Who does this? Checking monsters on the river.

[shaniac]

This has happened twice in the last few days in big buyin ($150-$200) tournaments on Party and Stars.

Hand one from Party. It's early--round 1 or 2, I have less than the starting 1K but not much less--and I limp after one or two limpers with AT. Flop is AKX it's checked to me, I bet around 50 and get cr'd the minimum by one of the blinds, which I call. We see a king on the turn, headsup, and both of us check. The river is a 3rd king, making the board KKKAX so I have the nut full house. He checks, I bet something around the pot (250 or so) and he checkraises me allin. I call and he has KJ for rivered quads.

The next hand took place tonight in the $150+12 on Stars. Blinds are 15/30 and I hold 66 headsup in a raised pot on the button. I have about 1700 and my opponent over 3K.

We check a flop of 6x-4h-Jh and when an offsuit 2 turns, he bets 150 and I raise middle set to 350. He calls.

The river is an offsuit 7 for a final board of J-6-4-2-7 rainbow. He checks, and I obviously think my set of 6s is good so I bet 450 of my remaing ~1175. He thinks for a while (!?) and then checkraises me allin for my last 715 with 77(7).

In the first situation, from Party's Friday Special, I guess it's somewhat obvious that I have an ace and will bet if it's checked to me, so his quads actually stand a chance of getting paid off better than if he bet out 4-of-a-kind. (Still, I think checking is strange, because anyone with the the ace will raise a river bet most of the time and there aren't any weaker full houses that will pay off a check-raise, but would pay a modest river-bet.)

But in the 2nd hand I described, there are just SO many 1-pair hands I will check down behind--and so few that I will pay him off with to a check-raise--that checking a set of 7s seems, to me, completely insane.

Am I missing out on some aspect of advanced play? I don't think I've EVER checked a big hand on the river at a full table hoping to check-raise.

Shane

[MLG]

Some times the check to enduce a bet is a good play, like arguably the first case. Very few players online do it though, and I suppose when some do its in a bad spot, like the second case. I do find that most online players unwillingness to do it makes it very easy to play the river against them.

I do it occasionally, and I also c-raise bluff the river occasionally.

[LethalRose]

I do it occasionally too.

dont bluff check/raise the river on a bluff very often, usually do that on the flop. Unless a scare card arrives.

[SoBeDude]

if your opponent (who is last to act) is asian, try to look disappointed in the river card and check. They can't resist a bet there. Then stall a bit and wham, hit-em with the raise.

Seriously I check monsters on the river some times. There are two values to this.

First, you often set up the wonderful check-raise. And even if they don't call the check raise, they often would have folded to your river bet, so you're still making more money by getting them to bet at the pot.

The second is that once they see you check a monster on the river, they're less likely to take a shot at u in the future with less than real solid hands. So the next time you check to them on the river, they're going to want a real solid hand to bet at you with, fearing another monster being checked. This makes playing against them (and much of the rest of the table) a bit easier as it makes them more readable.

-Scott

[Ian J]

It looks to me that in both hands it's pretty obvious that you're betting the river so I see why they play it that way in each instance. Look at hand 1, it's apparent what you have and if the villain is any good he should realize that almost nobody checks behind an Ace there.

Hand 2, it sure looks as though you have a pretty big hand when you check behind on the flop and then make that little raise on the turn. Once the flush doesn't get there, he has to believe that you'll bet whatever you raised on the turn again on the river. So he checks. Seems pretty logical to me although I don't know that I'm checking that river in either hand.

[shaniac]

It's really not obvious that I'm betting the river in hand #1 since I didnt bet the turn and could have easily called his min. raise on the flop with almost any 2 cards.

In #2, I will bet the river every time with a strong hand, about half the time with something like AJ, and (this early in the tournament) very rarely on a bluff.

I'm surprsied that no one thinks it's risky in either spot to put the value of your premium hand at your opponent's betting discretion.

Shane

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]

In #2, I will bet the river every time with a strong hand, about half the time with something like AJ, and (this early in the tournament) very rarely on a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]


You should always be betting this hand here. The AJ on this board.

CSC

[Roman]

you don't think this play has value against aggressive players? Not commenting about these specific hands, but generally speaking, I check great hands on river to aggressive players a lot, even if they dont bet this time, they will be more reluctant to bluff you in the future.

[shaniac]

I can see how the play has value (perhaps as-yet-unexplored by me) in a lot of situations, but I also think it's too risky to use very often. I'd much prefer a weak lead against a truly agressive player, since he'll just as happily raise your bet on the river.

Edit: I am an agressive player, but considering that both hands took place during the first two levels of a tournament, the only reason my opponents were fortunate enough to get paid off is because I had second-nut-type hands.

Shane

[Roman]

I agree that its too risky to use too often, which is why you dont see it that often [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. It is still good to throw in there sometimes.