Check-Raise Theory

[rgschackelford]

Howdy,

Everyone knows that check-raising is deceptive, because it gets people to act a different way had they been able to see your cards than if they had seen your cards, more often, which makes you gain, according the Sklansky's fundamental theory of poker. But, here's one thing I thought of. Maybe someone else has thought of this, or maybe I'm tying two rules together, and what I'm saying is just implied, but here it goes:

"Chek-raising keeps people from making some value bets that they otherwise would have made, due to the fear of a check-raise. Therefore, they tighten up, and only bet their very best of hands, allowing you to read their hands more easily."

Let me know what you think (I was working on this in an SnG, and it was working pretty nicely).

Rusty.

If you know someone never check-raises that's free money any time you're heads up and he checks to you [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Yeah, you're right. Check raising in a game will keep the other players on their toes, because they can't be sure if a check from you is a sign of weakness or strength. This added doubt in their mind might keep them from betting marginal hands in the future after you check to them. Conversely, a player who never check raises will be admitting weakness everytime they check in a game. I think Sklansky said this in the Theory of Poker near the end. The player who never check raises can be assumed to be weak when he checks.

[2ndGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right. Check raising in a game will keep the other players on their toes, because they can't be sure if a check from you is a sign of weakness or strength. This added doubt in their mind might keep them from betting marginal hands in the future after you check to them. Conversely, a player who never check raises will be admitting weakness everytime they check in a game. I think Sklansky said this in the Theory of Poker near the end. The player who never check raises can be assumed to be weak when he checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is particularly poignant in the HEPFAP section about turn play, where they advocate often going for a turn checkraise after leading on the flop with a solid hand. They state that it's as much to keep villains from always attacking you when they check as it is to make money on that particular hand.

I hate people that are capable of check-raising appropriately on the river because it cuts down on the times I can value bet when last to act. Of course, theoretically, if they have a monster every time they do it, it costs nothing because I can throw the hand away and still lose just 1 bet. But if they can ever check-raise bluff the river, or if it's a large pot and I just don't have a rock solid read on their river checkraising habits, it's a clear annoyance and there's not really anything you can do but give up a couple of the thin river value bets... and if I can fold, I can't fold to a check-raise correctly many times against an observant opponent, because he'll start to take advantage.

Obviously, if being the check-raised one puts both my current hand and my metagame in a bad spot, that means I'd like to take full advantage of check-raising myself.

2nd

Under most circumstances, I'd rather go for a small bet that looks like a "post-oak" bluff than do a check-raise. Not being scientific, but I have found I can induce bigger bets from the opposition with a P.O.B. than I can with a check raise. As mentioned in Super-System, a check-raise just screams "I have a big hand". That puts an end to the betting right then and there.

Now I can see the point about being able to check with impunity in the future. But then again a small bet isn't going to hurt much either. Better to maximize your chance to take a big pot.