Checking to Find Out Where You Are At

[37offsuit]

I know many people say to bet to find out where you are at, but I subscribe to the other method, check to find out where you are at. I think checking to find out where you are at works with a lot of different hands and is the perfect method for trapping.

Often with a big hand, I'm looking to still improve so I can take a huge pot. At times that means losing some small ones, when you get drawn out on by someone who would have folded if you were more aggressive earlier (playing the hand fast) but there are other times where your flopped set becomes a turned boat and that nut flush draw will fall on the end, giving you all of someone's chips and busting them out. Sure, you could have won the preflop action, but you still might if the person's flush doesn't come in. Of course when you don't improve and then the flush or straight card comes on the end and someone bets out large into you, you have to throw away your set.

I like the upside of this strategy where you're giving yourself a chance to be the chip leader rather than middle of the pack looking to make a move when it comes bubble time.

Your thoughts?

[PrayingMantis]

You're talking about checking the board with big hands. This is not "checking to find out where you're at". At the great majority of time, you wont be holding big hands. And if you check your bad-mediocre-good hands, you're doing a mistake, and that's for a few reasons:

1. You potentially give free cards.
2. You cannot take the pot right there.
3. Your play is predictable.
4. You do not know where you're at, because most good players will bet into you if you check. And then what? you call with your top-pair-not-so-good-kicker? Re-raise them? On what basis?

It is not accidental that checking is associated with weakness. You don't want to play a weak game. Of course checking can be a very powerful tool, sometimes, but usually, simple and aggressive play, especially in NL SNGs, is much much better. That's how I see it.

[37offsuit]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think in limit, a check shows weakness, but in tournament play, a check can mean many things.

I understand that with a check you can not win the pot right there, but you also won't bleed away your chips when trying to gather information.

On the other hand, what are you doing when you bet to find out where you are? You're betting and then using the response to your bet in order to determine future action. Lets say that you and I are in a hand and I bet the size of the pot with my KJ to find out if top pair mid kicker on a board of K T 4 is good. If you raise me back, then what information have I gathered? You're either bluffing (with an open ended straight draw, mid pair, or nothing at all), raising top pair better kicker, raising top pair same kicker, raising two pair, or raising a set. How do I know which? By how you've played similar hands before. Maybe by the size of your reraise, or how the reraise effects the size of your stack.

If I check to you and you bet, you can be representing any of the same qualities. If I've checked to you in a similar situation, I may be able to judge your actions based on the same criteria as before. The only difference is that I haven't already committed to the pot. If you bet small and I think you're trying to trap me, I have little invested in this pot and I can throw my hand away or I can call and see if my hand improves, knowing that you're trying to trap me. If I think you've bet large because you're on a steal, now I can reraise you and win the hand right there. Or maybe I call to see if I can pick up extra outs on the turn, like one of the missing straight cards, or a jack.

If I check and then you check, the free card could help either of us. I understand the fear of giving away free cards, but I also understand that during a tournament, you're going to have to lay down some good hands when you think they aren't good enough. I don't understand why you should pay extra to find out that your good but not great hands are no good or why you wouldn't want to give your hand time to develop from a good hand to a great hand where you can then take advantage of the weakness you've shown.

As to becoming predictable, I think that it's quite the opposite. They won't know whether you're checking a monster to slow play, checking a good hand to reraise, or checking a missed hand to get free cards.

[William]

LOL

This is funny. I am playing 4 tables right now, so I can't write much, but it looks to me as you are complicating things way too much,
Keep it simple.

William

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that with a check you can not win the pot right there, but you also won't bleed away your chips when trying to gather information.


[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, winning the pot right there is the one and most crucial thing you want to achieve in a tournament. Much more important than anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say that you and I are in a hand and I bet the size of the pot with my KJ to find out if top pair mid kicker on a board of K T 4 is good. If you raise me back, then what information have I gathered? You're either bluffing (with an open ended straight draw, mid pair, or nothing at all), raising top pair better kicker, raising top pair same kicker, raising two pair, or raising a set. How do I know which? By how you've played similar hands before. Maybe by the size of your reraise, or how the reraise effects the size of your stack.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are usually checking your TP ok-kicker, when HU in a hand, you have a serious leak, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
If I check to you and you bet, you can be representing any of the same qualities. If I've checked to you in a similar situation, I may be able to judge your actions based on the same criteria as before. The only difference is that I haven't already committed to the pot. If you bet small and I think you're trying to trap me, I have little invested in this pot and I can throw my hand away or I can call and see if my hand improves, knowing that you're trying to trap me. If I think you've bet large because you're on a steal, now I can reraise you and win the hand right there. Or maybe I call to see if I can pick up extra outs on the turn, like one of the missing straight cards, or a jack.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent example of a passive play. You miss one super important point: by the way you play, you simply let your opponent lead. This is weak and dangarous. You should always try to make your opponent make the tough decisions, according to YOUR actions.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you should pay extra to find out that your good but not great hands are no good or why you wouldn't want to give your hand time to develop from a good hand to a great hand where you can then take advantage of the weakness you've shown.


[/ QUOTE ]

These are strange arguments, I must say. Again, you don't want your hand to develope, if you can take the pot *right there*. Especially if you're playing SNGs (which I assume you do, since that's the name of the forum) - with the extremely short stacks, in any format (Stars too), you must try to win the pot when you're there, period. Trapping can be fine, but should be used to *trap*, against specific opponents, and with certain hands.

[ QUOTE ]
As to becoming predictable, I think that it's quite the opposite. They won't know whether you're checking a monster to slow play, checking a good hand to reraise, or checking a missed hand to get free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, checking instead of betting, as a strategy, is a losing strategy, or at least: very very far from optimal. Try it for a long enough time, and you'll see for yourself.

P.S.

Your last paragraph is pretty funny: it looks as if you truely believe your opponents could be actually frightened by your checks! Seriously - an opponent who always checks to you (like you do?) is your dream opponent! I wish there were more...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

William, would you agree that one of the most common mistakes in poker is the failure to bet when holding what might be the best hand?

[37offsuit]

I would say one of the most common mistakes in poker is thinking that there is only one successful strategy. I'm not discrediting betting to find out where you are as a strategy, I just wanted to discuss another strategy that I find to be successful.

Perhaps I just have a knack for reading players over the course of a tournament using this style, but it does work very well for me. It works in two ways. First some players are afraid to throw bets at me at all, so they save me money and win me some hands I shouldn't win when I suck out on them and they finally decide to bet the river. Second is people get tilty when they bet, I call, they bet, I call, they bet and I reraise them a significant amount when I make my hand or if I've been slow playing or if I just think it's a good time for a semi bluff because they'll likely fold to a scare card that has fallen.

Meanwhile, I throw away hands that can get me trapped when I suspect they are no good with out having to find out for sure by wasting chips.

I'd guess that I do leak some chips over the course of a tournament, but then, so do those who bet to find out where they are every time they get reraised. You make up your money with the small pots that you win when you shouldn't (although, when you bet out at the pot and your opponent folds, it's likely you did have the best hand) and I make up my chips when someone bets my hand and then is pot committed to my reraise on the end.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, I throw away hands that can get me trapped when I suspect they are no good with out having to find out for sure by wasting chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're also throwing away good hands to probable bluffs.

[William]

Again, and as always, it depends. But I do agree with you as a general rule and I would certainly bet one time too much than one time too little.

William

[William]

Whatever works for you is probably fine, but in my opinion you are playing with a bunch of horrible players if you can get away with what you are saying. A dangerous situation in the long run.

In a country where everybody is blind, the one-eyed is king!

William /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
First some players are afraid to throw bets at me at all, so they save me money and win me some hands I shouldn't win when I suck out on them and they finally decide to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are obviously bad, passive, predictable, players, who only play their hands. You should probably bet into them no matter what you have, and be very carefull if reraised or called - because then you know they have it. You are sure to make more money than you lose, because most of the time they wont hit.

[ QUOTE ]
Second is people get tilty when they bet, I call, they bet, I call, they bet and I reraise them a significant amount when I make my hand or if I've been slow playing or if I just think it's a good time for a semi bluff because they'll likely fold to a scare card that has fallen.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, If you are going to call, call and call, you much better bet, bet and bet. You are basically putting the same money, only without the chance of making your opponent fold. On the long run, you are definitely losing money here.
About raising at the end - and what if you didn't make your hand? or a scare card doesn't show (this will happen the majority of the time)? You are too much focused on your cards and the board. Try to manipulate your opponent from the start.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, I throw away hands that can get me trapped when I suspect they are no good with out having to find out for sure by wasting chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

As you play it, you are a great target for bluffing. Generally, you want people to bluff at you as rarely as possible. That's why passive play is so bad.

[ QUOTE ]
You make up your money with the small pots that you win when you shouldn't (although, when you bet out at the pot and your opponent folds, it's likely you did have the best hand) and I make up my chips when someone bets my hand and then is pot committed to my reraise on the end.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with William - you must be playing against absolutely terrible players, probably on the lowest buy-ins possible. Moreover, if you say you make your money only by bets made by others, I seriously doubt the fact you make money on the long run - but if it works for you, well, good job!

[37offsuit]

Sometimes, yes. And sometimes I throw away really good hands that seem very unlikely to win in the face of a huge bet after an extremely bad card hits when someone is obviously chasing something rather than busting out in a bad spot (bubble wise).

I think I should make something clear, unless I'm trying to trap, there are plenty of hands I do bet because I suspect they are best but still vulnerable to more cards coming out. When I'm talking about checking to find out where I'm at, I obviously mean mariginal hands.

It is quite possible that I'm playing against bad opponents, I rather suspect that a lot of them are, but then that's what I tend to find both online and at the casinos. I also play against good players as well and the strategy works well against them.

I'm no so arrogant to think that it works in all cases with all opponents, in all positions or at all times during a tournament, and I often change up my style to fit the mix of player types, but it is definately the style I use to figure out the table and continue on with when it's working. And it often is.

As a question on limits, I play anywhere from $5 - $25 single table tourneys. I may move up in buy in soon.

[t_perkin]

You are using the example of KJ a hand that is constantly held up as an example of a hand that get people in serious trouble. You would do better to just not play this hand throughout the early/mid stages of a SnG.

You may find that you are still winning (with/despite) your stratgey against players at low buyins. Just be warned that this sort of passive play will get beaten at higher buyins.


Tim

[sammiK7os]

I agree with T Perkin, when I bet a made hand on the flop I am usually very confident that it is the best hand as I only play premium hands in the early stages of a tourment. I will usually have (at least) top pair top, or good kicker, and if i am called I will assume I am against a draw and wait to see what the next card is. Or I am against a weaker made hand which i will obviously get paid off on most of the time.

When it gets to the later stages there are less chances of a better hand beating you so you can bet the weaker kickers etc with more confidence. This of course only applies to made hands, playing bluffs, drawing hands etc can be tottally different.

It sounds to me that you are a tricky player. Dont forget you want to win the hand there and then but you will also only get paid off with the best hand if you bet it. Even if you just get called along and you dont know where your at, the fact that you are playing premium starting hands means when you hit a flop you like, you will usually be ahead. If you cannot get them to fold and they call incorrectly you are winning and if they do suck out on you, you can take some comfort in the fact you played the hand correctly.

If you are playing at the low levels then there is simply no need for fancy or tricky play, if you have a hand bet it, if your drawing semi-bluff or call for the correct odds. By taking controle of the hand its easier to put your opponent on a hand, get free cards, manufacture the size of the bet, get them off a hand, and make a correct fold. You can only do this by showing aggression (betting) from the start.

If you look for the oppertunities when you have position over you oppenent its very easy to play a simply game. I think you should always keep your game simple, play premium starting hands (in the early stages), when you hit a flop you like, be aggressive and always try and take control of the hand.

Sorry for the ramble its 2am here, very tired ......

[Jason Strasser]

This is a dangerous way of playing. No one likes betting top pair, mid kicker and getting reraised (and usually having to fold). However, most of the time it will not come to that, and you will win right there. You don't want to give the runner runner flush draw a free card, which could give him/her a draw to potentially beat you. You don't want to give a player with an underpair to the board the chance to hit a set. You don't want to give an observant player, who realizes you check where many would bet, a free card.... The list does not end.

But most importantly, you don't want to be a weak poker player. With the crazy blind structures most SNG's have, you need to be agressive even in marginal situations. Checking to see where you are at is dangerous. Checking to induce a bluff is a different story.

[PlayerA]

I think this style of play is better than tight-predictable (playing premium hands, betting only when you think you have the best of it). My intuition says that this can't be a generally winning strategy. It may work well against hyper-aggressives who don't adjust.

My question to everyone else (who thinks this is a bad strategy) is this:

Suppose you know someone is playing 37offsuit's strategy, what is the proper adjustment?

I make this post because I get into trouble all the time, where I think a check means "I am drawing or my hand is weak". So, what's my response when I think this is the case? I bet. The checker just calls along with TPTK and won't be budged from their hand. Sometimes I get lucky and make my hand. Other times, I just lose chips.

[t_perkin]

Easy, just play more drawing hands and low PPs against the player.

They are likely to give you a free look at the turn and river where you can make your flushes straights and trips.

Then your opponent will get really pissed off because you are getting "really lucky" and drawing out on him.

He goes on tilt and you nail him down.

Tim

[William]

Sometimes I get lucky and make my hand. Other times, I just lose chips.

Well. that's poker in a nutshell.

In fact all ods are 50% in poker:
- Either you win ... or you don't.

(another great tip from William)

[37offsuit]

lol, if someone is a weak passive calling station, this might work. Against me, it won't. I'll throw away my top pair mid kicker if you catch your straight or flush on the river, and I'll check it through if you check to me for what's in the pot at the time often enough that you'll be kicking yourself for not betting out.

I never said that I check winning but vulnerable hands, so playing your flushes and straight draws against a player like myself won't work. If I have AK and I flop an ace or a king, I'm betting out, not to find out where I'm at, but to either win the hand there, or extract chips from top pair/weaker kicker or drawing hands.

I check to find out where my BB or SB KT hits the king on the flop. I'm out of position and where I have to throw away my hand to a reraise. So I check and if someone bets what I would likely have bet myself if I were in the bet to find out crowd, I might call to see the turn and then make my decision there. If I hit my kicker, now I can check, let the other person bet out, and then repop them. I also check strong/less vulnerable hands at times to trap people, especially when I'm out of position. It makes me frustrating to play against, which is one of the strengths of my style.

As I said, I lose out on some small pots that I might have won through a little agression on the flop if no one hit. On the other hand I get to see a lot of free cards, and get paid off well when I get the best of it, snatching off the weaker bluffs people throw out at the end.

It is easy for me to play against people like myself because we're both waiting to hit, so the only time I lose a hand like that is when we both hit, but the other person hits harder than I do.

I don't like someone trying to change their style so drastically (playing drawing hands they wouldn't play and chasing them or small pockets that miss the flop and hoping they hit it on the turn or the river) because there are other people at the table who may have and bet their legitimate hands. Don't forget, the majority of the time we miss the flop and I'm checking because I've got nothing. If someone bets out inbetween us and you call because you figure that I'm going to call too and you'll get paid well if your draw comes out, don't be surprised when I fold.

[William]

LOL.

Please tell me this is one of those popular "Joke posts" before I start crying.

If it's not, please either stop telling me how you play, or tell me WHERE you play, so I can join you.

What was again the name of the aquarium you live in?

William /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PrayingMantis]

Try not taking it personally, 37o, but this is probably the worst strategy post I've ever read on any of the 2+2 forums.

And this is just one of the many terrible points you make:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget, the majority of the time we miss the flop and I'm checking because I've got nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an advice about how NOT to win money in poker.

[Prickly Pete]

I think you are getting an unfair bashing here and think your checking play has more merit than most here (though it probably shouldn't be a regular move.)

In the FWIW category, I just purchased th Cloutier/McEvoy NL PL Hold Em book, and Cloutier says betting (as opposed to checking) to "find out where you're at" is very dumb. Again, I know there are differing opinions on Cloutier and his book, hence the FWIW.

[David BB]

This is what you get for listening to Phil Hellmuth's audio tips :[

[Profit]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't forget, the majority of the time we miss the flop and I'm checking because I've got nothing.


This is an advice about how NOT to win money in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Helmut, how often do you bet the flop when u blank? Obviously different situations call for different plays.

[tolbiny]

Hey there 37o,
I think one of the main problems with this thread is that you should rarely bet to find out where you are at. The main purpose of a bet is to win money by either
1. winning the pot right there
2. getting more money in a pot you are a favorite to win.
if you search in the limit sections i am sure you will find numerous threads discussing the problems of betting simply for information, in tourneys it would be at least as dangerous.
I think you could have summed up the important parts of your thread by saying
"if you are unsure of your hand, checking and folding is usually a better option that betting and facing a raise"
h

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you could have summed up the important parts of your thread by saying
"if you are unsure of your hand, checking and folding is usually a better option that betting and facing a raise"
h

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that would be wrong, too, in many instances.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Helmut, how often do you bet the flop when u blank? Obviously different situations call for different plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know exactly if you're asking *me* here (some people turn "HelmetSky" into "Helmut", which is fine with me /images/graemlins/grin.gif ), and I'm very far from being an expert. But as for the question, it really depends on your read, position, stack, board, PF action, etc. But I would certainly bet if I feel there's a good chance I'm taking it there - which happens many times, especially against players who "check if they didn't hit", as in "checking to find out where you are at".

These players usualy don't shift gears and adjust during the game, because when you're playing in a "trying to hit your hand" attitude, you won't suddenly turn into an aggressive player.

[Simon Diamond]

Try not taking it personally, 37o, but this is probably the worst strategy post I've ever read on any of the 2+2 forums.

I'd say it's actually a very good strategy post... simply because it gave you the chance to show just how bad a strategy it is. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Simon