Completing SB in NL

What kind of hands should be played from the SB position when there are no preflop raises in NL?

I usually play 6 person tables, so there are avg 2 limpers + the BB.

There's a lot to calculate here, bad position, possible preflop raise by the BB, number of limpers.

It depends on how big the stacks are, the more money you can potentially win compared to the blinds the more hands you can complete with as you have higher Implied Odds.

Taking Party as an example the 25NL tables have blinds of .25 /.50 so you would be getting 100:1 on completing the small blind Vs someone who had just bought in.

So you could play pretty loose but you are looking for a monster flop, anything short you would have to fold to avoid taking the second best hand to the river.

OK, watch me get hammered for this:

First thing I do is look at who BB is. At a lot of tables you will run into a guy who raises pre-flop all the time. If that guy is BB, this doesn't apply. But assuming you can expect a check from BB...

I will usually complete the small blind with a wider variety of hands than I would play from any other position.

Any face card
Any 2 suited cards
Any connecting or 1 gap cards

Once the flop hits, if I don't get a big part of it, I am checking / folding. As it is even if I pull out top pair, I will raise, but look out for re-raises.

Wow humph, your asking for it aren't you

HAHA!

This is for Stars $25 NL where the blinds are .10/.25, blinds.

If there are 3+ people limping in before me I'll usually complete my blind with
1 gaps (unsuited)
Ax
any 2 suited

If there are 4+, I'll complete my blind with nearly anything as long as I i feel the BB isn't going to raise it.

6+ limpers is any thing for me. Heck I might even raise trash just to have some fun

Originally Posted by Humphrind

I will usually complete the small blind with a wider variety of hands than I would play from any other position.

Any face card
Any 2 suited cards
Any connecting or 1 gap cards

This has got to be a leak.

Consider that 82s and Q5o arguably have reverse implied odds.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Consider that 82s and Q5o arguably have reverse implied odds.

Funny you should mention Q5o. That is the exact hand I completed the SB in limit. Turned a full house and defended that all I did was complete the SB. I admitted that it may not be best to complete in limit. But I'd do it everyday in NL.

I'm opening up my requirements because I can get a cheap look at the flop. If I hit something, great. If not, oh well. I'm sure that some of these hands don't have the odds, or implied odds. But as a whole, I think I can pay for the pots I loose with the pots I win. With only completing the SB, I am reducing my risk. But the profit on the pots I win give me a big potential reward. So I see the risk vs reward as profitable.

let's see if i get hammered for this:

in ring games (limit and NL):

- if it's been raised, my usual "raise-calling" hand requirements apply, however, these requirement loosen slightly with drawing hands based on the number of players in the pot.

- if there are 1-2 limpers, i don't usually just complete. it's either a good enough hand to raise (trying to limit the field and/or set myself up for the flop bet) or fold. ***this applies more so in limit***

- if there more than 2 limpers, i'll complete with Axs, Kxs, suited connectors, all pairs, over.

if it's folded around and the button raises - evaluate using the usual variables (is it a "real" or "positional" raise) and respond accordingly.

My biggest concern is that with those hands you'll too often miss, catch weak or flat out second best and pay someone else off. Also, when you do hit, you need to go into pot building mode on the flop.

Originally Posted by fishstick

- if there more than 2 limpers, i'll complete with Axs, Kxs, suited connectors, all pairs, over.

Looks good. Only adjustment is that in NL I'm more concerned about price than number of limpers, as I don't need as many players to pay-off my implied odds. In general, stay away from the offsuit junk. Although, offsuit connectors might be profitable in a NL game.

Anyone got PT data to back any of this up?

[quote="Fnord"]

Originally Posted by fishstick

- if there more than 2 limpers, i'll complete with Axs, Kxs, suited connectors, all pairs, over.

after thinking about it, i would add Qxs as well, with the caveat that on the A K Q x suited hands, i'm really looking for a larger cards (e.g. Q9s) to go with the over.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Looks good. Only adjustment is that in NL I'm more concerned about price than number of limpers, as I don't need as many players to pay-off my implied odds. In general, stay away from the offsuit junk. Although, offsuit connectors might be profitable in a NL game.

Anyone got PT data to back any of this up?

i checked PT, and keeping in mind that most of my data is tourney data, from the small blind, there was not much difference in performance between suited and non-suited no-gap connectors. i specifically looked KQ, QJ, JT, T9, 98, and 87.

this surprised me.

Originally Posted by fishstick

i checked PT, and keeping in mind that most of my data is tourney data, from the small blind, there was not much difference in performance between suited and non-suited no-gap connectors. i specifically looked KQ, QJ, JT, T9, 98, and 87.

Interesting. Still, in a ring game the blinds are usually smaller compared to the stacks and the table doesn't shrink.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by fishstick

i checked PT, and keeping in mind that most of my data is tourney data, from the small blind, there was not much difference in performance between suited and non-suited no-gap connectors. i specifically looked KQ, QJ, JT, T9, 98, and 87.

Interesting. Still, in a ring game the blinds are usually smaller compared to the stacks and the table doesn't shrink.

yeah - i'd be reluctant to call my tourney data really applicable to this discussion.

small blind hand performance with 3 left on a tourney table is a world of difference from 9-10 player ring game.