[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I would find it almost impossible for an A 2 (or A 3) in late position to let this flop go through without a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Dave - Agreed. Good point. Someone behind Hero will probably bet this if Hero checks.

I see a number of different possibilities.

(1) If Hero checks, if the next two players also check, and if the last player bets, then Hero can raise (check-raise) so as to confront the intervening players with a double bet.

(2) If Hero bets and if the very next player raises, then the last two players are confronted with a double bet. This can't happen unless Hero bets.

(3) If Hero checks and nobody bets, Hero will have given away a free card. Whether or not this happens depends very much on the players in your game and where they're sitting, but in any event it does not seem a rare occurance to me.

(4) There are some other possibilities.

In a ten handed game, when you have neither an ace nor a deuce, someone else will have been dealt A2XY roughly three hands out of every five, and if so, they'll probably be seeing the flop, and they'll also probably be betting this flop and possibly raising if you be6t first.

At any rate, I can see your point. A check raise might work out better. (But it might not).

[ QUOTE ]
but I guess that's why I want to play it faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial reaction to that sentence was, "But you're not playing it faster if you check." However, I do see that by check-raising you might (or might not) have a better chance of knocking out a player behind you who otherwise might draw out on you. Thus check-raising might (or might not) protect your hand better than betting directly.

O.K., I can see it. Makes sense.

As an aside, I admit a natural aversion to check-raises in limit Omaha-8 games, and not just because you often end up giving a free card. Although check-raising is part of the game, I think play is more congeneal without the tactic.

I don't play on the internet - probably doesn't matter there, but in a live game there's simply no way of getting around the fact that people tend to be offended when check-raised, whether you think they should be or not.

I believe you do better in life and in poker if you avoid offending people where possible.

I do see the point of check-raising here against some groups of opponents.

However, since betting directly in this instance very well may work better than check-raising, and since betting directly does not have the potential daanger of possibly giving a free card, betting directly seems a stronger play then trying for a check-raise.

I'll admit my natural aversion to check-raising may be affecting my decision. I do check raise when I think it's clearly best, for example as a defense when someone is semi-bluffing too often behind me. But I don't think it's clearly the best tactic to use here.

Just my opinion.

Buzz