Checking in the dark
 

I was watching the WSOP main event and thought I saw Howard Lederer check in the dark during a hand (I forget the circumstances). I know I saw Phil Hellmuth do it at least twice during the main event also. They sat at tables full of amateurs . Given that ESPN shows only a fraction of the hands played by top players, I wonder if Lederer and Hellmuth checked in the dark more frequently than what I saw.

During Hellmuth's commentary for CardPlayer magazine's live coverage of the main event final table, he briefly mentioned inducing bluffs from amateurs. This was after Mike Matusow induced a bluff from Steve Dannenmann, but Dannenman spiked a jack with AJ to beat Matusow's pocket tens, if I remember correctly.

Lederer was overheard discussing the amateur players and their propensity to put all their chips at stake on any hand. All of this raises a question: are pro players trying to induce big bluffs from amateurs with automatic in the dark checks, and is this going to become more prevalent in tournament poker where pros play amateurs?

Checking in the dark is something that, as an online player, I never see because of the lack of such a function in the software. I suppose you could say I'm in the dark when it comes to checking in the dark.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

I often think of checking in the dark as something designed to slow the other player down. It suggests:

1. You have a hand that is so good the other player can catch a card and still be given a free card.

2. You have a fit or fold hand where either you'll hit a great hand or else you'll have a hand that will be behind a bluff.

with 2 being more likely than 1. The player in position knows this is the case (or at least this is what is implied) and then is faced with the choice of should I bluff at the pot or not. If either 1 or 2 is actually true than betting isn't attractive as with 1 you'll be behind and lose and with 2 you'll often be ahead and win the pot (but in these case you generally would have been able to check it down and win the pot) or else he'll of hit and you'll get beaten losing at least your bet.

Now if a tricky player or pro does it who knows what reverse-reverse-reverse move it might be supposed to represent, but I'd think it more often than not slows the opponent down rather than induces bluffs.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

When you think about it basically whenever Phil "dark checks" he is really planning on checking anyway, no matter what comes on the flop. so it doesn't really matter that he "dark checks." he's just trying to intimidate people, but honestly I laugh to myself every time someone dark checks. i think it's pretty silly.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

I'm pretty sure the hand you're referring to with Lederer was a dark bet. I think he had 66 or something and his opponent had AQ. He had raised preflop and the guy called, leaving himself with only 600 chips or so (the call was 7200 or somesuch). So Ledere bet the guy's last 600 chips in the dark, and the other guy called in the dark.

Bill Fillmaff does some pretty fun imitations of Hellmuth's checking style though.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

When people check in the dark to me, I sometimes fold in the dark.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

IMO, I think the dark check saved phil hellmuth from getting knocked out when he had the AK and the other guy had AA and flopped a full house. he probably would have led this flop and gotten into a lot of trouble.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, I think the dark check saved phil hellmuth from getting knocked out when he had the AK and the other guy had AA and flopped a full house. he probably would have led this flop and gotten into a lot of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, I think the dark check saved phil hellmuth from getting knocked out when he had the AK and the other guy had AA and flopped a full house. he probably would have led this flop and gotten into a lot of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, the dark checking got to be ridiculous.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

I think the main purpose of the dark check is to switch betting positions. Checking in the dark makes the guy with the better position act first. It can be effective if used correctly.

Re: Checking in the dark
 

[ QUOTE ]
Checking in the dark makes the guy with the better position act first.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also allows him to take a free card from his "first position" if he wants it.