Check raising in NL
T. Pascal
games because I play a lot of NL tourneys and home games. I almost
always just bet out. In NL, I just don't check-raise. Is this a
mistake? Is this profitable? Let me explain my view and then we can
debate:
A check-raise in limit is generally designed when you're in early
position for these cases: a: thin the field making limpers call two
cold or even more bets to continue; b: to build the pot, making
players call one bet and then one or more and; c) try to show strength
with a semi-bluff to perform both a and b and also possibly get a free
card when you check on the next round. (You can add d: to disguise
your "regular checks", I don't deal with that here).
In no-limit or pot-limit, I don't see as much value for these
scenarios. (Keep in mind, this in not heads-up; a check-raise
heads-up can be a devastating tool in NL, so I don't go into that).
First, if you want to thin the field in no-limit, you can just raise.
If you think the limpers won't fold to one big blind on the flop, make
it two or three. Heck, make it ten or fifty. Just raise it up to
thin the field.
Second, if you want to build the pot, just raise it up a callable
amount. Say you're pretty sure someone along the way is going to
raise. Shouldn't you check-raise? No, because you give someone a
chance for a big bluff. Someone might move a huge amount of chips and
now you've got a hard decision to make. In fact, the more checks go
around, the more likely someone is to bluff. I find it much better to
raise it up a callable amount, let the folders fold (they would have
anyway), let the drawers stay in, and hope someone raises without
making it a huge raise and also that your reraise isn't too huge.
Note that I am leaving out meta-tournament decisions about stack size
and in-the-money considerations. Just say that we're early in the
tourney so that stacks are similar and we are in stack-building mode.
In the third situation, for a semi-bluff, your initial raise is a
semi-bluff. As noted earlier, the number of checks going around
increases the likelyhood of a bluff, so you might as well start out
with yours. I am not talking about slow-playing, here! If you have
the nuts, that doesn't qualify. If you have the nuts, go ahead and
check-raise. You can call any raise that comes along, so you want to
encourage it. Here, we are trying to discourage it.
In summary, I find that check-raising in NL and PL is used in less
situations than in limit. Check-raising is primarily a bet-structure
manipulating project. You can manipulate the bet structure all you
want in NL and PL, so the use in these cases is much reduced.
Check-raising heads-up is quite useful and I do that often.
Check-raising with the nuts is also useful, but often I just shove in,
hoping I get called. I don't mind missing out on some extra dollars
if I can avoid taking on the risks of slow-playing. Rather than check
up front (which I avoid being out of position anyway), I usually just
raise outright.
JonCooke
On the flop with a decent draw - with one pot bet left you'd go all-in
as a semi-bluff.
With more chips, you'd prefer to either have leverage on the river or
be all-in, but that will take a check-raise.
Or, at PLO high on the turn, you have top set and your opponent has a
good draw, but you don't know which one of many. You should maybe
check-raise all-in to remove his implied odds.
Sometimes it's about controlling the order players bet in. Wait for a
short stack to bet to enable you to make a bigger bet.
Just a few examples.
Kopavi
like a set or made straight, why do you want to thin the field? I like to
have people bet their hand then come over the top. Once people put money
in the pot they find it hard to let go; they become pot committed in their
minds. Here is an example you have 55 you see the flop 4 handed, the flop
comes J 5 4 of different suits. If you are in early position check
because the guy with AJ or K J is going to bet it because his hand is
vunerable. If 2 people have top pair or one of them slow played an over
pair then you can usually trap one or both players. Sometimes I smooth
call on the flop and check raise on the turn, or I may not even get the
chance because they move all in to protect their hand (I guess this would
be slow playing versus check raising).
Another reason is people tend to bluff more in NL. By checking you give
them enough rope to hang themselves. If you bet it out then most players
will not attempt a steal, even though on occasion they may put you on the
steal and try to raise you off your hand. If an aggressive player is left
to act behind you and it's checked to him you can usually count on a steal
attempt, were if you had bet out you may lose all action.
Like all poker questions the answer should start with it depends. If you
are at a table full of passive calling stations then you would be better
off betting your hand. Also you WANT people to attempt a "big bluff"
especially when you have a good hand. When you play NL there is going to
be a hand 99% of the time when you are going to have to call for all or
close to all of your chips. If you are afraid of calling when you have a
very good hand you should be playing 3-6.
That is just my opinion,
Kopavi
"I am not as bad as I play"
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
T. Pascal
> I use check-raising quiet frequently in NL. If you flop a monster hand,
> like a set or made straight, why do you want to thin the field? I like to
>
example you give, J54 (rainbow) with presto, a check-raise probably is
in order. That fits the "monster" category. However, what are you
doing in early position with 55? Did you limp at a full table from
early position? It's possible, it certainly is. But I'm not sure how
common that is. More often, the board is something like a two-flush,
JJ5, etc. Now don't get me wrong, you'll usually win. More often
than that, though, you'll get JT8. Which brings me to the flopped
straight syndrome. Flopping a straight is quite deadly, unless it's
to the Ace. A straight can't go anywhere and it's mighty weak to
begin with. Stay away from those, sister. That's my opinion.
But I like to raise it up, especially in early position. Is this
costing me money? That's my question.
> Another reason is people tend to bluff more in NL. By checking you give
> them enough rope to hang themselves. If you bet it out then most players
> will not attempt a steal, even though on occasion they may put you on the
> steal and try to raise you off your hand. If an aggressive player is left
> to act behind you and it's checked to him you can usually count on a steal
> attempt, were if you had bet out you may lose all action.
>
This is what I was getting at. In general, you don't have a very
strong hand up front. How often does your big blind flop the huge
nuts? Say you flop a medium hand, but one you like. You want to
discourage bluffing. An attempted check-raise allows your opponent(s)
to set the size of the re-raise. You might have to fold a good hand.
That's what I was trying to get at.
> Like all poker questions the answer should start with it depends. If you
> are at a table full of passive calling stations then you would be better
> off betting your hand. Also you WANT people to attempt a "big bluff"
> especially when you have a good hand. When you play NL there is going to
> be a hand 99% of the time when you are going to have to call for all or
> close to all of your chips. If you are afraid of calling when you have a
> very good hand you should be playing 3-6.
> That is just my opinion,
> Kopavi
> "I am not as bad as I play"
>
It does "depend". Where does one personally draw the line of
check-raising? I only check-raise the monsters. The people I see
check-raising slightly weaker hands are usually getting into trouble.
I think Abdul referred to this in his balance essay, wherein he
suggests that checking your strongest monsters and your most weak
hands can disguise your strength. Everything from middle to weak,
I'll usually raise it up. Heads up, I check-raise almost anything. I
did want to hear back if this strategy is flawed or marginal or good.