn for 120% Pot and then betting the River for maybe 90% pot, in which case you can get a T to fold. But the SPR is only about 1.5 so that's not happening. (And even that line is questionable because is a pretty likely card to have for MP+1.) A smaller bet here won't fold the T, the A, or the flush draw, so I don't see the point. I think the correct play is to give up.

If we were playing against the BB here it would be different because they're more likely to have a 6 or a 4, then I think a small second bet makes sense. But not against a limping range.

 

[fundiver199]

If we were playing against the BB here it would be different because they're more likely to have a 6 or a 4, then I think a small second bet makes sense. But not against a limping range.

MP+1 overlimped preflop and have stats of VPIP 29 / PFR 18. This mean, that he frequently raise preflop, and he does not play crazy many hands. Its almost LAG stats just with a slightly wide gap between VPIP and FPR. What kind of range do you think, a player like this limp behind with, when he could have isolated the first limper himself?

 

[primrose]

I'm always assuming that limping ranges are mostly big cards. I know suited connectors are like the stereotypical limping hands, but there are only 20 combinations of proper suited connectors of cards below 10. If they also limp suited gappers then another 16, maybe (but idk if people really limp 75s). Every single category of broadway cards like QT is itself 16 combinations. So there are just more combinations of big cards that they can have. I think this is true even after they call -- there's JT, QT, KT, 9T., and even QJ and KJ with a diamond might get stubborn

And then the other problem is that for every suited connector there's also a suited Ace -- in fact there are a few more suited Aces.

 

[fundiver199]

I'm always assuming that limping ranges are mostly big cards.

Thats likely, where we disagree. I dont think, a player, who raise 19% of hands preflop, has any range for open limping, other than maybe from SB, like I do myself. And he did not open limp but limp behind. Which I think is a range consisting mostly of implied odds type hands. Mainly small pairs but maybe also suited connectors. Everything else I would imagine, that he would either raise or fold. Like A4o fold, A4s raise. T9o fold, ATo/KTo raise. And so on.

 

[primrose]

Since you play online, you could try to find evidence for this by filtering for hands where people limped (or just limped behind) and went to showdown. Although you would need a pretty large sample size.

As for your specific examples, since this was a middle position limp, I would agree that A4o and T9o folds and ATo raises, most likely. I'm not sure that KT raises and I would expect A4s to limp -- suited Aces are also implied odds hands!

There are some pairs in there but 88+ probably raises and 66 and 44 have hit sets, so we have maybe 77, 55, 33, 22, another 24 combinations that you can profitably bluff.

 

[fundiver199]

Since you play online, you could try to find evidence for this by filtering for hands where people limped (or just limped behind) and went to showdown. Although you would need a pretty large sample size.

I am not talking about population tendencies here but a player with these specific stats. If he was playing VPIP 34 / PFR 9, then I would assume a much wider range for limping behind, including several hands that were strong enough to raise. The point here is to actually use information from the HUD. If a player with stats of VPIP 12 / PFR 11 limps UTG with a short stack, then I would put him on a range of aces and kings and pretty much nothing else.

As for your specific examples, since this was a middle position limp, I would agree that A4o and T9o folds and ATo raises, most likely. I'm not sure that KT raises and I would expect A4s to limp -- suited Aces are also implied odds hands!

This is true. Hands like A4s could be part of a still pretty narrow limping behind range, although I would personally tend to isolate with these hands. For instance its not great, if someone behind comes along with A8o, and now we kicker dominated on A high boards. But this player might think differently. So he might have turned aces up with A6s or A4s, or top pair with a weak AX of diamonds.

There are some pairs in there but 88+ probably raises

100% agree.

and 66 and 44 have hit sets, so we have maybe 77, 55, 33, 22, another 24 combinations that you can profitably bluff.

Plus maybe hands like 76s, 65s, 54s that flopped weak pairs. And there could be draws like 98s, 87s, 75s, where I actually get value, if they continue.

 

[primrose]

I am not talking about population tendencies here but a player with these specific stats. If he was playing VPIP 34 / PFR 9, then I would assume a much wider range for limping behind, including several hands that were strong enough to raise.

That's a fair distinction. I admit I didn't pay special attention to the stats, I only sort of classified them as normal-ish.

Although now we do have the problem of a small sample size because with n=86, what looks like 29/18 could in fact be 40/15. Like this is not a case where the distribution is so extreme that a few hands tell us a lot. 86 aren't a few hands I guess, but neither is it a lot.

although I would personally tend to isolate with these hands.

Fwiw suited Aces are the one category of hands that I ~never squeeze with because I think all the strong Aces definitely call, so I fear being dominated whenever I get called. (if I limp behind then I could also be dominated, but I'm ready to just let go of a weak top pair.) I'd much rather squeeze with a suited connector, or even a crappy hand like 86s or JTo if I think bluffing is on the menu. This might be a live thing though because (for some reason) it's pretty normal to see people limp AT-AQ and even AK. If those hands reliably raise then squeezing a low suited Ace gets much better.

But yeah idk you definitely have an argument for assuming more middle cards in the range (and consequently for betting), it just depends on (a) how strong is your prior for people limping big cards, and (b) how much do you update from the player stats in this case.

 

[fundiver199]

That's a fair distinction. I admit I didn't pay special attention to the stats, I only sort of classified them as normal-ish.

The thing is, online players with "normal-ish" stats or maybe its more correct to say strong regulars hardly ever limp except from SB or in specific ICM and stack situations, where BTN limping is GTO play. I am talking tournaments here not cash games. So when someone limp behind and is not clearly a fish, its already a little unusual, and I am kind of thinking setmine as a default.

Although now we do have the problem of a small sample size because with n=86, what looks like 29/18 could in fact be 40/15. Like this is not a case where the distribution is so extreme that a few hands tell us a lot. 86 aren't a few hands I guess, but neither is it a lot.

This is true, although I will say, that with 86 hands its more likely, the stats eventually converge to something like 32/15 or 26/21 as the sample grow, rather than 40/15. This specific player is someone, where I debated using either the LAG or the SLP (Semi-loose passive) tag, because he was kind of right in the middle of those two player types.

This might be a live thing though because (for some reason) it's pretty normal to see people limp AT-AQ and even AK. If those hands reliably raise then squeezing a low suited Ace gets much better.

You do see that online as well, but I would be shocked, if a 29/18 limped behind with a strong ace. I mean... what is he then raising 18% of the time? You do also see online players with stats like 34/0, and then they are obviously limping everything. Or nearly everything since its rare to have a large sample on such a player.