This is when SB is NOT folded to.
Someone in position has limped.

Some professionals have a fold or raise strategy in this spot and some have a pretty wide complete-range.
Who is right?

Raise your edge(cash game course) recommends completing stuff like A2o, K8o, Q4s,95s 100% of the time.
Personally I agree with this, and I have seen database analysis(by Alan Jackson) that proves it to be +EV to complete fairly light.

I find it strange that strategies and assumptions vary so much in this spot, with some players completing T8o and some folding T8s.

What's your thoughts on this?

Really depends on the limper as well as stacks.

If he's a solid player, I'd be folding almost everything except for monsters.

If he's a terrible player, I'd be continuing with a hugely wide range (unless stacks are very short). Whether I raised or simply completed would be based on whether I was cool with BB coming along for the ride / the chances he would fold facing a raise.

Gitdepends,imoG

Ignoring the BB for the moment, SB is getting pot odds of 2.5/0.5 = 5 to 1 or required showdown equity is only 17%. Assuming BB “checks” to a call, it seems to me a call or raise is a good move since the limp and BB action generally indicate marginal hands and just about any hand will have that equity.

Of course, since there will be future betting, this is only a first cut look at the situation so modifications should be made based on factors not explicitly considered such as villain assessments, stack sizes, hero perception, etc.

If we end up OOP against a good player with non-short stacks, the immediate odds we are getting to complete are pretty meaningless, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I'm not sure I'd completely buy into the advice from a site where the experts are mainly tournament players and someone grinding 1/3. As GG points out, poker is more than making sure your equity pf is greater than your pot odds against random hands.

FWIW, the decision to raise, call or fold is dependent on whether your EV is is better than -50 BB/100 (what happens when you fold) with that hand in the SB. So a hand that is -25 BB/100 is worth playing because you lose less.

A couple of issues arise though. First, it is nearly impossible for a live player to know what there stats are in this situation. Human memory is such that we remember those few hands where we won big with 95s (say with a 678ss board against Axs) and forgot all those times we folded on the flop, or worse, called down with TP to fold on the river. Second, Split brought up years ago that these are the situations that require you to play near perfection to get a small win but you lose a lot if you make a mistake. Most of us in LLSNL make lots of mistakes.

I understand why people like to complete. They want to play more hands and it is a "cheap" way to do it. Against 1 limper and the BB, I'd mainly raise or fold. Your IO hands won't likely get paid off and I'd rather raise to have the initiative OOP to take the pot down on the flop.

Agree with the answers above. This is NL, so the immediate odds are all but meaningless. Playing bad hands OOP sucks. I'll still complete some speculative hands, but I'm monster mining and am uninterested in the fact that, for example, I flopped a pair of 6s with a 7 kicker. Even though it might be the best hand at the moment, it's all but impossible to play profitably.

The other "it depends" thing is the number of limpers. One is pretty rare in LLSNL
If there are a ton of limpers, such that raising is only likely to get me OOP in a bloated pot, a lot of medium strength hands that would otherwise be raises become completes, and more speculative hands are worth completing, as your chances of someone hitting something to pay you off with when you hit big increases. Even then, 95s is not one of those hands, nor are any of the other examples you posted. They aren't good monster mining candidates. I might complete some suited Qs and S1Gs if there are enough limpers or at least one POW limped, but that's about as crappy as I'll consider.

I agree that raising more often than completing should be our best option against one limper(if he has a weak range).

As I mentioned in my first post I paid a guy to analyse my database(I used to play online) and with that I also got winrates(from regs with good winrates) in all kinds of spots preflop.
One of the surprising discoveries was how big the winrates were from completing the small blind, with trash hands like I mentioned earlier.
I don't have access to my laptop at the moment, so I won't be able to show this evidence.
Alan Jackson is the guy and I believe he still works for bestpokercoaching.

If any of you play online and got PT or HM you can check out this spot for yourself and see how well your worst defences does compared to folding.

Sure, but FE is much more common online, where Vs will actually give you credit for having a range advantage so you can steal on raggedy boards. I don't think that data is likely to translate well to LLSNL.

The number of times I've completed the SB flopped some mediocre action and lost a decent sized pot is way way more than the number of times I've completed flopped a monster and gotten paid.

There’s more going on here than just the math. It’s also about politics. If you don’t complete the small blind, you will quickly be labelled a nit. And if multiple people don’t complete there’s a chance the action on the table is t going to like it and may be encouraged to change tables or leave early.