Playing from the blinds: QTs

[ QUOTE ]

See three posts up. I made that post before reading the KJ...having now read it, my concern has been addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're more likely to check-raise when there is a potential flush draw. Is that right?

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

See three posts up. I made that post before reading the KJ...having now read it, my concern has been addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're more likely to check-raise when there is a potential flush draw. Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]


That's probably putting it in too tidy a package, but opting for this line vs. leading "when you stand a better chance of getting called with a lead" makes sense.

Of course leading is definitive. "I led, your turn...". Finding a flop/situation where leading isn't so easy, isn't replaced necessarily with a tail-wagging "one of you lead please, I'm fixin to check-raise". Considering the number of opponents, where the lead came from, the size of the lead, etc. can/should change your course of action.

That's the conundrum (1st time using that word I think) of chosing these lines OOP on hands like this. Leading has risks, with a call and need/desire to continue on what could be a scary turn street. Heck, it's scary no matter what the turn is, continuing OOP. The PLAN to check-raise is often aborted because the action behind your check. In some cases causing you to be unable to continue in a hand you might perhaps would have gained value in by leading. Not to mention the pesky reraise, or worse yet, the dreaded call.

Personally, I find myself taking the check-raise line often without fully considering some of the thoughts above.

Leading takes a little more finesse (here, and/or on later streets). But undoubtably a correct line - in more cases than I give it credit for I think.