Whats wrong with checking?

After reading this short artical by Mike Caro

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/...55&sort=author

I wondered why we dont advise people to check more often.

Discuss

The way I've always thought was that betting gives you two options to win. Where as checking gives you possibly none.

But does that mean that I dont check at all?

Definitely not. And anyone that never checks isnt going to be playing for too long. I get what Caro is saying, but I dont think that changes anything for me. The "He's looking away and wants you to bet!" is something most of us took from his Book of Tells a long time ago.

Whats wrong with checking in certain situations against certain types of players is a better question. Everything is situational in my opinion.

Check and fold is most common and we clearly do a lot of that as Mike pointed out. Check/raise is sometimes the clear play but can bite you if you do it routinely. It's the check/call that gets no respect or is considered weak. This is where he believes you can save $$$ or make more when used properly.

A lot of us are trained that it's a poor play to check and call. "If you can't bet or raise folding is usually best". But if you don't have this in your arsenal there is a hole in your game.

I've found that I make money by sometimes checking a med/strong hand which I would be tempted to bet. Busted draws often may take a shot when their only option if you had bet would be to fold. In some games this is a real money maker.

goldog

Checking gives your opponent a free card to catch up if he's behind. It gives you no information about the strength of your opponent's hand which is why you hear so many people talking about betting for information but which is easily overdone.
Another good reason for checking is pot control. If you have an Ace with a medium kicker best line is often to check call down. You don't want to inflate the pot to a size where you can get blown off the best hand.

Checking is as valuable a weapon as fold and betting, when it comes to the poker player's arsenal. Most people don't understand it, and feel that it's a weak play because of something they read, but never fully understand.

Can checking be a better play than betting? Yes.
Is checking a better play than betting $20 into a 400 pot? Abso-fn-lutely.

I disagree. Checking out of position gives your opponent the opportunity to bet. That bet (or lack thereof) can provide you with a lot of information.

I've found that on the opline poker sites, if you check it and slow play your opponent will get the one card in the deck he needs to beat you

I like Mike Cairo, I have one of his books and found that he has a ton of info to share and delivers it in a manner which makes sense to you as you read it. I like checking, I especially like checking when everyone wants to bet and in positions where many say you should bet. I like to make my opponents feel I'm busted or chasing.

Checking makes perfect sense when you are trapping or when an opponent is aggressive and doing your betting for you. If you know you are ahead and your opponent continues betting. Let him. Then, check raise him on the Turn or River. Didn't Harrington call this the Hammer?

Nothing really wrong with checking, but slowplaying too much can get you burnt by allowing villains hand to improve(when we dont have the nuts obv) Idk though, I'm more aggro than most, I usually dont check alot unless I know a villain is going to fire into me

It depends what kind of player you are. I personally like to play a bit of a tricky style, using traps and such, so I check more than then average person. However, for a more aggressive player, a check might not be as useful.

His article clearly makes sense, but it's just a matter of knowing when to check. If you could easily get drawn out on, but you have a good hand, you want to control the play and checking really doesn't help you control the play.

Mostly, if you are going to check a lot, you need to be good at reading people. By letting them do the betting, you need to know when a check has really hurt you, such as if you are slowplaying and you get drawn out on. If you are not good at reading, or you have trouble getting away from a big hand, then you might be better served checking less and betting out more often.

I think It's smart to check when you have a good hand it keeps your opponents guessing.

honestly, checking is a vital tool, if you are unaware of spots when you need to check for pot control/ check in wa/wb spots/ check when you have villain crushed, poker will be hard

Checking is a tool and the correct use is vital for the game.For example you have a A5 and the flop is 555 you will check- raise hopping for someone to have a full house.

I agree with the statement that check call isn't weak at all. In fact a lot of times i use it to lure my opponent into betting more money to push me out.

Set the trap like Phil imo.

If u check in the Flop, You give another oportunity for your opponent.
Only check if u have nuts, or security hand. example: AcKc Flop KhKd3d

Sometimes I feel that I check too often. I love to trap and I do a lot of check-calling. Many times they back into a better hand, but I still keep doing it. I guess I am willing to take the risk because I feel the payout is usually better. If they are betting there draw, they will usually bet it big even if they miss if you are just calling them on flop and turn. If I raise flop or turn with my set or whatever, they will just call or fold. If they do actually call and miss river, they won't try to bluff at it if I was raising and not check-calling. But a lot of times, it's hard to tell if they were bluffing on a draw or actually have a legitimate hand. Of course, if they flopped top two pair and I have a set it would be smart to raise right then. If all the sudden a third suit hits the board, now you are both scared to bet or raise. I try to read the situation and try to put them on a hand before deciding what to do, but it seems that maybe I check too often.

to check. Checking can help you later on in tourneys. There are many times players will do a continuation bet with A K after a flop of 10 8 J and they will get called or raised by theri opponent. Then what. Do you call the raise? How can you. You didn't hit the board and now you are down another 300 chips or whatever continuation bet you made. Do you call. Maybe....and hope to hit a queen. But if the turn comes a low card like a 2 then what? You cant bet the turn and if he bets then you have to fold. So Checking is sometimes the right thing. You have to mix it up. Sometimes continuation bets will pay off but other times just check and react to what the other players do. Let them determine what the wager/stakes will be to see another card.

When I am preflop aggressor I check behind in position if I want a free card or if I am sure the flop helped opp. more than me (i.e., AK on JT3 board -- take free card. 88 on AKT board, check behind because I'm likely no good). I check OOP vs. PFR with a wide variety of hands, including ones I'm repopping. However, if I flop a GREAT hand and I believe the PFR may still think he's good, I'm firing out at him. I.E.: 44 on board of KT4 if I put him on AK; 44 on 842 board if I put him on overpair. I will also fire out on three-flush flops a lot even if I don't have the suit in my hand.

But really, checking is not in my arsenal if I've flopped a great hand and was PFR. I probably CBET around 80% of the time and I need my misses to be as credible as my hits. I'm all for defensive checking and check-calling when I think my hand is good but I just want to get to showdown. Eg.: I have 99 vs. PFR and board is J72. I think my hand is good here more often than not but I want to keep the pot small. If he has overcards and is willing to fire another barrel I have a tough decision on the turn. But few people fire again on river with just A-high and a pair of 10s will also have to slow down by then.