I Hate Checking and Calling

Here is a sample from this week's posts. Not meant to single anyone out but get responses about a style difference between myself and others and see where the panel lies on the issue:


A. 3 handed, me in BB with K8, no raise. Flop is KK8. I check and call.


B. I raise pre-flop with KdQh and am reraised. Heads upon flop. Flop is A high, all diamonds. I check-call. Make my flush on turn, check-call.


C. I raise pre-flop and am reraised. Heads-up on flop. Me first w/KK. Flop is Q high, 2 spades. I check-call.


I would bet each of these flops 100% of the time. Here is why:


1. There are no logical hands that would check-call such flops (or turn in B) except good ones. Astute players will therefore give up on later streets. Bad players will be scared to continue. Yet, both will probably call my bet on the flop because people will not believe that I have a strong hand (or not be able to get away from theirs) and come along with me. Many will even raise to get a better read on me. Then maybe I can really be deceptive.


This reason trumps all others by a factor of 2, IMO.


2. Some doubt that anyone else will bet but a strong indication they will call my bet and sometimes raise me. (In B. and C. above, certain players would not even bet AK).


3. When I “wake up” on the expensive street they will know I am strong and play accordingly. If I try to extract more from them on the turn by checkraising I have diminished the chance that they will bet by playing a trapping game on the flop. Whereas if I bet the flop and they call or raise and then I go for a checkraise later they are more likely to bet, thinking I am checking because I am weak.


4. There is often some chance that I give out a free card on the flop that kills me. Secondarily, a card that scares me off my plan may appear as well, and my strategy to “wake up” may never materialize.


My straightforward approach to these types of hands and LLHE in general stems from a firm belief that money is made in these games when two people have a decent hand and one cannot give up on theirs when they should (or they are so close in rank that both are correct in playing on). When people play as in the examples above they go to great length to try to get a little extra from their opponent but actually lose in the deception department doing so. If they got the goods, they will play with you. If not, well you can try to fenagle a couple bucks from them but don’t be disappointed when they figure out what you are up to and properly give up their hand. The problem is, those small gains you get the times someone does bet with nothing are a fraction of what you gain when they also have a good hand and you are playing games with them instead of building yourself a nice hefty pot.


I would love for someone to tell me I am full of it because, as you can tell, I’m pretty stuck in my ways when it comes to these scenarios.


KJS

i agree. i hate check calling. why not bet? if they don't have enough to call your bet with, they probably wouldn't bet. i have favored betting out more and more lately. make it look like you are trying to play aggressively, and push people around. if they don't catch on, you can abuse it. if they do catch on, and start coming back at you, fold more often, but tend to bet out with the goods than check raise. if you have a good hand, wouldn't you rather bet (making your opponent who is 'wise' think you are trying to push him out of the pot), get raised (because he thinks that if you really have nothing than you'll drop and he will have outplayed you) and then reraise? you'll earn at least one more bet on hands like this, plus the overcall if he actually goes with you. and if he is capable to laying it down for a reraise, then you know what kind of player this guy is and know that you can push him off more steal raises. fundamentally, check-calling is weak. if you have a better hand, you want more money in the pot, and should be betting and/or raising. if you aren't you're saying you either don't know you have the best hand, or you are telling your opponent you want him to stick with his hand so you don't play him aggressively. if you think you don't have the best hand, then check-call is worse, because you don't give your opponent a chance to fold. calling is a sign that you think that there is a chance that the cards you hold could hold up in a showdown. even if calling while chasing a flush or a straight, or whatever. you are telling your opponent that you do not want to push him out of the pot, or give him a chance to fold, because your cards are either better now, or have a good chance of being better when all the cards are dealt.

I can't tell you that you are full of it because I totally agree. I will most often bet and raise with my hands. I rarely see any valid case for checking and calling. Of course this all applies to low limit. There are times in mid/upper limit where it may be correct in order to maximize your return and in pot or nl there are all kinds of deceptions at play, but when playing a normal low limit game, peg them all to the wall with your bets and raises.


P.S. Yes, I know you watched me check/call my flopped quads the other night, but that was a tournament situation with a semi decent player. I figured he had a pocket pair and I figured he thought I had Ax and was hoping to catch. That's why I put in the qualifications. /images/smile.gif

Vegan,


I could have added all sorts of qualifiers to my post too. You did a good job filling them in here. My post was directed at full tabled, low limit cash Texas Hold 'Em games. Your play the other night was perfect for the situation. If am not mistaken though, he was acting first in the hand.


KJS

Flop KK8


"There are no logical hands that would check-call such flops"


In tough games true. However against weak, passive players I often see hands such as 99-QQ check call these flops as well as hands like 98-Q8.


On the whole though I agree with your basic belief in betting these sorts of hands.


Another aspect of betting is that your opponents will not be able to read you as well on later hands and you get a few more steal opportunities.


Paul Talbot

You are full of it.....feel better? I'm lieing when I say that by the way /images/smile.gif

Anyway I agree as a general principal that in cash LLHE games betting is always better that ck/cl'n I have to throw in my however at this point:

I have always and will always try to get folks away from any generalized idea and into my core belief which is "play the player/s"

I make more money in LLHE games because I change my moves according to all the factors most importantly the players against me. Sometimes I will ckrz the same board that I bet mainly because that play gets the most money into my pot.

Of course the other factors like position/board/outs and all that are in effect but my main concern is not to have a habit for any situation but to think fast & furious about whatever will win for me.

I think that when we are new players these general concepts help us get through to the more complex stuff but I would hope that those on this forum who are far better at this game than I would start to push for a more fluiod dynamic to poker playing that calls for continual adjustment.

KJS before you reply realize I am in no way knocking what you are saying:) ...I also bet far more than I check call but that is because that is the correct move for more of the players I am against.

Lance

In general, I agreee. You should be betting/raising more than checking/calling in low limit Hold'em games.


BUT....


In Example A (where the BB held K8o and the flop was KK8) the slowplay approach is correct rather than betting out. It's definitely best to give somebody a free card to catch up to you. You don't want to bet and make Ax fold when you may get lucky and have an A hit on the turn. The same could be true of a Q or J or T hitting the turn. Maybe somebody could pick up a flush or straight draw. Checking and calling was the best play in this hand.


In Example B, I gave my opinions to bet and raise in the hand.


In Example C....hey! That better not be my KK hand. I bet the flop and got raised again before I slowed down. There must be another KK hand I missed since it's not my flop. I'll have to go find that hand.

Think of Check and Calling as a tool. Use it when it is appropriate. Would a carpenter say, "I hate hammers and nails, I'm going to use screws instead of nails in every situation"? That doesn't make any sense. In situation number 1, you have all the good cards and no pre-flop raiser. Let some people catch up.

I am not advocating never checking and calling. I am being extreme. I agree it is a tool. It is just a very overused one in my opinion. And one that is used without proper analysis as to whether it is the best tool under the circumstances. To stick with your analogy, its like someone grabbing a adjustable wrench every time they need to loosen a bolt, instead of using a socket wrench sometimes or a monkey wrench sometimes, in addition to that trusty adjustable.


KJS

i had to respond vin...


A: if the board was 2 suited, id check and call to let people catch up. rainbow , ya may as well bet it. they may put ya on a steal and catch the turn. they also may be wantin to drop theyre hands anyway. if they call the flop bet, maybe check the turn


B: if im early position and depending on where the pre raiser is, i would, , raiser to my right


C: you cant really slow play this because any A hitting may beat you. gotta bet this. unless you checked it pre flop and go to the turn. dangerous, but when it works, it makes quite a bit. could be a big loser though.


now about the 'overuse' of the play....i prefer it to be 'misuse' ..i see many players flop a set or top 2 pair with a flush or str8 draw on the board take it to the turn, while checking and calling a bet on flop i see the most blatant when they check and the person to their right bets and they just call. some people seem obsessed with slowplaying. its one thing to miss the checkraise, another to just ckeck and call.


a final thing...suppose ya get 3 monsters with safe boards in an hour or 2. if ya bet out on the first 2, why not slow the 3rd, youve established that ya bet 'when ya have it', especially with a bad player who thinks he can now 'read' you. they may not be sure on the 3rd. their is always 3 to 4 ways to play any given hand. the factors of position, players, recent plays on hands should set the influence to one of the ways.


its not good to be 'stuck' into predictability of playing the same way every time.


b

Bernie,


I am not saying never do it. I do it, everyone does it. Its often the best thing to do. I am just saying it is way overused, and in the wrong situations. I slowplay but not when I flop a set with JJ3 and no flush possibilities. I might as well turn my hand over when I call, in most circumstances. Gimme JT and a board of JhJdTd and I am checking and calling almost every time. Because I would if I had KdQh, Ad3d, and a whole slew of other hands. The hands I wrote about there were not good draws for the bettor to put the caller on.


For my money I prefer to bet and let the guy try to figure out if I have it or not, if he can't then most often he is going to pay me to find out--especially if he has a halfway decent hand too. I would bet a JJ3 board with 99, AQ, A3, 77 and most people who play against me know that. If I do that and then go into a hole when I have the trips then I am way too easy to read. Yet this is the approach I see many many players take. Notice how many people bet the flop 99% of the time after they raise pre-flop. The 1% they don't--monster hand. *Yawn*


The goal of poker is to keep 'em guessing. You are right to say you gotta mix it up. All I was trying to say is mix it up in a way that has some real deception value, not a way that looks deceptive, but really isn't.


KJS