A word on flop checkraises

I don't post in this forum anywhere near as often as I'd like, but I'll try to remedy that in 2006. I have something to get off my chest:

If you hold J♠10♠ and you call the button's preflop raise from the big blind, leaving you heads-up, and the flop comes

3♥7♣8♦

You check, he will almost always bet here. Aggressive players will sometimes checkraise in this spot, simply because there's a very good chance that the original bettor is betting only with overcards, and so they raise him with... uh... Nothing?

And this is my point: This checkraise can be done if you've paired a ragged board. You'll get to charge an extra small bet for his overcard draw. But don't fool yourself into thinking you'll get him to fold, because he won't. In fact, he's getting 7.5:1 on his call here, with good implied odds if he manages to hit one of his outs on the turn. I'd often consider it a mistake if he folds a hand like AK or AQ here.

So when you raise with nothing yourself ("nothing" is a bit harsh for the hand you have here, you have two overcards and an inside straight draw, but stay with me), you're hoping for what? For him to fold? Hardly. In fact, with maybe one exception, I don't think I've ever seen anyone fold to a single raise on a continuation bet on the flop. So don't get pissed off when he hit his out on the turn and suddenly raises you.

You're entitled to get pissed off if you checkraise him on the flop, and then you bet the turn and the river, and he calls you unimproved with A-high (and you lose). That just blows, when you've made an accurage read of his hand, but not just how loose this calling station is. I've had that happen, and I hate it. I *knew* he had nothing, I just didn't think he'd actually *call* me with nothing.

But, I digress. My main point was that if you want to make a stab at the pot with nothing, don't do it on the flop. Better on the turn, where the pot is not yet big, but the bets are.

Cheers,
FP

Good thread Frreddy, I think checkraising in situations that youve described above is lunacy. The ONLY way it will work is if your opponent is on a stone cold bluff. Even if you had hit your hand here i feel check-call with the intention of check-raising the turn is a better play.

Very nie post FP. For me the best way to play this is to bet out on a ragged board. This can work well for a few reaons

1. If your opponent is drawing, then he will most likely flat call hoping to catch. This server 2 purposes as it allows you to draw more chips from your opponent or he folds and you take down the pot

2. If you get raised, you are most likely up against a PP (with no overcards on board) and can comfortably lay your hand down in the knowledge you are most probably beat - and remember you have no hand here so you are almost certainly beat

When I am short stacked in the BB and up against a caller/small raiser and a ragged board hits, I will almost certainly put all my chips in, knowing he is most likely drawing and will lay down his hand

Some players are terrible at playing with rags though and you can easily get a tight player willing to lay down his middle pair if you check raise him on a ragged board. A lot depends on the opponent and the timing of the move

I was referring to limit hold'em ring games, to be honest, but your points are valid. Specifically the part about betting out: That's a stronger play than checking and calling, especially when you "know" he will bet if you check, because if YOU bet, he might actually fold. Then he's only getting 5:1, as opposed to 7:1.

Great post but then again with any check-raise or check.. you are letting your opponent check as well which he may well draw out now and beat you. Not that you weren't beat to begin with according to the scenario(gut shot straight).. but why put yourself in this position to begin with?? Be easier to fight another day when you have a hand to defend with coming out of the blinds. Remember you act 1st and calling a pre-flop raise, you are definatly going to need a strong hand to call with.