In the last few days i have seen some random check raises in weird spots (flops) and it got me thinking about my own reasons for check raising the flop.I guess if i had to think about it my main reasons would be these-rebluff when i think villian is weak or has air (paired board cbet,drawy flop, dry flops, ) - I think this one is standard-to trap a bet with a weak hand that is ahead of villians range and force him to fold because i dont want anymore action or my hand is vulnerable ( low top pair, sec pair) - In these types of spots would it be better to lead out for value and fold equity or would check calling to get to showdown cheaply be better-against constant cbetters ( to force them to adjust) - I guess this one is kinda the same as the first one but more of a player adjustment than hand specific-when they continously fold (weak tight) - Just stealing from tight players but i guess your range would be weaker here since you would flat stronger hands to get extra streets of value-as a semi bluff (draw or hand with equity) - Hand equity plus fold equity equals jam jam jam-with strong made hands against a strong range or stations used to manipulate the pot size ( good hands that are vulnerable to draws or with the expectation villian will call) - Trapping them with their own value bets-monsters (to manipulate the pot size, pot commit villian with a weaker range, a bluffy dynamic) - Player and game dynamic dependent as sometimes it better to let villian barrel off So what are your reasons for check raising? Can you point out or correct any flaws in mine or point out spots where it would be better to lead or check call?
Awe come on guys. This has got to be the weakest part of my game. I cant be the only one who ch raises when he should flat or just lead out in the first place. I need help!!! Just to clarify i am talking about deeper stack at low blind levels. Any vid recomendations that cover this in depth. I know Hokies vid had 3 hands but one was a much shorter stack and had more to do with getting villian to spaz than hand strength.
IMO you have to be c/r to be folding out precieved better hands by looking stronger than you actually are. If we think we are ahead, there is no need to c/r as we're only folding out hands that we beat.I can only think of the Hokie vids that cover this, but thats prob cuz I've just watched the first part of his latest leakfinder vid!
So your only ch raising to bluff with a weaker range when you think your behind?
to some degree yea, I guess it is villain dependent tho. obv if im going to do this against a certain villain I'm going to put in strong hands too. The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking there are spots that depend on the villain. eg. a spewy villain you can just c/r small & get them to spew off thinking they have fold equity.
I generally use c/r as a semi bluff, example of an ideal hand to check raise;Villain opens to 60 on the button, you flat in BB with 78suited.Flop comes K56 rainbow - you've flopped an open ended straight draw with 2 semi-overs that may improve to th best hand on the turn and have a backdoor flush on a very dry board. This is an ideal time to check raise the cbet because it gives you the chance to win immediately (as would leading out) but it also gives you the chance for villain to check behind and you get a free card with all of those potential improvements.Check/calling is vastly inferior in this spot because if the turn is a blank there's really nothing you can do except check/fold and if you hit it will be difficult to extract value.Leading out is ok but can lead to difficult spots on the turn and reduce the pot size when you do complete.I'm far from an expert but I think that should assist you with trying to encorporate check raising into your game a little more.
A lot of stuff in your post. Here's some thoughts that come to me:"-to trap a bet with a weak hand that is ahead of villians range and force him to fold because i dont want anymore action or my hand is vulnerable ( low top pair, sec pair) - In these types of spots would it be better to lead out for value and fold equity or would check calling to get to showdown cheaply be better"I much prefer check raises in many cases to check calls or leads when you have a hand that is strong (such as Qh9d on 9c5c2s) but vulnerable to turn/river cards. This is especially true if we are not shorter stacked (if we're 15bb deep this may not always be true, or if we're playing a very specific villain at any stack depth). You check raise for value, but you also check raise for protection on future streets, which are more likely to give your opponent a stronger hand or kill your action if they miss higher turn/river cards.You don't necessarily want them to fold here, you just want to charge them an appropriate amount of chips to continue on with weaker hands and not give them a good and cheaper chance to draw out on you and proceed to control the size of the pot. Make them play a big pot while you have the equity, you'll lose at times, but you'll win a lot more chips on average and many opponents will incorrectly chase weaker hands/draws or be prone to overplaying weaker pairs and draws."-when they continously fold (weak tight) - Just stealing from tight players but i guess your range would be weaker here since you would flat stronger hands to get extra streets of value"It depends how tight they are. If they cbet 100%, but never continue without a hand on the turn nor vs a CR, then check raising not only bluffs but very strong hands should be ideal, as you won't get any extra value from flat calling with your monster hands.But against a player that is weak versus aggression, but may get aggressive himself with some bluffing hands, flat calling monsters and check raising weaker hands is more ideal.--As far as leading goes, I prefer to donk bet (leading OOP in a raised pot on the flop) more against passive players in general, IE players that won't cbet that high of a %. And a lot of times that is going to be for value.An example would be having KJ on J87 versus a player that likes to check back drawing hands, bottom pair and even mid pair. The more rare opponent might even check back TP at times (it's rare, but can be an incorrect adjustment from inexperienced players in relation to your aggression). So versus this player do you really want to check and get him to check back 95% of his range? Or do you want to lead? Knowing that he will likely call with any pair, some draws and maybe even decide it's a chance to bluff you once in a blue moon, a value leads looks good here.Examples of when to bluff lead against the same opponent would be when you call with something such as 54s and completely miss the board. Say the flop is K72. Your opponent doesn't likely hit this board and this guy checks back a lot. However, checking back isn't likely to help you, you have no showdown value, no draws, no real prospects of winning this hand without bluffing and getting a fold. So why not lead the flop rather than let a turn card come (or have to fold to a cbet of his with air even) that gives him even more of a chance to call with a draw or pair?--One thing you may not have included is check raise bluffing on very wet boards versus thinking players.Say you call about 30% of hands OOP at a certain stack size, your opponent figures you're calling 20-40% you assume based on your frequency so far and he's a thinking player. If you're calling with that type of range, it's not likely that you hit a T62 board that often so when you check raise you might get rebluffed or floated with high cards a lot more often than you like. But a QJ9 board? That hits your OOP calling range very often so it's much more believable when you check raise in that spot.Now it can be hard to decipher how your opponent thinks in these spots. It can be terribly frustrating to play an opponent who is a big winner, and watch them call you down with 95 on that QJ9 board as you CR and bet the turn, maybe even the river. But in general, the worse the player is, the more likely he is to pay attention more to his hand in relation to the board than your likely range versus the board. So adjust accordingly, bluffing dry boards is better vs weaker/non thinking players, bluffing wet boards can be a great tool versus a thinking player, so long as the wet board makes sense for you to have hit hard. But also make sure the player is cbetting that board wide. If the player checks back a lot of his air on QJ9, precisely bc he knows you hit that board a lot, it doesn't make sense to raise him when he does cbet, since he'll be mostly cbetting for value.As always there are tons of variables to consider, but the more open minded you are to various aspects, the more you really think and focus and start to see some of these things, the more spots that you'll find to make the correct adjustment and really put additional pressure on your opponent that you could not find or previously justify.
"-to trap a bet with a weak hand that is ahead of villians range and force him to fold because i dont want anymore action or my hand is vulnerable ( low top pair, sec pair) - In these types of spots would it be better to lead out for value and fold equity or would check calling to get to showdown cheaply be better"RyPac's response I much prefer check raises in many cases to check calls or leads when you have a hand that is strong (such as Qh9d on 9c5c2s) but vulnerable to turn/river cards. This is especially true if we are not shorter stacked (if we're 15bb deep this may not always be true, or if we're playing a very specific villain at any stack depth). You check raise for value, but you also check raise for protection on future streets, which are more likely to give your opponent a stronger hand or kill your action if they miss higher turn/river cards.So, what about in the OPs question, where we have bottom to mid pair? Are we still c/r the flop to protect, or are we c/c for showdown value. I guess it really depends on the villians range, how often they are cbetting or leading a limped pot from the button. I would think if they are loose on the flop, wouldn't we be just calling for value and not trying to build a potentially bigger pot with bottom pair. For instance, ES: 75bb, Villian is SB raises to 3bb we call with K6, flop is 9-6-2, we check, villian fires 2/3 cbet... if we c/r we're going to need to make it at least 2.5x-4x his bet so in 10/20 that would be a c/r bet of 200 building to a pot of 400 before his call. Even if he calls light that only makes us feel that we are behind and now we've commited a total of 260 chips to this pot?
Nice post!Ryan in one of your early vids, I cant remember which one, there was a spot where you check called JT on Jxx mid connected flop. You said, " i am not ready to make this a big pot yet" or something close to that. Do you feel spots like that are more villian and game flow dependent, or do you have some sort of value range where you feel that low broadway top pairs are strong enough to allow for decisions on future streets. I know it seems like a standard spot but when you play oop in raised pots you often have many more decisions and that gives you many more options on how to play the hand. This gives you way more room to be creative so i am interested in the though process of future streets being built off the flop. I know you cant answer specific questions from a general thought but i always try to have a plan for future streets. How often are your decisions in a hand reactionary and how often do you have a solid plan for villian doing xyz on later on.
It really depends how loose they are. If they are extremely loose, check raising with weaker pairs, even bottom pair perhaps, can be for value.Of course you're correct in many instances about check calling, but it's very opponent and stack size specific.I'd suggest posting a few hands in situations you're unsure of, particularly spots that come up often, here in the hand review forum and benefiting from more direct and specific advice.