C-bet sizing against nit and spew

LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 595 ✭✭✭
Not a hand I played myself but wanted to discuss.

2/4 full ring.

Hero opens :Ts:Td UTG to 24 and covers.
CO calls (325)
BB calls (225).

Flop :9S::8D::3C:
Pot is 74.

BB checks. Hero?

CO is a very tight player.
BB is a very loose and spewy player.

What do we bet? Let's keep the options between 30 (small) and 50 (large).

Betting 30 keeps CO's calling range wider so we have an easier time on the turn betting for value and can induce squeezes from BB at a higher frequency, while CO is going to fold a lot (we estimate 80%) to a bet of 50 allowing us to more easily get it in against BB once he calls.

Comments

  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    As a default I would go big. Size to the spew to get the easy money while charging the nit and probably induce a fold to all of those Broadway overcard draws that you know make up most of the nit range. Being a nit he could have JJ or even QQ here and you would just have to make the bet/fold against that player type but by far those are the minority of the combos in his range...
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's important to see the dynamic. While you likely have the BB crushed, that isn't necessarily so against the CO. So the bet should trend from small to zero. TT wants a degree of protection, especially three way, but you'll want to avoid creating a scenario where your bet is so big you can't continue vs raises from the CO.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 595 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    It's important to see the dynamic. While you likely have the BB crushed, that isn't necessarily so against the CO. So the bet should trend from small to zero. TT wants a degree of protection, especially three way, but you'll want to avoid creating a scenario where your bet is so big you can't continue vs raises from the CO.

    What if CO does not have a raising range? She just calls all her sets and two pairs and does not bluff raise. I still feel like a small bet would be more effective as it loses less against her 2p+ while not really impacting the value we extract from BB to a large degree.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,221 ✭✭✭✭
    I agree with a small bet. But a really "small" bet - aka an underbet much smaller than 30, more around 15 or 20 (max max 25). There are really few turn which we don't like. So it's fine to "underprice" and let V (esp. BB) see a too cheap of a turn.

    Big advantages of an small underbet:
    - If CO is tight, he is going to overfold / fold too easily - so even a 1/5-1/3 pot size bet is fine. Half pot bet is already (too) big. Also even if rather inelastic, we still can scratch some values of overcards and TP. We don't need to put more aggro dead money against CO.
    - It may trigger spewy BB to a c-r ("it looks weak!") and commits playing stacks; we are happy about it.

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 595 ✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    I agree with smaller sizing, but one thing that the player who actually played the hand used as an argument for betting 50 (which he did) is that the hands we add to CO's range by betting smaller (compared to betting 50) are ones that are folding anyway on a lot of turns when we barrel again. So at the end of the day, we only grant him the opportunity to improve.

    I think this is slightly misleading. As a result of CO's range being wider on the turn we:
    1) run into a hand that beats us less frequently
    2) can make more +EV value bets on the turn
    3) make money off of CO with her range that's calling flop and folding turn
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I agree with smaller sizing, but one thing that the player who actually played the hand used as an argument for betting 50 (which he did) is that the hands we add to CO's range by betting smaller (compared to betting 50) are ones that are folding anyway on a lot of turns when we barrel again. So at the end of the day, we only grant him the opportunity to improve.

    I think this is slightly misleading. As a result of CO's range being wider on the turn we:
    1) run into a hand that beats us less frequently
    2) can make more +EV value bets on the turn
    3) make money off of CO with her range that's calling flop and folding turn

    yes, your reasoning is correct. Or to put it very simply, what most efficiently realizes our goal?
  • sfx_beigssfx_beigs Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
    Newbie question here as this is the kind of situation I find myself in.

    You likely have the best hand here but doesn’t any over card on the turn make you really uncomfortable?

    I’m trying to underdog what the goal here is? Isolate the BB knowing we have an advantage even with overcards coming on future streets? Do we just not worry about the over cards because they’re also scary for the nit and we still have an advantage over the BB? What range are we putting a nit on in this spot?
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited February 13
    persuadeo wrote: »
    It's important to see the dynamic. While you likely have the BB crushed, that isn't necessarily so against the CO. So the bet should trend from small to zero. TT wants a degree of protection, especially three way, but you'll want to avoid creating a scenario where your bet is so big you can't continue vs raises from the CO.

    Trying to understand this. My thinking is if the CO is tight (and presumably not very tricky) and raises a big bet (and thus a big raise) you can fold knowing you are way behind. Betting small so you can call a raise from a tight player that probably has you beat when he raises and if not could very well induce a bluff check raise or turn lead from the loose player. I just don’t get it. What am I missing?

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 13
    sfx_beigs wrote: »
    You likely have the best hand here but doesn’t any over card on the turn make you really uncomfortable?

    Do we just not worry about the over cards because they’re also scary for the nit and we still have an advantage over the BB? What range are we putting a nit on in this spot?

    Yes you could say all that in general, but you have to think situationally too. This is not really a common situation due to being on the top end of a 3 card straight. While there's no flush draw this is still a pretty dynamic board, but what helps protect our hand in a way is that a lot of cards we "don't want to see" vis a vis opponents' ranges actually help our equity in another sense. 6, 7, T, J, Q are interesting cards for us. And there is no particular reason to think anyone is going into the turn with a K, for example, assuming we bet. A very tight player is certainly going to have AK in his range preflop, but will usually fit-or-fold it on the flop. You don't need to bet more than you need to accomplish what you want. A flat from a very tight player preflop means hands that are usually either going to fold here easily (AKo - AJs), or have us crushed (JJ, 99, 88), or are medium strength made hands (maybe 98s, A9s, though these don't fit "very tight"). So smaller bets work in all cases. Those "loose hands" that we wantcalls from are more likely to be in the BB's hand (paired the 8 or 9, gutshots, etc.) Those could stand a bigger bet but are not badly served with smaller bets either. BB if he continues will often show up with hands that have 4-5 outs against you and you don't need a ton of protection against those sorts of hands. Assuming we only get one caller on the turn, an A is really the only card I'm not happy about, but the tight player is probably not seeing the turn with a naked A, I'm more worried about the loose player, but in that case his range is so wide it's less likely to hit his hand than the tight player anyway.

    I personally think 15 is too small but I think 25 would be fine. At 5:1 that's where you're going to start seeing calls by hands like AK with 6 outs, or simply not wanting to fold to a little bluff c-bet with a hand he thinks suspects could be dominating you.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BigFudge wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    It's important to see the dynamic. While you likely have the BB crushed, that isn't necessarily so against the CO. So the bet should trend from small to zero. TT wants a degree of protection, especially three way, but you'll want to avoid creating a scenario where your bet is so big you can't continue vs raises from the CO.

    Trying to understand this. My thinking is if the CO is tight (and presumably not very tricky) and raises a big bet (and thus a big raise) you can fold knowing you are way behind. Betting small so you can call a raise from a tight player that probably has you beat when he raises and if not could very well induce a bluff check raise or turn lead from the loose player. I just don’t get it. What am I missing?

    For so many reasons, but maybe the simplest one is that using your chips for information is a strategy of diminishing returns. If you're going to fold to his raise anyway, then why would you put more at risk?

    (I suppose it would be helpful if I clarify that betting small to zero is the right play without any reads at all, and am somewhat defaulting to that.)
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    Well I’m not using my chips for information, but without running the numbers, I’m thinking we are ahead of the nits range which has a ton of Broadway and more than likely just JJ/QQ as overpairs to our TT. With that, we have a hand that we are probably ahead, with so many turn cards that put us to a tough decision. Not to mention the wildcard loose player who will probably bluff most overcard turns.
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited February 13
    Didn’t get to finish my comment above. Maybe it’s just the difference in games. In my game I’m ahead of a capped nit range most of the time with TT on this flop so I want to bet large for value, against both the nit and the LAG. Also, when you bet small in my game the LAGs will bluff any turn overcard and often check raise small flop bets putting you in a tough spot so betting large for value, to keep the LAG in line, charge the nit if he has overcards, and forcing the nit to play his cards face up if he doesn’t.

    Other than the comment you made about losing less when you are behind (which is less likely in my opinion), what are the benefits of betting small?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BigFudge wrote: »
    Maybe it’s just the difference in games. In my game I’m ahead of a capped nit range most of the time with TT on this flop so I want to bet large for value, against both the nit and the LAG.

    This really just doesn't make much sense though. In the previous post you said the "nit" (your word, not the OP's) has a "ton" of broadway in his hand. I'm not sure what you mean by that. He certainly doesn't have a ton in absolute terms, because he doesn't have KT and he doesn't have KJ or QJ. If he does, then basically he's not a nit. Give him a range here of QQ-77,AJs+,AQo and we're just barely ahead of him. Equity wise it's basically what we'd call a race.

    If you mean in relative terms, that's not true either. Unpaired Broadways represent almost exactly half of his range shown above.

    So how are you going to bet large for value? Any overcards in his range he's folding, and he's folding 77. He's ahead with 88, 99, JJ, QQ. So what exactly are you betting for value against? There's no benefit to a large bet if he'd fold to a smaller bet, and there's no benefit to a large bet if he's calling either because we're usually behind.

    We're not playing against the nit. We're playing against the LAG. Clearly a small bet is correct against the nit because it folds out his equity in overcards, and loses the least when we're behind. We could bet larger against the LAG but we have 2 people to worry about.
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited February 14



    You are right he said loose and tight, but since he didn’t say passive or aggressive, I further defined the roles. It’s only a race with the nit if you assume the nit is going to realize all of his equity which a larger bet will further ensure he doesn't (I.e fold equity which is how you make the MOST money from a nit). Although I think you need AKo if that range as well. If you assume the nit is raising its only going to be 88,99 and maybe QQ, JJ. Count the combos and he ISNT raising very often. The rest of the time he is more than likely folding everything else in that range. So let’s use your point that there might not be any value against the nit and assume he folds everything else, giving up his equity, leaving you either winning it right there if the LAG folds or getting more value from a LAG on the flop (vs a small bet) and heads up on the turn with position and the aggressive lead. That’s a great spot.

    A small bet by comparison, means you loose less money a very small percentage of the time (I.e when the nit raises), but make less money from the LAG on the flop, and leaves you WIDE open to a LAG bluff as I’ve noted previously. That’s a terrible spot.

    Your “clear” point fails to take all of this into account, but I guess at this point I agree to disagree.

  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited February 14
    jeffnc wrote: »
    We're not playing against the nit. We're playing against the LAG. Clearly a small bet is correct against the nit because it folds out his equity in overcards, and loses the least when we're behind. We could bet larger against the LAG but we have 2 people to worry about.

    Just one more thing. EXACTLY! Since we are playing against the LAG it is even more correct to play correctly against him and slightly less correct against the nit. As noted, we get theoretical money against the nit by making him fold out his equity but we make realized cash against the lag. A big bet makes more from the LAG, takes control from the LAG and only loses to the nit raise a smaller portion of the time. So long as you can estimate the nits raise frequency well enough, it’s not hard to work out a bet size that makes this total +EV vs a smaller bet (I’ll run the numbers myself when I get home).

    Note: slightly different flop, position, flop action or V description and I might be singing an entirely different tune. Also, this is for the players I have in my game which is LA 3/5-5/5 type games. Very different than Vegas or online
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There's a lot in these 2 posts but I'll only make a few comments.
    BigFudge wrote: »
    It’s only a race with the nit if you assume the nit is going to realize all of his equity which a larger bet will further ensure he doesn't

    This strikes me as an odd thing to say. It's like you want a hot dog from a street vendor and he says it costs $5, but you give him $10 to "further ensure" you get your hot dog. There's a threshold, and going over is wasteful.
    BigFudge wrote: »
    A small bet by comparison, means you loose less money a very small percentage of the time (I.e when the nit raises)

    A nit is absolutely not going to raise every time he's ahead.
    BigFudge wrote: »
    but make less money from the LAG on the flop, and leaves you WIDE open to a LAG bluff as I’ve noted previously. Your “clear” point fails to take all of this into account

    When I said "clearly", it was in the context of considering the nit alone.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BigFudge wrote: »
    Since we are playing against the LAG it is even more correct to play correctly against him and slightly less correct against the nit.

    That's plausible, but you'd have to show me some math to make me believe it. You're using the word "correct" and it seems you mean "optimal". I don't see a small bet against the LAG as being incorrect. If I were heads up against the LAG I'd probably bet larger just out of habit (at the end of the day we think at some level every decision we make is optimal), but I've seen players as good as or better than me bet smaller so they might be right. The LAG's range is very wide, and he's going to continue with some stuff you and I think are junk if the price is right - in other words he's folding part of his range to a larger bet that we don't want him to, causing him to play correctly, so this has to be factored in too. One of the primary advantages we have here is the LAG is going to incorrectly call smaller bets, while the nit is going to correctly fold to smaller bets (or better yet incorrectly, which is basically the definition of a nit.)

    Sometimes nits like to spring traps, and they do it based on some threshold of time (streets or bets) and/or SPR. The more money you bet now, the more likely he is to raise his big hands, which is more likely to knock out the LAG, which is basically the worst case scenario or close to it. In addition to your made hand you have additional backdoor equity here*. There are some interesting scenarios where you hit a T or a 7, in particular. Even a 6 or J could paralyze the nit and give you even more chances. That's nearly 1/3 of turn cards. How much this factors in, I'm not sure.

    *Some of this backdoor stuff is not intuitive in a pure equity sense. You actually have more equity against 88 than you do against QQ, believe it or not. This is true whether LAG is in the hand or not. In a playability sense it gets even more complicated.
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭



    jeffnc wrote: »
    BigFudge wrote: »
    Since we are playing against the LAG it is even more correct to play correctly against him and slightly less correct against the nit.

    That's plausible, but you'd have to show me some math to make me believe it. You're using the word "correct" and it seems you mean "optimal". I don't see a small bet against the LAG as being incorrect. If I were heads up against the LAG I'd probably bet larger just out of habit (at the end of the day we think at some level every decision we make is optimal), but I've seen players as good as or better than me bet smaller so they might be right. The LAG's range is very wide, and he's going to continue with some stuff you and I think are junk if the price is right - in other words he's folding part of his range to a larger bet that we don't want him to, causing him to play correctly, so this has to be factored in too. One of the primary advantages we have here is the LAG is going to incorrectly call smaller bets, while the nit is going to correctly fold to smaller bets (or better yet incorrectly, which is basically the definition of a nit.)

    I think many of the points you bring up are valid. My thinking is that you are playing against two opposite styles so playing “optimally” against both is going to be impossible. Philosophically speaking, every extreme style has strengths and weaknesses and the way to beat the style is to bet in a way that beat neutralizes the strength and/or taking advantage of the weakness...I.e exploiting imbalance. The nit is going to have solid hands, but will fold too often while the LAG makes money because they have a wide range that confuses some opponents and gives them leeway to bluff. A LAG has to bluff too much because that’s the only way they can make up for all they lose by playing too many hands.

    My main point in this case is that betting small is taking advantage of the nit but playing into the LAGs strength, inviting him to attack weakness. I think most LAGS are not going to call a small bet, at least not the ones I know, they will almost always check raise in this spot or plan to raise on a future street especially on scary cards. That’s what makes them a LAG and not a calling station. Given our hand is currently strong but vulnerable, Id expect the LAG to put us in a difficult spot if not now then on so many turn cards that really hurt us.

    Contrast that with a large bet that is playing into the nits strength but the LAGs weakness, the nit is much easier to make correct decisions against later in the hand as they usually play their cards face up. Now if the nit calls the big bet planning to raise on future streets, you know you are way behind (either to JJ/QQ or 88/99) and can play all turn cards accordingly. Could the nit raise the LAG out? Sure but then at that point it’s no longer your pot to worry about and he raises the LAG out to his own detriment.

    Thanks again for all of your thoughts, going to run some numbers tonight.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,942 ✭✭✭✭✭
    BigFudge wrote: »
    My main point in this case is that betting small is taking advantage of the nit but playing into the LAGs strength, inviting him to attack weakness. I think most LAGS are not going to call a small bet, at least not the ones I know, they will almost always check raise in this spot or plan to raise on a future street especially on scary cards.

    Well maybe but as @Red already said, bet small, let the nit fold, let the LAG attack perceived weakness by c/raising, then get it in and be happy about it. I see that as a plus for a small bet not a minus. As far as future streets go, what can I say - the more complicated the hand, the more it is supposed to favor the better player.

  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    I just see it completely differently. I’m not scared of the nit. The LAG is much more difficult to deal with. He’s going to be going with a wide range and no matter how good the player is you are going to guess wrong FAR more often against a LAG than a nit. Let’s say it goes LAG smooth call and then he bets out big on any overcard turn?

    Sure you can analyze range and make a call based on all that, but at the end of the day you are guessing, even if it is an educated guess. why put yourself in that position when you could just bet bigger and take the aggressive approach when it only risks losing a little more in the event a straight forward nit has you beat, and you can essentially exploit him every time he raises? Never going to see eye to eye on this I guess that’s what makes this such a great game.
  • BigFudgeBigFudge Red Chipper Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited February 14
    Haha you know, I just now read that in the header OP does actually say nit and spew not nit and LAG. This changes things to an extent as to I’m not as worried about skillful stabs but I am still going after the spew for full value, still not worried about the straight forward nit, still focused on the BB and bet and I stand by the $50, with a 3/4 pot sized bet on most turns if he continues. Same status if nit plays back easy fold.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 302 ✭✭✭
    I don't understand why anyone is considering it a bad thing if a smaller bet pushes a LAG to bluff more often. Especially when the SPR vs him is low and it's a relatively straightforward call-off. Additionally, as @jeffnc pointed out, there are some pretty good runouts for TT. Half of the overcards that can fall give us straight draws.

    If a small bet can effectively fold out the tight player's broadway hands, and possibly push the LAG to bluff too often, it sounds like win-win to me.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file