bad check raise

I was in early position in a 6/12 game this week.


I held KK from early position and raised preflop. two callers one from late position. The flop hit k69 rainbow. I checked the lp bet bb called and I called. The turn was 6 giving me the nut full house. I checked lp bet the bb folded. I raised the lp folded in disgust. I think this was a huge mistake for me to have check raised with a player (after thinking about it later) is known to fold fairly easily. I think i should have bet out. I believe he would have called in the hope of making his full house or trips on the river. Thoughts?

If so, LP would have probably folded to your bet.

Play your monsters the way you did (you won't get many of them), but play the same way with other hands. Either he'll learn not to fold when you check raise him on the turn, or you'll win a lot of money off of bluffs/semi-bluffs.

Why didn't you check call the turn, ESPECIALLY since the player folds easily, and then decide whether to bet or check-raise the river?

You should bet the flop, check-call the turn, and bet the river. If you didn't make a full-house on the turn, then you should have probably check-raised.


You're opponents are expecing you to bet the flop. Why would you check?

This is a good point. Not betting the flop is very suspicious when you raised pre-flop. LP should have checked behind you.

"You're opponents are expecing you to bet the flop. Why would you check?"


Very true, which is also why many (good) players will raise this flop often with any pair to see where they stand, semi-bluff/buy a free card with a draw etc etc.


To put is simple, play this hand straight-forward 90% of the time. Mix up if you have a VERY good reason to believe this will pay off. You will get be surprised to see the action you will sometimes get even with this monster. In some games it's harder to get the action you want in pots like these, but those games are often just as good or even better for other reasons (passiveness being one).


lars

Regarding the flop play:


I can see that more astute players may fear you are planning to check-raise and would check behind you. But it also seems to me that with less sophisticated players, a check on the flop is more likely to induce a bet from a middle or bottom pair or someone might even try to bluff, hoping you have something like AQ/QQ/JJ and will fold.


Whereas if you bet out, those same players may well fold figuring you for AA/AK/KK and you win nothing on the hand.


What am I missing?

1) If you decide to check-raise, which you should do in situations where you feel fairly certain that you are playing players which this will work against (ie you even get paid off), this is a fine opportunity to sometimes wait for this check-raise until the river, particularly against tough opponents who bets the river often. Many players will rarely or never check-raise the river, particularly if the river doesn't bring a flush card or a card which completes a possible open-ended straight. It is tough to check-raise the river, here is a good situation for you to tell your opponents that they can't bet the river in the safe knowledge that it's not going to cost more sometimes.


2) Regarding your check-raise on the turn, this is a far better move if you are sometimes able to check-raise 'semi-marginal' hands like AK on a K-T-5-2 board. This will make you a more frequent check-raiser on the turn and people will be more enticed to see what you could be holding all those times (after all, most LL players only check-raise big, big hands, and you can't be getting twice as many of those as the rest, now can you?;-).


lars

Here's my take on this situation: comments welcome.


The general principle is that weak players overuse the slow-play. In this case, a very common reason someone follows a pre-flop raise with a check on the flop in LL tends to be because the pre-flop raiser caught the flop in a big way and is slow-playing.


Consequently, most LL players will expect YOU to slowplay hands like top sets and made straights. So when you bet out on the flop, they automatically assume you don't have this hand and will pay you off and even raise you with hands like top pair, top kicker.


In this case, maybe some players might put you on QQ and bet into you, but in general following a pre-flop raise with a check on the flop looks suspicious because most players will read it as a slow-play.


So in short, betting out on the flop will generally build bigger pots and disguise your hand better.

I would have bet it out each round, perhaps for a different reason. You have a great hand and you want to tie them to the pot if you can. Checking the flop, and checkraising the turn leaves little incentive for a hand with possiblities to stay with you.


It is possible that if you had bet the flop, lp would have raised, and bb may have called, thereby doubling your profit for this bet. If bb folded your money would be the same. If they both just called, you are the same pot wise. Then on the turn lp has a reason to stay with you if he thinks he has a chance because he has a large investment in the pot, same with bb.

What am I missing?


Low-limit players will call one small flop bet with absolute garbage. Get their money on the cheap street while they're still willing to give it away.


Having a King and a 9 on the flop means that QJ, QT, and JT all have gut-shot straight draws. They will all call. There are also plenty of straight draws using the 9 and 6.


Many playes will also call with just a bare Ace and will definitely call with A9 and A6.


And something that is unique to this specific hand, low-limit players love to play 69.