Cbet against odd 10nl villain

[Robb]

Villain is 51/1/1.5 with 100% cbets, 10% call cbets and 7% raises cbets over 375 hands. This is NOT a situation I tend where I tend to bet. But this guy rarely if ever calls a cbet. His stats just demands a cbet, even on this bottom pair.

Reason I posted in NLH Strat forum is your feedback on the villain. I haven't seen any flop stats quite this ludicrous from someone with nearly 400 hands before. This is the poster child for weak-tight, right? Cbet him like a monkey is the correct line on almost any two, right?

Any thoughts you have would be welcomed.

$0.05/$0.1 No Limit Holdem
6 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($8.90)
UTG 1 ($4.93)
Hero ($16.41)
BTN ($5.55)
SB ($15.85)
BB ($10.27)

Pre-flop: ($0.15, 6 players) Hero is CO
2 folds, Hero raises to $0.35, 1 fold, SB calls $0.30, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.80, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero ???

[Fnord]

I might give him air here. I don't think it matters much.

[Erpel]

100% cbets over 400 hands (with 50% vp$ip) and he checks...

Odd as his style is, it does seem predictable enough. I have trouble putting him on anything other than KJ or J8 for a flopped straight when he checks. Whatever equity I have in this hand I'd be willing to just give up on and wait for a better spot. I'd check for a free card and if it comes clubs I'd consider staying in if I get the right price for the river, expecting him to be ready for a raise war to all-in on the river (good implieds - probably calculate with half his stack vs 9 outs to be on the safe side of him finding the occasional fold to a river all-in). No club on turn is a fold for me if he bets. I might go for value on the river if it's all blanks and checks.

It's tempting to call someone with those stats and play style an idiot, but I've seen a fair share of people recently who certainly don't play TAGG and yet seem to play profitably at the micros. I see people with 50-80 vp$ip and 0 PFR who play only post-flop - and do it aggressively - and seem to be making money. It could be regs at slightly higher stakes who are slumming at micros while working on their post-flop play with marginal-to-terrible holdings or something. Or they could just be idiots and I've witnessed them on heaters.

[Robb]

100% cbets over 400 hands (with 50% vp$ip) and he checks...

Odd as his style is, it does seem predictable enough.

His cbet stats make sense, when you think about it. He's only been the preflop raiser 4 or 5 times in 400 hands (PFR = 1). Those times, he cbet. And the AF = 1.5 is pretty agro for the number of hands he plays, which has to mean he folds a lot on the flop. He seems like a villain who (like you said) plays almost any two preflop, then folds immediately when he doesn't hit the flop hard.

It's a board that could connect with a lot his range, though. All in all, I think you have to cbet here. Just wondering what others thought.

[kettleofish]

Edit: Ya, RObb beat me to it...

Erpel, i don't use PAHUD, but does it define a c-bet as a bet on the flop following a PFR? If so, with his 1%PFR stat it's not surprising he c-bets 100% since he'll have AA,KK every single time. Also, it's not relevant to the hand posted because villain is OOP and hero was the aggressor PF. That's all assuming that PAHUD defines a c-bet in the same way as i do though

As for the hand in question, i'd c-bet every time if he folds 90%, it's simple math. Even if i only had 1 card, and it was the 2H, face up. In fact the only hand i probably wouldn't c-bet against this type of villain is teh NUTS, since it would upset me that he'll almost always fold.

[Robb]

As for the hand in question, i'd c-bet every time if he folds 90%, it's simple math.

He folds 83% of time (7% raises cbet stat). But same idea applies.

In fact the only hand i probably wouldn't c-bet against this type of villain is teh NUTS, since it would upset me that he'll almost always fold.

LoL

[Erpel]

Bah, I'm silly. Yes a cbet in the traditional sense is of course him betting after having been the pre-flop raiser. For some reason when I read this I thought of cbetting simply in the sense of him betting post flop whenever he gets the chance to act first - regardless if it's a donk bet or whatnot.

Me being wrong it's a must chet place of course.

[Fnord]

In a live game I'm more inclined to check this down to make it less obvious that I'm robbing him blind.

[ZwiFT]

edit ; im a moron

[Robb]

edit ; im a moron

If he calls 10% of cbets, and raises 7% of them, doesn't that mean he has to fold to 83% of cbets? I don't think there's another option when he's cbet into. But PT stats can be weirdly calculated, sometimes.

[ZwiFT]

edit ; im a moron

If he calls 10% of cbets, and raises 7% of them, doesn't that mean he has to fold to 83% of cbets? I don't think there's another option when he's cbet into. But PT stats can be weirdly calculated, sometimes.

Im actually too tired for poker now so i might be way off here.. But yeah he will hit the flop what about 30% of the time.. and because of his weak range he is willing to continue on the hand about 20% of 30%.. So the PT stats is fine here. It was just me not reading your OP post very well.

But, what i wanted to say is that a T9Q flop hits his range in the face

Therefor, the old rule "You will hit the flop about 30% of the time" will now become irrelevant. Because you have already seen the flop and he is way more likely to hit a T9Q flop than a K 2 2 flop. So what do you think now? He will hit this flop 50-60 or 70% ? and he will continue playing 80% of the hands he has hit the flop?

I suck at making myself clear so i hope you understand my train of thought.

[Robb]

But, what i wanted to say is that a T9Q flop hits his range in the face

This is the thing that made me not snap call. But he's soooooooo willing to fold flops - if it's even 50% of the time on this board, it's +EV, right?

[ZwiFT]

If you are bluffing all the time on the flop he needs to fold this hand 38,4 % of the time =) So yeah its still profitable. But a delayed cbet might bring on his range with 9s in it. Its complicated

[kettleofish]

It's only as complicated as you want to make it really. C-betting is profitable even on this board. And this is not the kind of player that u need to be attempting to extract value out of with bottom pair.

[Fnord]

On the flip side, if you want to make it less obvious you're just robbing him on every flop, this is the spot to check it down.

[Renton]

123411% check

[nutsinho]

123411% check

I agree. The value of 'just taking down the pot' really depends on your specific holding. Here, a Tx hand is gonna be in the top 17% or whatever of your opponents range and he's going to defend it. Your cbet ultimately accomplishes very little.

[will641]

123411% check

[Robb]

123411% check

I agree. The value of 'just taking down the pot' really depends on your specific holding. Here, a Tx hand is gonna be in the top 17% or whatever of your opponents range and he's going to defend it. Your cbet ultimately accomplishes very little.

Yeah...I didn't really think through the fact that more than a third of the deck puts him in DEEP kaka. Any of the 9 clubs, two 9's or 3 A's (14 cards of 47 left) might look like blanks but be the dagger in his heart.

I think nutshino (and others) have this right. If I cbet here, I'm probably only getting looked up by hands that have me beat.

So...for villains who mostly fold to cbets, we should be cbetting air and big hands only? If we have value, check it down?

[ZwiFT]

With that being said i would def go for valuetown on river if it has gone check check check check