[LOW] When to c-bet against fish? (example hand missed the flop)
Hey all - I've been getting back into poker and am trying to take it a lot more seriously than in past stints. I'm a rec, and I only play live because it's more fun, but I'd like to be a winning rec and it feels achievable 😀
The topic here addresses a general situation that has frustrated me recently, and I included an example hand where I'm not sure of my play at most streets. In short, though, most of the reading I can find about adjusting to LLSNL suggests that loose-passive fish are the best source of chips at the table. The thesis makes plenty of sense: get a good hand and take them for all they're worth. At the table, however, I feel like I go on extended runs of bleeding little bets where I can't seem to catch a flop, maybe interrupted by a bad beat or two. I suspect this mildly tilts me toward trying to bluff the fish off low pairs, which just makes the problem worse. Regardless, I have a general pattern of better performance and more confidence when there's at least a chance that my open can buy the blinds.
The central question I have is basically this - what's the best c-betting (and continuation) approach against your typical loose-passive fish? I have actually seen some split opinions reading. Some favor range c-betting IP basically because alpha (they are playing very wide fit-or-fold and >33% fold to a half-pot cbet prints even if Hero has zero equity). Others say just play FOF yourself and focus on profit when you hit the flop. The former approach makes more sense to me, but then you get a night full of hands like this...
Hero's image at this point is likely pretty weak. We've been opening a tight linear range for big size, consistently getting 2-5 callers, and folding flop or turn to aggression. Have almost never shown a hand except recently busted opening AKo 12x, still getting 3 callers.. flopped TPTK, shoved a short stack IP only for EP to show up with a set. So some might also expect we're on tilt.
Villain is a 40-something guy with pretty standard loose-passive tendencies who clearly likes to gamble. He can find a bet with a good hand, very occasionally a bluff, but mostly limp-calls and calls down the flop and turn with any pair or any draw. Seems willing to give up worse than top pair OTR when draws don't make it.
Table is a mix of pretty good TAG regs and fish.
1/2 NLH (8 handed)
UTG V (~$200)
BTN Hero (also ~$200)
UTG straddles to $4, and folds around to Hero who picks up
A♠ 9♣
Hero raises to $14. SB and BB fold, V calls.
We're supposed to be excited to be HU against the fish 😀
Flop ($27): 7♡ 5♢ 3♣
V checks, Hero bets $12, V calls.
Turn ($48): 7♡ 5♢ 3♣ K♢
Check, check.
River ($48): 7♡ 5♢ 3♣ K♢ A♣
V checks, Hero bets $20, V calls.
V shows A♡ 3♠.
It's a little hard for me to read if this is just a bad beat, or if my approach has leaks. Range betting the flop feels like it should be profitable as this Villain definitely folds more than one-third of the time (although maybe only half). It seems clear from the call that he has a pair or a draw and could definitely be ahead. I've been betting the river somewhat liberally against him since he seems willing to fold (for example, I think he would have folded the river bet if the river were a brick), so I thought of my river bet as nominally for value but mostly to protect my bluffing range, which makes me think maybe that's a mistake.
On the other hand, V will be calling the c-bet a lot more on a wet board and has tons of ace-rag in range, so the outcome here was also totally predictable (though I would expect exactly the same play from A4/A6/K4/K6). I could definitely adapt by c-betting more conditionally based on the board texture, but I don't think V is folding less than 33% even on this board.
But more than anything, I think the source of my frustration might be that playing against loose-passives means seeing a lot of flops multi-way and folding a lot of flops multi-way, which is inherently a pattern that involves lots of small losses punctuated by lucrative trips to value town. Some sessions you just don't get that ticket, and you have to deal with it. That's frustrating though, and I could use a sanity check here.
8 Replies
You do realize that you pretty much lost the minimum this hand? 😀
However, the flop bet is kind of meh, since this flop hits a loose-passive Villain's range a lot harder then it hits yours.
Oh, absolutely. However, the whole session was basically a mix of this kind of hand, x/f flops from earlier position after 3+ calls of a 6x open, giving up on the turn after a c-bet was called, etc.
It added up to losing 150bb over 3.5 hours, never much at once (other than stacking off the rest of it as described in OP, which I don't regret). It feels like just running bad, but I hate writing off losses like that without being self-critical. My winning sessions do seem to be disproportionately at tables that don't play as loose, but also this might be a proxy for "you win more when villains don't flop better hands than you".
However, the flop bet is kind of meh, since this flop hits a loose-passive Villain's range a lot harder then it hits yours.
Yeah, I think that's the core of my question. I think mathematically V is folding more than 33% of the time even on this board, which I think supports c-betting even this, but running into repeated instances of the ~60% he calls feels bad. Live poker is always giving such tiny sample sizes of tendencies here.
If you check the flop, are you giving up the hand without improvement? I do feel like fish eventually react to a passive line here and could choose to bet later streets with air sometimes.
I'd either check this flop or bet flop + turn.
Turn was the best card for you to bet.
Does he really call you down with middle pair for 3 streets? Unless you know for sure, we barrel this turn literally 100% of the time.
Against fishy players, either barrel more turns or check back more flops when you miss.
Btw, A high has some showdown value.
Does he really call you down with middle pair for 3 streets? Unless you know for sure, we barrel this turn literally 100% of the time.
Against fishy players, either barrel more turns or check back more flops when you miss.
That's interesting, because I had a what felt like misstep against the same villain earlier where he called two streets with an OESD that made a low pair on the turn. I barreled flop+turn and checked back the river - he almost mucked before he realized I just had Ace high! That was when I decided to bet bricked rivers instead of barreling the turn, because he was 100% chasing his draws until the very last card.
An obvious adjustment would be triple-barreling more, but nowhere I have read suggests that triple-barreling fish is a good idea and it seems extreme variance if nothing else.
I will note on this hand in particular that 753r doesn't have many 8+ out draws (can fish see a double gutter?), so maybe that is also an argument for barreling turn on this texture in particular. Definitely not seeing enough hands to know if he's sticky to a gutshot or BDFD. Skeptical he would have folded turn with his actual BPTK though.
I don't know how far he would call down with middle pair, as I basically never made a good hand that wanted to find out 😀
wp!
I'd either check this flop or bet flop + turn.
Turn was the best card for you to bet.
Does he really call you down with middle pair for 3 streets? Unless you know for sure, we barrel this turn literally 100% of the time.
Against fishy players, either barrel more turns or check back more flops when you miss.
Btw, A high has some showdown value.
I like! Makes sense
Question: what is your line in general in the same set up when we‘re holding a vulnerable semi strong hand on a pretty dry board like:
A8 , 99 on Q 8 4 r board?
unlikely to get 3 streets of value
Do you c-bet flop , check Turn , bet river thin ?
How you play the same hand if the board gets more wet
Lets say Q84ss (here i would call most river bets when flush misses
(Im too tired now to explain my reasonig ,and you probl. get it anyway otherwise please ask)
I like! Makes senseQuestion: what is your line in general in the same set up when we‘re holding a vulnerable semi strong hand on a pretty dry board like:A8 , 99 on Q 8 4 r board? unlikely to get 3 streets of valueDo you c-bet flop , check Turn , bet river thin ? How you play the same hand if the board gets more wet Lets say Q84ss (here i would call most river bets when fl
With middle pair, we can valuebet flop sometimes, check back flop sometimes.
At the end of the day, it all depends on the opponent, position, stack depth, board textures and such.
Some opponents are super station that likes to chase draws and bottom pair we can bet flop+turns then check back river.
Some opponents that are super passive that don't bluff in a million a years, we are not going to call any bets/raises from them.
Some opponents with aggro tendencies, they'll bet river with whole range when turn was checked to.
As for betting river thin, it all depends, against a station last night, I opened with QQ oop then 3 barrelled shove river on J75s 2s Js. Against other opponents I might only bet flop then might or might not go for a check/raise on turn, might even check/fold river. Or check flop bet turn+river.
Against another fish last night, I opened with 89s, cbetted flop ip on 9t3, turn 2 check check, river 4 opponent checked, I bet near pot for super super thin value.
It turned out ok, he had 96. Yea, I barely won, but I knew he didn't have a Tx, the question becomes what is his range then? His bluffs would've betted the river, it means he also has a marginal showdown value, 9x, 2x, some middle pairs.
When we bet check bet with such big sizes on river, we are repping nothing.
Yea, we lose sometimes but that's the whole point in thin value.
At the end of the day, nothing is set in stone, it all depends on your opponent, board textures, your image and etc.
we played the hand pretty face up which i don't really like.
if i'm UTG i'm always raising aces up here to $100 and putting you on close to your exact hand, a middling ace.
against this player type it's fine if you think 7x is calling after two scare cards hit the board.
