Who does this? Checking monsters on the river.

[shaniac]

This has happened twice in the last few days in big buyin ($150-$200) tournaments on Party and Stars.

Hand one from Party. It's early--round 1 or 2, I have less than the starting 1K but not much less--and I limp after one or two limpers with AT. Flop is AKX it's checked to me, I bet around 50 and get cr'd the minimum by one of the blinds, which I call. We see a king on the turn, headsup, and both of us check. The river is a 3rd king, making the board KKKAX so I have the nut full house. He checks, I bet something around the pot (250 or so) and he checkraises me allin. I call and he has KJ for rivered quads.

The next hand took place tonight in the $150+12 on Stars. Blinds are 15/30 and I hold 66 headsup in a raised pot on the button. I have about 1700 and my opponent over 3K.

We check a flop of 6x-4h-Jh and when an offsuit 2 turns, he bets 150 and I raise middle set to 350. He calls.

The river is an offsuit 7 for a final board of J-6-4-2-7 rainbow. He checks, and I obviously think my set of 6s is good so I bet 450 of my remaing ~1175. He thinks for a while (!?) and then checkraises me allin for my last 715 with 77(7).

In the first situation, from Party's Friday Special, I guess it's somewhat obvious that I have an ace and will bet if it's checked to me, so his quads actually stand a chance of getting paid off better than if he bet out 4-of-a-kind. (Still, I think checking is strange, because anyone with the the ace will raise a river bet most of the time and there aren't any weaker full houses that will pay off a check-raise, but would pay a modest river-bet.)

But in the 2nd hand I described, there are just SO many 1-pair hands I will check down behind--and so few that I will pay him off with to a check-raise--that checking a set of 7s seems, to me, completely insane.

Am I missing out on some aspect of advanced play? I don't think I've EVER checked a big hand on the river at a full table hoping to check-raise.

Shane

[MLG]

Some times the check to enduce a bet is a good play, like arguably the first case. Very few players online do it though, and I suppose when some do its in a bad spot, like the second case. I do find that most online players unwillingness to do it makes it very easy to play the river against them.

I do it occasionally, and I also c-raise bluff the river occasionally.

[LethalRose]

I do it occasionally too.

dont bluff check/raise the river on a bluff very often, usually do that on the flop. Unless a scare card arrives.

[SoBeDude]

if your opponent (who is last to act) is asian, try to look disappointed in the river card and check. They can't resist a bet there. Then stall a bit and wham, hit-em with the raise.

Seriously I check monsters on the river some times. There are two values to this.

First, you often set up the wonderful check-raise. And even if they don't call the check raise, they often would have folded to your river bet, so you're still making more money by getting them to bet at the pot.

The second is that once they see you check a monster on the river, they're less likely to take a shot at u in the future with less than real solid hands. So the next time you check to them on the river, they're going to want a real solid hand to bet at you with, fearing another monster being checked. This makes playing against them (and much of the rest of the table) a bit easier as it makes them more readable.

-Scott

[Ian J]

It looks to me that in both hands it's pretty obvious that you're betting the river so I see why they play it that way in each instance. Look at hand 1, it's apparent what you have and if the villain is any good he should realize that almost nobody checks behind an Ace there.

Hand 2, it sure looks as though you have a pretty big hand when you check behind on the flop and then make that little raise on the turn. Once the flush doesn't get there, he has to believe that you'll bet whatever you raised on the turn again on the river. So he checks. Seems pretty logical to me although I don't know that I'm checking that river in either hand.

[shaniac]

It's really not obvious that I'm betting the river in hand #1 since I didnt bet the turn and could have easily called his min. raise on the flop with almost any 2 cards.

In #2, I will bet the river every time with a strong hand, about half the time with something like AJ, and (this early in the tournament) very rarely on a bluff.

I'm surprsied that no one thinks it's risky in either spot to put the value of your premium hand at your opponent's betting discretion.

Shane

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]

In #2, I will bet the river every time with a strong hand, about half the time with something like AJ, and (this early in the tournament) very rarely on a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]


You should always be betting this hand here. The AJ on this board.

CSC

[Roman]

you don't think this play has value against aggressive players? Not commenting about these specific hands, but generally speaking, I check great hands on river to aggressive players a lot, even if they dont bet this time, they will be more reluctant to bluff you in the future.

[shaniac]

I can see how the play has value (perhaps as-yet-unexplored by me) in a lot of situations, but I also think it's too risky to use very often. I'd much prefer a weak lead against a truly agressive player, since he'll just as happily raise your bet on the river.

Edit: I am an agressive player, but considering that both hands took place during the first two levels of a tournament, the only reason my opponents were fortunate enough to get paid off is because I had second-nut-type hands.

Shane

[Roman]

I agree that its too risky to use too often, which is why you dont see it that often /images/graemlins/smile.gif. It is still good to throw in there sometimes.

[ZootMurph]

I MAY do something like this... depending on the player I'm up against. On that set over set hand, I think I would have folded the 66 on the turn reraise. But if I called and hit my set, I might check it to a very aggressive player. There are many players that feel they HAVE to bet at a pot on the river if checked to, and you can get that good checkraise in there.

I don't do it most of the time. If it was a smart, aggressive player, I may make the same 150 chip bet again and hope he raises me again.

[Stipe_fan]

The only way I check the river is if I *know* my opponent will bet the river. If you have constantly betting the river then you are giving way information. Reverse the roles. If you see some always betting the river, then you would probably check also.

In this case you were valuing betting your set and got burned. Such is life.

Stipe

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first situation, from Party's Friday Special, I guess it's somewhat obvious that I have an ace and will bet if it's checked to me, so his quads actually stand a chance of getting paid off better than if he bet out 4-of-a-kind. (Still, I think checking is strange, because anyone with the the ace will raise a river bet most of the time and there aren't any weaker full houses that will pay off a check-raise, but would pay a modest river-bet.)


[/ QUOTE ]

i know this isn't really the point of your thread, but i would not raise Ax here. do you really expect a hand like 77 to pay off a river raise here? however, i would payoff a c/r expecting a chop, so i like villain's check if he puts you on an A.

i very rarely c/r the river, with or without the goods. i'm going to check my PT when i get home to see that last time i did it - bet it's been a while.

[Whitey]

[ QUOTE ]
The river is a 3rd king, making the board KKKAX so I have the nut full house

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised no-one has spotted the error in this statement. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I will often check a monster on the river if my opponent has shown a tendency to bluff or is over aggressive.

It has cost me a bet from time to time but overall it has proven successfull.

Shaniac no offence meant but against you I would probably check the first hand everytime,I'm not sure I would put you on a strong enough hand in the 2nd example though.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
It looks to me that in both hands it's pretty obvious that you're betting the river so I see why they play it that way in each instance. Look at hand 1, it's apparent what you have and if the villain is any good he should realize that almost nobody checks behind an Ace there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, since I see absolutely no reason for betting.

edit: well, I guess you can collect x chips from 55 or something. Can you do that 250/x as often as you lose to a king?

[HMS Surprise]

If I'm holding pocket Aces here I'm shaking in my boots having the real nut full house (and still not the real nuts). People never play Kings right? With any other Ace but pocket Aces, I figure I'm dead on the Turn. If I'm holding AT and this hand gets checked to me on the river I'm insta-checking this and hoping to split to any Ax. The only thing I beat here is a bluff, and again how many people check raise a scary board like this on a bluff.

How many opponents are going to lay down an Ace here? Unless someone is misplaying their pocket pair and has a morbid curiosity to see if they are good, why bet the river, and worse yet why call an all in? Unless your bored, short stacked, don't multi table and want to move to a money game, check, check, check that river.....

[tiger7210]

The analysis of the 1st hand is absolutely correct as checking may induce the Ace to bet and get more chips from you .

The 2nd hand I understand his reasoning for checking the river after you checkraised him on the turn. I would have bet out my 77's and hope you reraised again but against an aggressive player who I think has a hand or may make a big bluff on the river I'll check it looking to induce the bluff so I can come over the top where betting out will fold a player who has nothing and I've lost on a chance to allow him to bluff chips into me.