Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

Check raising can be used to punish people who auto-bet in position too often. It's also good for semi-bluffing or building a pot when you've got a made hand vs normal betting frequencies. It's part of a balanced strategy. If every time you have a hand you donk and every time you check you either check-call or check-fold then your opponents can take ...


5

The books I have read by professional poker players discuss the check raise as part of a balanced strategy and discuss its use. The authors specifically point out that is perfectly acceptable. I surmise that those who object simply don't like having to cope with this particular tactic. If its a game among family or friends and someone objects, you might ...


4

Don't blame the "bad players" for you losing all your money with a one-pair hand. If limp-calling a low pair preflop vs you is making them money when they hit their set, it's not them that is playing poorly, but you. They are playing profitably because you are paying off time after time. I'm not trying to be harsh, but to shine the light of reality on ...


3

This has to do with the fact that late-position players in a poker hand have an advantage, having seen what early position players did, or didn't do. A check raise represents an attempt by an early position player to reverse the order. That is, he will wait for the late position player to bet first, before showing his strength. If a player never check ...


3

It's not just home games that view check-raising as "pejorative" as you say. Most of the lowball games spread in Southern California flat-out banned check-raising. The other answers are generally correct... the reasons you would check-raise are the same as why you would bet out. Sometimes, though, check-raising makes a lot more sense than just betting out ...


3

You have an interesting point of view about the short stacks, but this point tells me that you lack a few key things about short stack play. As you might know, in cash games, the blinds never increase. As you might know as well, in cash games you can buy in for any amount which is between two fixed amounts, set by the casino. However, in cash games the pots ...


3

The best way to deal with them in my opinion is to only call them with hands that have a good chance of winning a showdown. So any pair, any connectors, any suited cards preferably with a high kicker. If you act before them and have a decent hand, put in big raises to try and stop them shoving, if they do call then you hopefully chip up nicely :)


3

Checking in the dark is a high level play to reestablish position on the flop. Like someone else already mentioned, most of the time this is done with drawing hands, as someone with vulnerable hands like AA/KK would most likely never make this move. It is essentially a way of giving away less information regarding your hand and how it relates to the flop. ...


2

that is good question. I was thinking about this as well. I found it useful in some scenarios. Consider this: you got very strong hand and at first you don't know if your opponent(s) are interested in playing further, so you don't bet allowing them to see free card and extract some value on further streets. But as soon as one of the opponent bets - that ...


2

The question, as always, is, "Why is this person still playing?" If you are up against someone whom you know chases wild draws, like drawing to a flush with only three suited cards, then you may well get busted when they actually do get lucky and flop a set. On the other hand, if the player isn't a loose cannon, but limped in and calls bets on the flop, ...


2

I decided to have a go at answering this myself. The situation is you against one other player who has a made hand, and you have N outs. Before the turn, the 1-step EV (ignoring any bets on the river) is EV1 = N/47 * X + (47-N)/47 * (-10) The two-step EV, taking river bets into account, is EV2 = N/47 * X + (47-N)/47 * [ N/46 * (X + 20) + (46-N)/46 ...


2

Sometimes you realy can't avoid it It realy depends what type of game you are playing if it's super turbo or turbo where you are < 10 BB i guess shoving PF is the right play. If you have no information about your player and you have 20BB in a fast pace game i don't think you can avoid an all in either because of the 5-7BB PF raise. Tournament play and ...


2

Your raise size pre is pretty standard, but given you read on the UTG willing to play anything, I would raise slightly larger. Flop: shove is standard, any bet is effectively a shove anyways since you cannot bet/fold. You have a SPR(Stack to pot ratio) of 1.16 to the BB and greater than 1:1 against the UTG. Checking the flop is just bad.


1

As valentin said - A lot of players will say checking is a bad play So I will try to justify that point :). My plan would be to bet a bit more than 50% on flop and push any turn. Since noone 4 bet preflop on a loose table its safe to assume noone has AA,KK (and probably JJ). This means that there is almost no hand from the tight player you are affraid ...


1

You are making the fundamental mistake of playing your cards instead of your opponent. TPTK is a fine hand for modest pots in most situations. Against a loose opp, it can stand a raise. Against a solid player it should hit the muck rather quickly. You need to pay attention to how your opponents play. If they tend to be cautious about putting money ...


1

The reasons to check-raise are exactly the same as the reasons to bet, and there are only two: For value. As a bluff There is also a continuation bet, or a bet to take down dead money, but that really should be viewed as a combination of both a bet for value and a bet as a bluff. If you consider a check-raise in this context, a few tactical patterns ...


1

I agree with Mr. Booth, this question is far too broad, more over, it is not simply answered in one compact round. If you know anything about both games, you know intuitively that they dictate wildly divergent strategy. For the same intuitive thinking, you should know that just a cursorial perusal of 2+2 and Google will yield all the mathematical and ...


1

Interesting question. A good thought experiment perhaps. Firstly, something to consider is was he closing the action pre-flop when he called? This really isnt something you'll encounter very often, so i'd be inclined to give it almost no significance, until I could establish how my opponent was using it in their own unique way. Obviously, that's not going ...


1

People use to blind check when they don't want to show their weakness. they are sitting on a draw and are hoping to complete it. when they first see the flop and then check they are showing "weakness". so your info is, that he is setting up a trap or he has a draw. when they instantly checking you will never know if they probably completed their "draw". I ...


1

It depends on the size of the tournament, but the percentage of tournaments won without the winner ever being all-in is very, very low (<.05%). Two things at play here: first, other players can choose to put you all-in, and if you're +EV, you've got to call. If you choose -not- to make +EV all-ins, because it "risks your tournament life" or something ...


1

Chen's formula is limited in the way that any formula is - as said above it doesn't take account of who you're playing against. Also, though, it has major flaws in logic (why under connectedness would Ace not count as high or low? Why would you get a bonus for making a straight with community cards higher than your hole cards, but not with community lower ...


1

I would say it would be flawed to raise every time with pocket pairs in order to hit a set but depending on the players at the table it MAY (and this is a big may as it hinges on your opponents sloppy post flop play) not be incorrect to at least call in every position to hit a set. This largely hinges on you winning typically about say 12:1 on your money ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible