Slowplay options check raise vs check call which do you prefer?

When you hit a set with your pocket pairs oop and there is at least a draw on the board, which do you prefer to do? I find myself rarely using the check raise move these days instead opting to let villain(s) build the pot for me. In the event that a potential straight or flush comes out on the board during the turn and river, I will then make the choice to call or fold if villain bets. This decision is usually not that hard based on pot odds and villains numbers. I think this method is easier than check raising an opponent and being stuck in limbo when a scare card hits the turn or river. Check raising and seeing a scare card oop produces a very difficult situation in my opinion. With that said, when do you believe the check raise move is most effective?

depends if you think your op will fire bets out on three streets... also depends on what you think he could possibly have... if you put the guy on overpairs for example, then check raising could be the right play, as he may think that you are on the draw and shove all in to protect his hand..

My favourite method of slowplay? Bet.
Check-calling to let your opponent build the pot for you is almost always bad, you've got a huge hand so build the pot yourself (if you want something done well, do it yourself).
Check-raising on early streets is often counter-productive to building a pot. It's actually good for bluffing at times, but as soon as you check raise it means you've either got a huge hand or a bluff, and more often than not it's a huge hand. The only opponent who is going to call and then pay you on the turn/river after being check raised is going to pay you if you just bet big on all three streets anyway.

Now, if the question is just "do you prefer to check-call or check-raise?" my answer is that it depends on what I'm trying to achieve. Check-raises are a huge indicator of strength and because of this my range is usually weighted towards bluffs, I actually check-raise with big hands sometimes just to balance my range at the cost of not making a bet. They're good bluffs when you're against a good opponent who doesn't have better than one pair and there's a lot of big hands in your range, you can trap a lot of money in the pot. As for your concern of getting stuck with a decision to make when a draw gets there on the river... understand that this isn't just check-raising that's going to do this, your problem is that you're concerned that the pot size is going to get huge and then a draw gets completed, this is a necessary evil. You wont be able to build your pot after all of the cards are out, however you can simplify things a bit by throwing out a blocking bet on the river, or if the pot is big enough relative to your stack then you're committed and the decision becomes easy (although if you think there are a lot of draws in his range, you probably should have just pushed the turn to avoid giving him these implied odds with your committed stack).

Check-calling on the other hand has a lot of benefits.
1) Balances your checking range. Just because you check it doesn't mean you're weak.
2) Under represents your hand, inducing bluffs and bets from weaker hands.

Although it's typically something you want to be doing with marginal hands that you don't want to play a big pot with.
A lot of the time when OOP with a marginal hand the check-calling line can be the best option because betting can build a huge pot (especially if you're raised on the flop).

Well my friend then you are with the group who do not believe in slowplay which I absolutely understand.

At the moment I can only think of 2 instances where I would check raise. Both purpose is to trap a little more money in the pot. The first instance would be a semibluff oop, AQs on a 85J board with a flush draw. Fold equity + possibility of hitting makes check raising a nice option here. The other instance would be raising so that you commit yourself to the pot, something that you cant do with a regular bet.

Being that I cbet 85-90% of the time, I find it very profitable to check call when oop and I hit my small to mid pairs. I always raise these pf and if there is royalty on the board, I pray that villain will build the pot for me. This is much better than cbetting with a set and having villain fold.

all depends on the OP how likely they are to bet, how likely they are too call bets.. against a calling staition it makes sense to just bet it, against a maniac betting machine, it makes sense to check call..

Correct play is to bed the flop with a flush possibility... as i was reminded the hard way today lol.

Yes absolutely true. I usually dont raise with small medium pairs if there are two or even one busy calling centers behind me...they are a headache when you have 2 outs in the whole deck.

Depends on the board, if there are flush and/or straight possibilities, dont slowplay, bet out. If they are drawing they'll come along calling and you can put them on that draw if it looks like they hit. If there are no such draws, let your opponent raise if he is and just straight call, if he raises on the river, reraise him, if he checks to you on the river, value bet the pot.

I usually never check raise if I know I have the best hand because lately whenever I check raise I make less chips because no one calls unless I'm playing a freeroll. But it also depends on what cards are flipped for me to decide what I want to do. But if I hit a set will my pocket pairs I will probably check it until the turn, then I will make a big bet. Usually works well for me because you can fool users into thinking your bluffing.

If I've already established a nit table image, in this scenario I would check raise...if the villian is on a draw he/she is gonna pay to get there...if he/she opts to fold due to the check raise then I just rec'd an additional bet.

i actually enjoy check-calling when i have a hand that i am just about positive will win after the flop. this does not happen often, but i will continue to check-call and then check-raise if i can at the end. this is a great way to suck out chips from your opponent.

I'm sure some of this is a repeat of what has been said already. There are a couple of things to consider when making the decision between c/r-ing and c/c-ing with a set. It has to do with stack sizes, tendencies of our opponent, etc. But usually, I will decide based on the texture of the flop.

For example, if we have 88 in the BB, all fold to the CO who opens for 3x, and we call. Flop comes K84r. Here, I would probably go with c/c-ing, especially if I know villain will barrel on turn, also. The main reasons for this are 1) c/r-ing really gives away the strength of our hand, and 2) it is unlikely that a cheap turn card will beat us. The only time it could beat us is if villain has 99+ and hits a bigger set. Those are long odds, so it's a risk worth taking, usually.

Now consider we have the same hand and the board comes QJ8 two toned. Here, I really want to c/r for a couple of reasons. First, we want to fold out some draws that can beat us (although some players would re-raise their draws, especially the bigger combo draws), whereas before, we pretty much had a lock on the hand. Secondly, our range now can include many semi-bluffs, so we can expect our opponents to call us much lighter than in the previous hand.

Hopefully this helps you figure out which is the more profitable play. I'll mention too that sometimes I c/r in the first scenario, too, if I think villain will call, like if an ace hits, or the villain just goes too far with his hands in general. Balancing also becomes a factor, if you only c/r with sets, or only c/c, or whatever. GL on the tables.

If the player is aggressive I am more likely to check raise - hopefully getting a call , and value bet - turn or river (if any). If the player is tight I usually just call.

A few questions:

To those who like check-calling here, how do you play the rest of the hand?
My concern with this approach is that it becomes very difficult to get a lot of chips in the middle without turning your hand face up. Check-call the flop, bet the turn or check-call the flop, check-call the turn and either bet or check-raise the river, both will kill the action as soon as you bet because you're basically never bluffing with these lines and always have a big hand. Any hand that calls you, surely would have happily called/raised you on earlier streets.
Also, what are your thoughts on your opponent checking behind you on one or more streets with a draw or mediocre made hand?


The check-raise doesn't have the same problem since you're showing aggression right from the start and all the way to the river still have some air and draws in your range (i.e. bluffs). However I've noticed a couple of people have said that they would check-raise to charge draws, what if your opponent checks behind?

Flopping a set oop on a wet board:
I bet it every time. Normally, each situation differs, I will bet the pot to attempt to take the pot down now and be happy to have instead of having someone chase and catch. This isn't always +ev; I used to string chasers along to get max ev out the situation, but too many times I end up having to fold on the river when they shove all in when they hit their flush or like hand.

Doyle also addresses this in his Super Systems books. He says to bet into people with a flopped set to maximize ev because most expect a person who flops a strong hand, like a set, to check it (act weak) and when you bet it people are more likely to call, especially if they hit a piece of the flop and/or have a draw. How much you bet will of course depend on the situation, your image, your opps, how many are in the pot & how wet/dry the board is.

If the board is fairly dry, I like to value bet and encourage tptk or tpmk to follow along. If I am reraised - great! I will usually relinquish control of the pot by calling the reraise then checking the turn waiting for the aggressor to shove so I can call. But if I think I can get my opp to call an ai I will then re-raise shove. Like I said, situational dependent.


EDIT: I admit I did not read the other responses so I apologize if what I've said has already been said.

If you hit a set on a drawing board and you're thinking about playing it slow . . . I'm concerned.

Set a trap, get as much money in there as you can, win.

A friend of mine when he bluffs online he'll check/call, check/call, overbet.

I'll tell you from his database that works like never, so I guess in reverse you could bring it out on a blue moon. I don't know how many free streets I'd want to give against a drawing hand with only a set though.

This this this! Free cards for villain on dangerous board = getting pickpocketed.

PS check golden archive: Sets and the raise vs slowplay debate

The problem I see with betting or check raising is it gives away your hand. Meanwhile a chaser who sees you checking on the river once the scare card comes out can just pot bet and create a very difficult situation for you.

Being that I cbet 85-90% of the time, I find it very profitable to check call when oop and I hit my small to mid pairs. I always raise these pf and if there is royalty on the board, I pray that villain will build the pot for me. This is much better than cbetting with a set and having villain fold.

being that you cbet 85-90% of the time.. and now you consider check-call or check-raise when you flop a monster? Build the pot.. lead out in most cases imo... of course it depends, lol.. player reads on villain, board texture (stack sizes in relation to blinds, etc. << if referring to tourney play.. which is what I'm always referring to when posting unless specified otherwise )

c/c the turn and flop with hesitation, they will either bet bigger to attempt to make you fold, or will bet smaller in which case you can raise for more value.
c/r the river because they already have their money so the pot is built. Why not make them pay more to lose (hopefully) a pot?