Checkraising: The most misused stud play?

I have just finished a session on Paradise stud 8, where i saw that most people seem to have no idea how to use the checkraise.


One particular hand a K doorcard had been leading all the way. The player on his left had 2s6c4s6s, on 6th and was now high. He checked as did the 2 rough looking lows (8643, and 5489) and the K bet. The open 6s now check raised and pushed out the 2 rough looking lows, and got a couple of crying calls from the K. It turned the checkraiser had As3s in the hole for the A high flush and a lock 6432A low. Surely he could have made much more by either betting or check calling with this hand (i strongly favour betting).


I saw several hands like this in the session with people checkraising monster hands and knocking out the whole field. Then i saw people check raising after the whole field had called with 2 small pair. Needless to say they just dug themselves a hole.


Has anyone else found that most people misuse checkraising in Stud (and other games of course)? It just seems to be very prevalent in Stud games.

Mr. Peterson,


When you say checkraising is misused in stud, I feel like you are describing a situation peculiar to stud/8 and also Omaha/8. I do agree that checkraising is often sorely misused in these games, pushing out hands that were drawing dead but would have called a lone bet. Better to bet out, pin them for one bet, and then call the raise.


As far as checkraising after the whole field has called with two pair, that is atrocious. I agree with you that betting out is a better play. Of course, I do not play any high limit games, but most players obsessed with checkraising would do well to bet out and then three-bet the raise that often comes. Checkraising is an oft overused play, symptomatic of FPS.


Perhaps you could give an example of a stud only hand that you are thinking of where checkraising is misused? Thanks.


Mike

nm

Yesterday I had three tens on fourth street with only one ten on the board and another ten in the player to my right's board. On fifth street, it was checked to me, I bet, and the player to my left check-raised with three spades knocking out the player on her left. Of course I called and hit my full house on the river, but the question is whether her check-raise was wise.


It seems that there are a few questions beyond the typical questions asked when deciding whether or not to checkraise:


First, even though you have a strong hand, it may be to your benefit to knock players out. You may be facing possible bigger drawing hands, and you may choose to go heads up against one bigger draw than against two or three. In other words, your hand is not that strong relative to the other player's hands.


Second, if you just call, will that earn you more money for the risk you are taking? For example, against two players a call will net the the exact same amount of money as a check raise, because when one of your opponents calls a single bet, you earn you only one bet; but you risk being drawn out on by that additional player. Whereas you will earn that same one bet from the other player who will call you without incurring the increased risk of being drawn out on by the additional player. Of course, implied odds may change the equation; and if you believe your raise will be called anyway, you may raise into a loose player.


So yes, I see people check raising just as a trick to make people see how tricky they are. It does screw things up sometimes, but hey, you should earn money on your opponents mistakes, right?

In the example I use below, it was clear that my opponent either didn't know what I had knew she was ahead. I knew that if I made my hand, I would get paid off with an extra bet on the river. When she bet into me on the river, I knew she wasn't thinking on three levels.


She should have known that I would'nt have called her to the river with just two pairs, that I had to have trips. Recognizing this, she should have just checked the river, because while I might have called with trips, I had a good chance of fulling up and would have raised her, which I did. Only then did she realize I had a full house.


When your opponent doesn't think on three levels, it doesn't pay to think on those levels yourself; you might just fool yourself out of pot.

The checkraise you describe sounds good, especially if all she had was a pair and four-flush. If she had the flush, then she might as well put as much pressure on two-pair hands to fold.

Ok this happened today at stud high table. I have been doing most of the betting with rolled up Queens, and i make a hidden full on the river.


The high player on my left shows T67T and checks, 5679 checks too but i think he has the straight. A possible flush (which he says he made) checked next. I bet my full house and was check raised, by the TT hand. After much deliberation the straight and the flush folded.


I considered reraising but i know this player pretty well and i just called. He had made quads on the river and check raised out all his customers. If he had bet the river he would likely have got at least 5 bets but probably more.


There does seem to be a prevalence of people knocking players out when they want to build the pot, but i did see players building pots by checkraising the field when they really wanted to eliminate players as well.


It appears that Stud players have a big advantage over holdem players to me when it comes to checkraising, as the most likely bettor is often clear from the boards. It amazes me that some players don't seem to pay any attention to what the likely effect a check raise will have, and just seem to think good hand must check raise.

In my opinion, check-raising is a stronger move for hold'em players than stud players since the stud boards help the reading hands (doorcards, cards folded, suited, connectors, etc).


In your good example the quad holder probably didn't use the "rule" that dictates "with your very good hands come out betting, hoping someone raises getting 3(or 4) bets".


Marco

I think you are right but for a differnt reason. If she knew she was up against trips, it might be to her advantage to narrow the field to increase her odds of winning.


I, however, don't think she had a pair and four flush. She made her flush on fifth street. Secondly, the player between us had very little, so his continued presence was less of a threat to our hands.


She simply thought she had the best hand and didn't know what I had. Even the bet on the end may be profitable, because I make the full house a little less than half the time but I will likely call with trips for the size of the pot even when I don't make it. The problem is when I do make it it costs her two bets, but when I don't, she wins only one.