Turn checkraises

[Nate tha' Great]

I used to be quite fond of check-raising the turn in a heads-up pot with a strong hand after having the lead on the flop. I'm sure that you're all familiar with the play so I won't provide an example here.

After thinking it over some, and feeling like I wasn't quite beating the games for the amount that I should have been beating them, I discarded the play from my reporitorie almost completely. I still do check-raise the river with some frequency after leading the turn, but rarely do I check-raise the turn after leading and just being called on the flop.

I've written about this before, but there several obvious risks you take when check-raising the turn:

1) An opponent with a strong hand may bet and call your check-raise when he would have raised if you'd bet out, allowing you to 3-bet and earn another bet from him.

2) An opponent with a medium-strength hand may check behind, costing you a bet.

3) An opponent with a medium-strength hand may bet but fold to your check-raise, costing you a bet, when he would have called both the turn and the river if you had bet out and not revealed such obvious strength.

4) An opponent with a weak hand who was not planning on calling a turn bet may catch a miracle card like a gutshot that wins him the pot.

Weigh all of this against the possibility of winning one extra lousy bet from your opponent and the risk-reward does not appear to be too favorable.

There are also supposedly some meta-game benefits to frequently checking (and sometimes raising) the turn, as embodied in the HEFAP line:

The second important concept concerning fourth-street play is that you should be beetting good hands on the flop, but then frequently check-raising with them on the turn [...] Specifically, when first to act, you should probably check on fourth street as much as 60 percent of the time with your good and bad hands alike.

Certainly, you would give some kind of strategic advantage to an opponent who knows that every time you check the turn after leading the flop, you are planning on calling (or folding) rather than raising. But I don't know how significant this disadvantage is. For one thing, if you play anything like I do, you probably won't be check-calling or check-folding the turn too often in a heads up pot after leading the flop, since a typical opponent will make some very loose calls on the cheap betting rounds, and it will usually be profitable either to bet for value or continue on some sort of semi-bluff. If you check the turn in this spot only a couple of times per session, the fact that you don't have the "hammer" of a check-raise at your disposal may never really come up. For another thing, your opponent may have seen you play tricky or aggressive in other situations, and will assume that this kind of turn check-raise is in your arsenal even if it actually isn't. So the balancing argument that HEFAP uses to support this turn strategy seems a bit thin.

Another problem is that, those times that you do check the turn with a middling hand, it will usually be with the intention of calling rather than folding, so your opponent won't have too much incentive to try and steal the pot from you with some sort of feeble bluff. (You may sometimes fold if he follows through with a bet on the river, but then it's costing him two BB rather than one if he wants to try and push you off a better hand). Indeed, about the only time that I'll routinely check-fold the turn after leading the flop is if I'm against an opponent who plays both tightly and predictably, and it isn't very important to balance your play against this sort of opponent anyway.

Interestingly, I think the turn check-raise becomes a much more interesting and fleixible play if you also sometimes check-raise the turn after leading as a bluff or semibluff. Let's look at the following example:

An aggressive, tricky player open-raises before the flop from the hijack position. I 3-bet from the Button with 88, the blinds fold and he caps.

The flop comes Q63 with a two-flush. He bets and I call, intending on calling down unless an A or a K hit the board.

The turn is an offsuit 5 and he checks. Now, I would usually want to bet here for value, as his most likely holding is AK. Certainly, I recognize that he's sometimes planning on check-raising here. But if he's only check-raising with very strong hands, that isn't much of a deterrant to betting since a check-raise means I'm drawing to two outs or fewer. On the other hand, if he's capable of playing AK or some other weaker hand like 77 this way, getting check-raised is much more costly since there's some chance I'll be folding the best hand. Now he'll get his share of free cards and cheap showdowns. Indeed, when I've ventured into shorthanded games above about the 30/60 limit, I've encountered some very tough opponents who are capable of check-raising in this spot with a variety of hands, and it can really handicap my positional advantage.

I hope I haven't rambled too much and we can get a good discussion going. As a challenge to the forum, I would like someone to post an example or two where they think that check-raising the turn after leading and being called on the flop is *clearly* correct.

[NLSoldier]

I rarely use this play, but when I do it is usually against opponents who I play against fairly frequently and know they are agressive and thinking players. I do it mostly to get the message across that they cannot bet at will everytime I check the turn.

I definately agree that the majority of the time they are either going to fold with a hand they would have called down with, or call with a hand they would have riased and called a 3bet with.

[Alobar]

good stuff nate, very interesting. I've found that I'm checkraising the turn hardly at all anymore HU. I used to try and do it all the time so that I could get that whole free card thing HEFAP talks about. And cuz I get tired of allways getting bet at when I check, I wanted people to fear that I might c/r them.

But like you said, after I bet the flop and get called, lots of times its still right to fire once more on the turn without a pair or something. So betting my made and unmade hands I think helps, because they have to give me some credit for a made hand when I dont ahve one, because Im always betting when I have the goods as well. Also I've found that lots of people like to wait till the turn to raise, so when I've got a strong hand, I like being able to to 3 bet, instead of just c/r.

YOu also bring up a very good point, that betting out the turn may also get you a river call, whereas a c/r shows alot more strength and might cost you that bet.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

hey nate,

the reasons you pointed out here:
[ QUOTE ]
1) An opponent with a strong hand may bet and call your check-raise when he would have raised if you'd bet out, allowing you to 3-bet and earn another bet from him.

2) An opponent with a medium-strength hand may check behind, costing you a bet.

3) An opponent with a medium-strength hand may bet but fold to your check-raise, costing you a bet, when he would have called both the turn and the river if you had bet out and not revealed such obvious strength.

4) An opponent with a weak hand who was not planning on calling a turn bet may catch a miracle card like a gutshot that wins him the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

are the very reasons why i coined the phraise "betting is underrated" mainly because so many better things can happen when you bet then when you check in a lot of spots.

the part about the antifloating with your 88 hand is something that works a ton for me in NL to get free/cheap showdowns, but in limit its much trickier, though if you balance your shania enough, your opponent will check behind too often with better hands and bet too much with weaker hands.

[mperich]

I checkraise the river VERY nearly as much as the turn. I very rarely checkraise the turn unless I think I can checkraise the field. So yah, I agree.

-Mike

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
But like you said, after I bet the flop and get called, lots of times its still right to fire once more on the turn without a pair or something. So betting my made and unmade hands I think helps, because they have to give me some credit for a made hand when I dont ahve one, because Im always betting when I have the goods as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is another good point. HEFAP seems to want us to check the turn with our strongest hands and our weakest hands, which leaves our medium strength hands for betting. So our checking hands might be in good balance, but our betting hands might not be. A pounding strategy, while certainly not beyond exploitability, itself can disguise your holdings pretty well, especially if you are adept and knowing what to do when your opponent does play back at you. I do vary my tempo more with position, and when I don't have the lead, but IMO out of position with the lead is a time when you almost always want to play it fast.

[jwg152]

IMO a nice time to c/r the turn is against an opponent who is on the ropes (spewing and tilting). In my exerience, c/r the turn with a good hand will earn you a few extra frustration bets. As for my standard play, I rarely c/r the turn for all of the reasons stated by the OP. IMO habitual use is the classic symptom of FPS.

[James282]

Hey Nate - I think that you describe a natural transition with regards to how one's overall game flows. When you first start playing, you feel like the turn check-raise is a psychological conquest, and you feel like it is DEFINITELY the best way to get the most money. As you become more aware of metagame considerations(and as they become important for the limits you play as you progress), you realize that this line no longer is as effective as the bet-bet line.

For my overall image and flow - the bet-bet line is better for the following reasons.

1) I had found myself almost unable to take the bet -checkraise line often enough when I had missed, and I self-consciously realized that the bet-check line was transparently a made hand. By almost always taking the bet-bet line in shorthanded situations, I was able to better disguise my hand. In fact, I started taking the bet, check-raise line almost exclusively in rare semi-bluff situations where I did not mind a free card.

2) The power of momentum. A lot of times, my hand is powerful, but not so powerful that I wouldn't mind a fold and would hate a check behind. In many cases, it is so difficult to put an opponent on a worse hand that will bet that it is simply not worth the guesswork involved in checking.

3) Discouraging peeling. The biggest thorn in the side of the limit player who derives a lot of his earn by winning before showdown is having to continue to bet marginal hands on later streets. Observant opponents will remember that you don't give free cards to people even when they are in position. Those marginal hands that warrant a peel against passive types or tricky-turn types now look a lot worse when you're in a pot with someone who isn't afraid to stay on the gas.

4) Most hands that will bet the turn when checked to will raise it when you bet, allowing you to three-bet! Also, people may semi-bluff raise the turn when they would have otherwise checked behind for the free card.

Keeping all this in mind - it is still important to keep the turn check-raise in your arsenal. Obviously, betting is not always correct. But I've been waiting til I've had decent reads to be in there check-raising the turn with good hands instead of keeping it as a default.

[Victor]

hi nate,
ur posts are generally close to awesome. but i love the turn checkraise. however, i only like it against tags. yes, use ur pokertracker or whatever. i really shouldnt post this but whatever. against an aggro opp a turn checkraise is a great play. the only reason i dont go for it is because at 510 ppl are poons and dont bet tyhe turn. but against 2ers or opps i view as decent or aggro i make this play all the time.

here is an example: someone raises and you are in the blind and 3bet with ak. flop an a or k. bet and he calls. checkraise this turn every time.

[gaming_mouse]

this is fukking great stuff. best post i've read in a while.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
hi nate,
ur posts are generally close to awesome. but i love the turn checkraise. however, i only like it against tags. yes, use ur pokertracker or whatever. i really shouldnt post this but whatever. against an aggro opp a turn checkraise is a great play. the only reason i dont go for it is because at 510 ppl are poons and dont bet tyhe turn. but against 2ers or opps i view as decent or aggro i make this play all the time.

here is an example: someone raises and you are in the blind and 3bet with ak. flop an a or k. bet and he calls. checkraise this turn every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Victor - check-raise the turn often sucks there because a lot of times said tag was waiting to raise the turn allowing you to three-bet. Also, you can bet the turn and if you whiff the bet-threebet you can attempt a check-raise on the river when said "tag" would be forced to value bet anyway.
-James

[wrto4556]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, I think the turn check-raise becomes a much more interesting and fleixible play if you also sometimes check-raise the turn after leading as a bluff or semibluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. I find the above quote to be the most intersting. By semi-bluffing and/or bluffing a turn check/raise you nearly rid the idea that a good player folds to your turn check/raise too much.

I wonder if picking up the extra pots uncontested and getting your good hands payed off makes up for you missing out on a 3-bet oppertunity.

[Victor]

ok

ic now. despite my consumption and stupidity i realize i need to checkraise more rivers against good (tag) players. damn. yall good. no wonder i get crushed at 1020.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
here is an example: someone raises and you are in the blind and 3bet with ak. flop an a or k. bet and he calls. checkraise this turn every time.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one play where I think the bet, then CR line is a pretty good standard. Particularly when the flop comes Ahigh, and i've either raised, or 3bet, and had one caller on the flop. When you check the turn, TAGs will put you on KK or QQ, and always try to extract value with AQ or AJ. When the board is really uncoordinated, I suppose its better to wait until river to CR, but I believe that at least on some boards it'll be +EV to take the bet, CR line on Ahigh flops vs. a TAG.

[ALL1N]

I agree with most of the stuff in this thread, and find myself rarely using this turn checkraise, with one exception: in SB vs BB battles. I steal from the SB with most hands, and since I give up on the turn a fair amount, observant opponents start calling the flop hoping to pick up the pot on the turn with a bluff. So when I've got a high pair, I frequently check the turn to gain a bet from a bluffing hand that would most likely have otherwise folded. I like doing it best with 2nd pair/top pair poor kicker, or a hand which I'm not too keen on putting in more than 3 bets in turn & river, since as others have stated, stronger hands want to bet and 3-bet (or river CR). The apparent strength of the checkraise can slow a better hand down and keep it to 3 bets, which is perfect for some hands.

Also good is the check/call, river CR with similar hands.

[kiddo]

For a long time I thought this advice in HEFAP - "check 60% on turn with good and bad hands alike when you are first to act - was one of the strangest (well, whole loose section is a bit schizophren, cause its dealing with a loose game but still thinking the others plays well and thinks about what they are doing)

As I understand the argument in HEFAP (p. 141-43)

Checkraise turn because you "will be giving up on many hands on fourth streets. That is, you wont follow through on most of your semi-bluffs and/or the other weak hands that you routinley bet on the flop." You will do this as long as "free cards are not a major problem and your opponents are aggressive".

This will:
1) Balance your strategey. It will disguise your hand, they cant autobet behind.
2) Thinking opponents will give you a free card.
3) Not thinking oppononts will often get checkraised.
4) If noone bets turn you can often steal on river, since they fold being glad they didnt walk into that turncheckraisetrap.

And then they say: "There is an exception to the above advice, and that is when the game is very loose. In this situation you wont be making many semibluff type bets on flop."

*

First:
I think that many of the advice they give are about mutiway pots. It says:

[ QUOTE ]
as long as free cards are not a major problem and your opponents are aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

And:

[ QUOTE ]
.... should check and and be prepared to checkraise if someone else bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

When they are talking about stealing on the end - (4) above - they are now suddenly talking about headsup:

[ QUOTE ]
be able to steal if both of you and your opponent check on turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So its probably safe to say that in a headsup situation we cant apply this 60%. People will bet much less behind headsup them mutiway so we have to check less (and bet more to take it down).

Second:
For most decent shorthanded players this is wrong:

[ QUOTE ]
you wont follow through on most of your semi-bluffs and/or the other weak hands that you routinley bet on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of this we will have to change our strategy of bet, checkfold, checkcall, checkraise. Basically: If we check much less on turn we also have to checkraise much less to keep a balance.

In a headsup situation the following from HEFAP is also wrong, it is wrong even if you would checkraise a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
observant opponents will be afraid to bet turn... less observant opponents will be frequently checkraised

[/ QUOTE ]

Observant opponents are normally better and more aggressive and will bet more. If people bet behind or not on turn has a lot more to do with board and their aggressivness (and how much they like slowplay) then if I have done some checkraising lately.

*

There are a few players at 10/20 that will bet any hand behind if u check turn and will call your checkraise with any pair. Theses guys I like to checkraise.

Also, I think your % of checkraise should have a lot to do with your tableimage and how good the others are running. If have been running extremly bad you should start to checkraise turn much more becaue people will start to bet behind you a lot more. (I had an extremly bad run the other day against 3 really really bad players. The most passive suddenly started to bet whenever I checked and raise a lot of turns, I asked why and he said: "Lol, man, dont you think I got eyes, you cant hit a hand today, betting is safe".

Also, if the other guy is running extremly good he will bet any turn if you check and since he probably have catched a few bluffes and think u are tired of him want to play back at him now when he is running over the table he will call a lot 2.

*

About turnchekraise as bluff:

On the level where I play - 10/20 - you will not often find players that are capable of betting and folding on same street so I am not sure about the turncheckraise bluff but against a good player that is capable of doing excatly this when he think he is behind you again have to balance your checkraises (like in the example with 77 and 1 overcard).

[kiddo]

Why do we do this turncheckraise against a a TAG and not against a LAG? A LAG will never bet and fold on same street.

[wrto4556]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we do this turncheckraise against a a TAG and not against a LAG? A LAG will never bet and fold on same street.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this has to do with getting the 3-bet in. A LAG is capable of raising the turn with lots of hands and we are able to get an extra-extra bet in.

[TJD]

This is a very interesting thread. Is it possible that your view has changed due to the balance of aggressive v passive players, with your play now based on a "norm" for the limit you are at?

For example the bet - 3-bet line is a clear advantage for betting IF they raise a lot on the turn with hands you beat.

However, if you have a player who is very passive and is prepared to fold a few flops then it is probably >50% that you are behind on the turn if you are still UI. Betting would not be for value; you would prefer a free card and could safely fold the turn if he bets.

Many players at lower limits 5/10 and even 10/20 will call the turn CR and the river with any pair but would not be raising the turn with 4th pair /images/graemlins/smile.gif This means that betting out loses a bet if the CR would have worked. We could try for the river CR instead but I see no advantage in that. They are more likely to check behind on the river and I will be making a FTOP mistake by not raising the turn given the opportunity. Let him pay the most to hit - or fold!

Many players will also bluff the turn if we check rather than check behind. Betting out may lose that bluff when they fold.

For me this is very player dependent.

v a Passive - I will bet for value if I have a pair+ since they WILL check behind. If I check and they bet I will fold UI.

v an Aggressive - I will often check and then either CR, fold or call depending on my hand and the board. I am more likely to bet out when the board is paired or when there are draws. Obviously I do not want to risk giving a free card to a good draw but that is not the main reason to bet; I expect them to bet for me in any case. No the reason, is that the many aggressive guys just LOVE to bluff raise this turn on a draw. I want to charge them 3 bets for the chance to hit. The pair is another bluff opportunity.

v "The Rest" I probably continue to pound since I cannot, with any degree of certainty predict their actions.

my 2c

Trevor

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very interesting thread. Is it possible that your view has changed due to the balance of aggressive v passive players, with your play now based on a "norm" for the limit you are at?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's possible to some extent, as I was using this check-raise play most heavily when my main game was 10/20 6-max, at a time about a year ago when that game was extremely aggressive. Usually, you have a fairly straightforward decision when you lead the flop, bet the turn, and are raised by a player who has position on you. This decision may be to call, fold, or raise, but it does not usually leave you scratching your head in the way that, say, a turn check-raise can (e.g. most players pretty reliably have a hand when they raise the turn like this).

But against extemely aggressive players who routinely raise the turn in position with second best hands, and are probably also aggressive enough to bluff frequently with a worse hand when checked to, it may become more desirable to check and call the turn, even when you have had the lead. And if it becomes more desirable to check-and-call the turn, it also becomes more necessary to sometimes check-and-raise the turn.

That being said, I think James282's points in his post are spot-on, and I was mostly check-raising the turn too often as a sort of adolescent form of Fancy Play Syndrome.

[TJD]

What about the other end of the spectrum?

You said that when you were at 10/20 and it was very aggressive then you needed to check/call and check/raise more often.

By implication then, your current games are not THAT aggressive.

I suspect that at the higher limits there are not very many really passive players. However, if you were HU against one and they were not the sort who always peel one off on the flop and often fold the turn, would you use the check/fold line rather than continuing to pound when UI and only had big cards?

Trevor

[Wynton]

Just want to add that I found James' comments very persuasive, particularly the suggestion that most players who will call the check/raise also would have raised the intial bet.

Also, from the perspective of someone who still playes mostly 2/4 and 3/6, I strongly suspect that the effectiveness of the turn check/raise may vary at different limits.

At these low limits, a lot of players will call down with poor hands, but neglect to bet the turn if checked to them. Another set of players will predictably bet when checked to, but also predictably fold when facing the check/raise. I imagine that the average player at 10/20 is not that predictable.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
As a challenge to the forum, I would like someone to post an example or two where they think that check-raising the turn after leading and being called on the flop is *clearly* correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. I think a turn checkraise is optimal in situations where your somewhat calling-stationy (but a bet-when-checked-to) opponent coldcalled you pf with his weak ace, and you have a strong ace or two pair on an A-high board. In these situations, among many opponents it's rare for them to raise you on the turn with their weak but decent hand, but they'll definitely bet when checked to. And they'll call you down.

Similarly, someone suggested that against the jerks that coldcall preflop, call the flop bet with anything, but bet the turn when checked to (whether they have anything or not), a turn checkraise is a good way to value-bet.

I guess that I'm saying that there seem to be a breed of opponents, esp. at 10/20, that are calling stations with iffy hands (i.e., if you want to bluff to the river with your missed hand, they're happy to let you), BUT value-betters when they sense weakness. (i.e., if all of a sudden you admit you don't have anything, then they're going to make you pay to see another street).

These kinds of players will not necessarily fold to your checkraise with their medium pocket or 2nd pair, and in fact will often call all the way down. You need an opponent with just the right mix of calling-station/desire to induce your bluffs/value betting capability. Interestingly, there are a huge set of mediocre 10/20'ers with exactly this mix IMO.

EDIT: Not that I can necessarily say that their line is mediocre, except that it's often so predictable and they never believe the checkraise . . . and they coldcall you pf with A3o. But I've certainly let opponents bet to the river unimproved instead of challenging them in the interim with my 2nd or 3rd pair, and bet on a street (actually, usually the river) when they've checked, thinking that they're actually quite weak and it's time to value-bet.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]

4) Most hands that will bet the turn when checked to will raise it when you bet, allowing you to three-bet!

[/ QUOTE ]

As you can see if you read my post, I think this is absolutely not true for a large segment of, at least, 10/20'ers. Of course, at lower limits, it may be true (they value-bet less), and quite possibly at higher limits as well (they probably value-raise more).

[mmcd]

Checkraise the flop, lead 3-bet the turn is the new bet the flop, checkraise the turn.

That being said, the one spot I will still often use the old line is in sb vs. bb confrontaions where I raised preflop, and got flatcalled there and on the flop.

[rory]

We don't bet out into the PFR as much, I am pretty sure most of us check-raise and not bet out on the flop when we catch a good piece of it. However, the bet out is a cheaper way to try to bluff and semi-bluff than the check-raise. HPFAP says we should be betting out a lot, both with our made hands, our semi-bluffs and balls out bluffs. We don't seem to do that nearly as much as they suggest.

And on the turn, is it possible it is a frequency issue? They recommend checking 60%!!! of your good and bad hands alike on the turn after you bet the flop, so that means you will be checking the turn more often than you bet again. I don't know about you but I never even came close to checking that many of my hands on the turn. Just my nothings and monsters. Certainly not 30% of my good hands. I don't see how people could keep betting mediocre hands behind me when I am check-raising them so frequently on the turn. And once they are trained to check-behind, it gives me even more liberty to bet-out-bluff the flop. Because with a single small bet, I can see the river card with my gutshot or overcards or whatever, because my check on the turn is so scary because I have it backed up by other check-raises.

I don't know, the bet-out a lot into the PFR and the check on the turn line seems like they go together if you are willing to bet-out-bluff or semi-bluff into the PFR very frequently with hands as weak as just a gutshot. To cover you have to start check-raising even your pretty good hands on the turn, so that you are a threat enough to check-raise that you can support your bet-out weak semi-bluffs on the flop.

I am really not coherent with these thoughts. But online, way more than B&M, 'good' 'thinking' players have basically been trained to be calling stations. People take so many shots at you on PP in particular that any good player who doesn't turn into a calling station of sorts winds up getting killed. So bet-bet-betting makes more money with your hands because people are never willing to give you credit for a hand, as you pointed out, but they will dump to turn check-raises and other 'i have a monster' obvious ploys. Maybe not even then, I guess.

I don't know-- I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel like I never gave the HPFAP way a shot, because I never checked my good hands on the turn enough and I never bet-out semi-bluffed with weak draws and what have you into the PFR. I think to use this check-the-turn-a-lot advice, a lot of us would have to retool our entire game, including river play!

I guess the thing to keep in mind is it is a hell of a lot easier to flop some really weak draw or nothing rather than a good hand. If we were to incorporate betting out with these weak draws on the flop and checking the turn a ton into our play, we might win pots a lot more frequently with crap when we get to the river for cheap. I think to use this line effectively, we would have to become way more aggressive with bluffs and semi-bluffs on the flop than most of us are now.

Also, the last consideration is this is really about training an opponent. Imagine if you could train an opponent to check behind a large parcentage of the time when you check on the turn after betting the flop. You could play a lot of hands against this opponent, because you would get to see a lot of rivers for very cheap and you can always keep betting your good hands if you want, just as long as you check enough of them to keep him checking on the turn. But you have to train the opponent first. Online we play against so many different opponents who turn over so fast that training an opponent is not worth the initial investment of losing bets with 30% of our good hands.

Sorry this is totally disjointed-- I am really sick and not thinking right.

[rory]

Respond to this thread not stat posts, guys. Think about it this is really important.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Respond to this thread not stat posts, guys. Think about it this is really important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't respond to your stream-of-consciousness post until I hire a translator /images/graemlins/smile.gif. You, on the other hand, are a Party 10/20 vet and can respond to *my* response pretty easily /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

I agree that this is way-important stuff.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
Respond to this thread not stat posts, guys. Think about it this is really important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think HEPFAP is pretty solidly wrong here. I don't think it's close either. The games where a turn checkraise policy works are ones where the turnover is low and players are the adjusting tough type.

Krishan

[wrto4556]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Respond to this thread not stat posts, guys. Think about it this is really important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think HEPFAP is pretty solidly wrong here. I don't think it's close either. The games where a turn checkraise policy works are ones where the turnover is low and players are the adjusting tough type.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember someone saying that HEPFAP should be named "Hold'em poker against advanced players".

[Trix]

Played these two in a row, opponent is same player.

1) Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP with A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>.

Flop: (5.40 SB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (3.70 BB) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, Button checks.

River: (3.70 BB) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 4.70 BB

2) Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>.

Flop: (5.40 SB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls.

Turn: (3.70 BB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP calls.

River: (7.70 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP calls.

Final Pot: 9.70 BB


Opponent was fairly loose and seemed passive, vpip 3x with low AF and low PFR. His WSD wasn´t high either, but only had 5x hands on him.

Read was probably better than this at the table.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

We don't bet out into the PFR as much, I am pretty sure most of us check-raise and not bet out on the flop when we catch a good piece of it. However, the bet out is a cheaper way to try to bluff and semi-bluff than the check-raise. HPFAP says we should be betting out a lot, both with our made hands, our semi-bluffs and balls out bluffs. We don't seem to do that nearly as much as they suggest.

And on the turn, is it possible it is a frequency issue? They recommend checking 60%!!! of your good and bad hands alike on the turn after you bet the flop, so that means you will be checking the turn more often than you bet again. I don't know about you but I never even came close to checking that many of my hands on the turn. Just my nothings and monsters. Certainly not 30% of my good hands. I don't see how people could keep betting mediocre hands behind me when I am check-raising them so frequently on the turn. And once they are trained to check-behind, it gives me even more liberty to bet-out-bluff the flop. Because with a single small bet, I can see the river card with my gutshot or overcards or whatever, because my check on the turn is so scary because I have it backed up by other check-raises.

I don't know, the bet-out a lot into the PFR and the check on the turn line seems like they go together if you are willing to bet-out-bluff or semi-bluff into the PFR very frequently with hands as weak as just a gutshot. To cover you have to start check-raising even your pretty good hands on the turn, so that you are a threat enough to check-raise that you can support your bet-out weak semi-bluffs on the flop.

I am really not coherent with these thoughts. But online, way more than B&amp;M, 'good' 'thinking' players have basically been trained to be calling stations. People take so many shots at you on PP in particular that any good player who doesn't turn into a calling station of sorts winds up getting killed. So bet-bet-betting makes more money with your hands because people are never willing to give you credit for a hand, as you pointed out, but they will dump to turn check-raises and other 'i have a monster' obvious ploys. Maybe not even then, I guess.

I don't know-- I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel like I never gave the HPFAP way a shot, because I never checked my good hands on the turn enough and I never bet-out semi-bluffed with weak draws and what have you into the PFR. I think to use this check-the-turn-a-lot advice, a lot of us would have to retool our entire game, including river play!

I guess the thing to keep in mind is it is a hell of a lot easier to flop some really weak draw or nothing rather than a good hand. If we were to incorporate betting out with these weak draws on the flop and checking the turn a ton into our play, we might win pots a lot more frequently with crap when we get to the river for cheap. I think to use this line effectively, we would have to become way more aggressive with bluffs and semi-bluffs on the flop than most of us are now.

Also, the last consideration is this is really about training an opponent. Imagine if you could train an opponent to check behind a large parcentage of the time when you check on the turn after betting the flop. You could play a lot of hands against this opponent, because you would get to see a lot of rivers for very cheap and you can always keep betting your good hands if you want, just as long as you check enough of them to keep him checking on the turn. But you have to train the opponent first. Online we play against so many different opponents who turn over so fast that training an opponent is not worth the initial investment of losing bets with 30% of our good hands.

Sorry this is totally disjointed-- I am really sick and not thinking right.


[/ QUOTE ]

rory, this is the best post I have ever read on 2+2.

And I've read a lot of 2+2.

VNH SIR.

[Wynton]

I just re-read this thread and realized that I may have misunderstood the exact scenario in question.

Are we discussing only the situation where we lead the flop from ep, the opponent flat calls, and then we try to check/raise the turn? I must admit that (at my lower limits) I do this very infrequently.

But is this thread also discussing the situation where we lead the flop, our opponent raises and we just call, and then we go for check/raise on the turn? When I have a strong hand, I pursue this line frequently.

[naphand]

I think your last point about the turnover of players versus "training" them is exactly right. One of the problems with this forum and poker books in general is that they are written from the perspective of the author and the opponents they play. Too many kids are coming in and reading the $5/$10 or $10/$20 regulars and trying to apply this to $1/$2. Some of it applies well, some of it just won't work and people get confused. "Why is this not working for me?".

Books and posts which encourage thinking about the application of theory to specific opponents are where it is at. While there are a lot of games where it is possible to play pretty much standard lines almost all the time, moving up limits, moving to a new site or just a few players can throw a spanner into the works. I guess poker is still a game of reading opponents, not PT stats... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess poker is still a game of reading opponents, not PT stats...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely a good thing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Respond to this thread not stat posts, guys. Think about it this is really important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have pretty much always gone the betbetbet route, and not really experimented with the turn cr route so much... except like others have pointed out when backhanding and bitchslapin a big field on the turn.

In headsup situations:
-I do have in my arsenal: lead at flop, call flop raise, cr turn....
-I dont have in my aresenal: lead at flop, get called, check raise turn.

I have always been partial to betting in hopes of 3betting, in spots where I have considered the option of cr'ing.

I am also pretty fearful of giving out freebies in spots where the only strenghth a villain has shown was by calling my flop lead...

That 60% figure sounds absolutely bizarre to me, and it would be interesting to try and use that strategy sometime. it doesnt sound real effective to me on the surface.

My style is frequently that of the pusher... bet bet bet and a villain doesnt really know how strong. I feel this helps pick up some otherwise unclaimed pots. Then when they raise, sometimes i fold, sometimes i call, somtimes i three bet. I have actually toned this down a bit as sometimes i over do it... and found spots to check or even checkfold... and I think it has helped. If anything I was thinking I need to c/r more often... so I actually think that I will try the turn c/r described a little to mix up my play and cover some of those newfound checks. I have gotten slightly better at my river c/r's and it sounds like that may be a more better place to focus on your cr's in some of these situations.

One thing I have noticed at my short tenure at 10/20: some otherwise really bad players are very effective with their late street cr'ing. Especially when they do not get the turn action they desire from a TAG value better. Woo have I gotten punked down a few times by river cr's by otherwise shitty player. Also, once in a while I am at table wiht one of those checkraise specialists that seem to play close to that 60% mark on the turn... and damn they are hard to read even if I judge them to be bad players on the whole.

I think the thing I liked most in this thread was James's suggestion of trying to bet to 3 bet the turn... and when that fails and you judge it right, you can think about cring river. That is something I want to really focus on... here in the near term.

[rory]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, once in a while I am at table wiht one of those checkraise specialists that seem to play close to that 60% mark on the turn... and damn they are hard to read even if I judge them to be bad players on the whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now what if it was a good player? This would be a terrifying player to play against.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what if it was a good player? This would be a terrifying player to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

You da man... Do It, Do it Now... and report back.

[slavic]

Nate - The party short handed game seems to be a show down style game. Were this turn play strategy really seems to shine is in games that are a bit tougher. In my typical daytime 30 game quite a bit of my profit comes from taking pots on the flop for one bet. That just isn't going to happen short on party. If I'm called on the flop in the 30 game there are quite a few hands I'm going to check depending on the caller and my holding. Since I won't get as many pots on the flop in the party game, and people will call my value bets way more often, I don't see quite the reason to use the metagame strategy proposed by David et al.

Also, I really do enjoy the smash and bash style of the party 6max. There is just something primal about it, and checkraises seem to ruin that.

BTW great post