Checking in the dark
 

So you are in the SB at a 1/2 NL table with a trash or marginal hand. There are several limpers and you know the BB is passive and is unlikely to raise without a real monster. So you throw in another $1 and -- after BB checks -- you pat the table and say "check in the dark."

I do this on occassion. Being in the worst position, I figure I am only going to stay in this hand if the flop hits me very hard. If I check in the dark, there is no way to get a read on me -- indeed, I can avoid looking at the flop and watch my opponents when the flop comes. I have won some significant pots with this move when I flop top two pair on a ragged board or a straight with my offsuit two-gapper.

What is the downside of checking in the dark? Am I missing something? When do you check in the dark?

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Of course they got a read on you. They now know you have trash or a marginal hand. They don't know if you hit or not.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

The downside is that if you hit a marginal but vulnerable flop, you haven't tested the waters at all. Say there are four people to the flop, including you and the BB. You hold 7-9 off. The board comes up 3-4-7. You have a very vulnerable hand, but you might be ahead. If you don't lead out and bet the top pair, you're giving everyone else a (potentially) free look at the turn. Instead, if you throw out a half-pot bet or similar, you can try to gauge where the rest of the table is at rather than being completely in the dark because LP makes a position bet after everyone folds. Top pair weak kicker on a low board right there is not exactly a good hand to be check-raising with. I'd rather throw out a bet and get a feel for where my opponents are at...

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Another downside is you look like a tool who watched David Williams' 55 hand at the WSOP main event final table too many times.

I sometimes do it and then say "I saw that on TV!" if I want to project the image of a clueless fool. The dealers who have seen me at the casino many times always give me a little smile when I do that as they know I'm just screwing around but all the WPT wannabes think they just marked me as a donator.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Actually, when I play a limit ring game, I'll sometimes check dark if I called a raise from the SB with a mediocre holding (maybe small PP or small suited connectors). This is only because if I bet out, it's not likely to get much respect anyway if a few people called two before the flop... So if I hit my trips, or a monster draw, then I can check-raise safely...

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
The downside is that if you hit a marginal but vulnerable flop, you haven't tested the waters at all. Say there are four people to the flop, including you and the BB. You hold 7-9 off. The board comes up 3-4-7. You have a very vulnerable hand, but you might be ahead. If you don't lead out and bet the top pair, you're giving everyone else a (potentially) free look at the turn. Instead, if you throw out a half-pot bet or similar, you can try to gauge where the rest of the table is at rather than being completely in the dark because LP makes a position bet after everyone folds. Top pair weak kicker on a low board right there is not exactly a good hand to be check-raising with. I'd rather throw out a bet and get a feel for where my opponents are at...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not bet out in your example. From SB, I would not even try and protect top pair/small kicker with four or five callers. I either hope for the free card to make my miracle trips or two pairs or I fold -- maybe I call a very small bet with big implied odds -- probably not.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another downside is you look like a tool who watched David Williams' 55 hand at the WSOP main event final table too many times.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a downside. If they think that I am a tool and that wins me money, I can live with that.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Their read on your abilities and your 'tool factor' are not mutually exclusive. Most decent players will have probably made up their minds about your play before this. Throwing this into your "bag 'o tricks" will only cause them to add "tool" to "probably a decent player", not replace it.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
Their read on your abilities and your 'tool factor' are not mutually exclusive. Most decent players will have probably made up their minds about your play before this. Throwing this into your "bag 'o tricks" will only cause them to add "tool" to "probably a decent player", not replace it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason to think a player is a tool for checking in the dark is because he has made the game more difficult for you. Checking in the dark was done well before Williams ever did it. I can't say I did it before that but I also didn't start doing it because of him -- at least not directly.

If I do it one out of ten hands when I am first to act, that is a lot. However, if I know for sure that I am not going to bet my hand because it will either be a check-raise or check-fold situation, no reason to show more than I have to.

Call me a tool -- maybe its the tools who can't deal with something a little different.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Needless to say this happens a lot more since Williams busted Arieh. I do it from time to time with small pairs like Williams did in that hand, but rarely with a marginal/trashy hand. I'd say per 10 hours of a session I will probably dark check from the SB once.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

You look like a David Williams wannabe.

I played with a young man who did this a few weeks back. He looked pretty foolish.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

The move has been around since I started playing cards, 30+ years ago.

Poker is a game of information and decisions. Why would you make a decision based on 0 information? Why would you forfeit your right to make a decision?

And that is just if you decide to yourself that you are going to "check in the dark".

Why tell you opponent? A good opponent will use that against you. It may not be a major piece of information (back when most of the games in California were Lowball and checking in the dark meant you were drawing to an 8 or worse it was more information), but it is information. If you at least act like you check, he has to wonder if you are checking from weakness or strength.

He has positon on you and you want to give up one of your options?

Re: Checking in the dark
 

The dark check is another tool to use in your shed. It's kind of like the bet in the dark which tells your opponent that you have a strong hand that you are not likely to be pushed off of and that you don't really care what he has or what card comes on the board, you're betting. That can take down a pot when a blank falls.

The check in the dark says you have bad cards, but not necessarily worthless ones. Remember, from the SB you still put in money. This can buy you a free card on low ragged flops. It's great for filling gut shots.

At best you've taken back position from your opponents. They have to act without knowing what your intentions are with the hand.

At worst you flop a strong but vulnerable hand (two little pair) and give away a free card. This is really only horrible if the board pairs above yours, though. If someone has hit say top pair, they'll probably bet it. If they hit a middle pair, your small blind bet could stop them from hitting their 3 outer, but it's still only a 3 outer.

If you completely miss, it doesn't much matter, one way or another.

Sometimes it will get checked around when you have a gut shot and you'll fill it on the turn.

What are the downsides, playwise other than "looking like a wsop wanna be tool?"

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The downside is that if you hit a marginal but vulnerable flop, you haven't tested the waters at all. Say there are four people to the flop, including you and the BB. You hold 7-9 off. The board comes up 3-4-7. You have a very vulnerable hand, but you might be ahead. If you don't lead out and bet the top pair, you're giving everyone else a (potentially) free look at the turn. Instead, if you throw out a half-pot bet or similar, you can try to gauge where the rest of the table is at rather than being completely in the dark because LP makes a position bet after everyone folds. Top pair weak kicker on a low board right there is not exactly a good hand to be check-raising with. I'd rather throw out a bet and get a feel for where my opponents are at...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not bet out in your example. From SB, I would not even try and protect top pair/small kicker with four or five callers. I either hope for the free card to make my miracle trips or two pairs or I fold -- maybe I call a very small bet with big implied odds -- probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this example? You have 76o and the flop comes 976. You checked dark, it gets checked around and an 8 comes on the turn. Now how's that dark check?

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
You look like a David Williams wannabe.

I played with a young man who did this a few weeks back. He looked pretty foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But betting dark roolz right Mike? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Checking in the dark
 

Agreed. But betting dark roolz right Mike?

hahaaa...That I have done many times.

I did that once in a tournament (before Juanda did it agaonst Negreaunu on the ESPN)and I got quite berated.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

There's nothing inherently wrong with checking in the dark. The current negative connotation comes solely from the fact that it was on a major televised poker event recently. I play in a casino almost every weekend and the three weeks following the WSOP final table had more dark checks than I'd seen in the 6 months prior to it. The vast majority of the dark-checkers were WPT-wannabe types and, in general, were extremely bad players.

Checking in the dark doesn't make you a tool but, if it happens the first hand at a table with a player I've never seen before, it certainly skews my opinion of him towards being a bad player. Obviously, this opinion will be revised (if necessary) as the session continues.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
You look like a David Williams wannabe.

I played with a young man who did this a few weeks back. He looked pretty foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aah... but I am not young... although I may be foolish.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

I have never seen a player who uses the check in the dark move regularly be a consistent winner. I play 1-2 and 5-5 in NYC, so we might frequent the same cardroom.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]

Checking in the dark doesn't make you a tool but, if it happens the first hand at a table with a player I've never seen before, it certainly skews my opinion of him towards being a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted and added to my game!

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a player who uses the check in the dark move regularly be a consistent winner. I play 1-2 and 5-5 in NYC, so we might frequent the same cardroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

We probably do play together (or in the same rooms). I play on the Upper East and Upper West and recently started to play in midtown as well. Usually 1-2 but occassionally I venture into 5-5.

Interestingly, I began checking in the dark after seeing the bad players do it nearly every time they acted first. I think it gives me the image of a wilder player than I actually am. I certainly do not do it every time. It is just a tool in my box -- and apparently (to the folks in this forum) it makes me a tool as well.

On the rare occassion that I have raised after checking in the dark, it really shakes up the remaining players. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason to think a player is a tool for checking in the dark is because he has made the game more difficult for you.

However, if I know for sure that I am not going to bet my hand because it will either be a check-raise or check-fold situation, no reason to show more than I have to.

Call me a tool -- maybe its the tools who can't deal with something a little different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that's the ONLY reason? You can't think of any other reason that a player might consider you a tool for this "move"? If you couldn't think of any other reasons, that says enough. If you STILL can't think of any other reasons even after others like Angus have pointed out why it's a -EV move, then there's no reason to continue this discussion. You just keep making decisions without all the information that should be available to you...

So checking in the dark is somehow showing less than waiting to actually see the turn card? Declining to check in the dark is showing more than you have to?

By the way, as pointless as it may be, I didn't call you a tool. I said others would conclude that you were one, and I was borrowing the word from an earlier poster.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

There is a chapter on checking in the dark in David Sklansky's excelent book (which I have not fully read yet) Getting the Best of It.

I haven't read through this full thread, so if someone already mentions this then please excuse my incompitence.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]