Live game - check blind?

[zebranky]

So someone last night questioned me on this particular tactic, and I wanna see peoples thoughts on it. It's worked for me for a while now, although I do take an occasional hit for it.

I play mostly live games (in a casino). If the PF betting finishes and I'm going to be the first person to act on the flop, I automatically check blind (a check before the flop is actually dealt).

Now, I understand that I take a risk here - letting someone else bet first if I hit Top pair with a reasonable (but not great) kicker, or allowing free cards if I hit two pair with a 3-card straight on the board.

The flipside is that I gain some of the power of the Button - assuming anyone bets the flop at all, I get to be the last one to act (ie, the last one to fold/call/raise after seeing the flop cards). I've had plenty of times where I hit 2 pair, and CO or button tries to buy the pot when it checks to them, only to be raised by me in the SB. Once everyone has seen me do it a few times, it's even more useful. Everyone knows I check blind regardless of my hand, so I now give no information about my hand to players in late position - compared to a check after the flop comes out, which sends a clear signal.

let me hear it - the good, the bad, and (especially if anyone else has tried it or seen it) the stories.

 

[Bill_Hollorian]

Generally in games of imperfect information, the more information you gather before acting is better. Executing a play before having the information of the flop is a bad idea.

I suppose if your poker face is so awful that you do it to "give no information about your hand to the players in late position" then that might be a reason. Although a better strategy would be to work on your poker face, out of position play is a critical part of poker, without going into much detail, you should be making bigger moves out of position, with stronger holdings.

Checking is generally a weak thing to do and should be your last option. You should always try to bet, raise, or fold first. If none of those options seem reasonable then check. doing it blind is even more weak as you have even less information to use when choosing the weakest of all plays.

Bil H.

 

[joosebuck]

teach me, bill.

 

[stormswa]

haha

you Phil Hellmuth want to be,


I actually hate it, you dont get value out of you monsters and possibly let people draw to hands that could beat your monster.

 

[zebranky]

Generally in games of imperfect information, the more information you gather before acting is better. Executing a play before having the information of the flop is a bad idea.

I suppose if your poker face is so awful that you do it to "give no information about your hand to the players in late position" then that might be a reason. Although a better strategy would be to work on your poker face, out of position play is a critical part of poker, without going into much detail, you should be making bigger moves out of position, with stronger holdings.

Checking is generally a weak thing to do and should be your last option. You should always try to bet, raise, or fold first. If none of those options seem reasonable then check. doing it blind is even more weak as you have even less information to use when choosing the weakest of all plays.

Bil H.

I think any action in EP is going to give away information - not so much in terms of tells and "poker face," (because I know what my cards are and they can still look at me once the flop comes out), but in terms of betting habits and chip reads. The tactic is only meant to remove this kind of information from my opponents world.

And I wholly agree checking is usually a mark of a weak hand. If I'm not 1st to act, I do either bet or check/fold the hand. And I don't check the river unless I'm going to fold it anyway. However, the key to reading an opponents check as "weak" is that they checked knowing the flop. If I check consistently without seeing the flop, then there is no weakness (or strength) to my actions - it is completely nuetral, as it has nothing to do with the cards in play. I would argue it is exactly the same as Negranu's famous habit of limping in PF on 99% of the hands he plays.

As for me having less information when I act - checking blind gains me more information before I have to act. It makes my position the same as the button as long as anyone decides to bet on the flop. I'm last to act, I haven't had a chance to act since seeing the flop. Checking blind does look weak if you only do it once in a while - but when you do it everytime and the whole table knows it, then they shouldn't read it as weak - and if they do, I'm ready to burn them when I do hit big.

 

[Bill_Hollorian]

I beleive it is more equitable to bet every flop when oop then it would be to check blind. Poker is a game of mistakes. When you check you leave the broadest range of decisions to your opponent. When you bet he is more limited in his responses.
Poker is also a game of pressure. Always try to put your opponents to a test. Most of the time apply pressure. Betting out is the application of pressure.

For the record I LOVE opponents who always check dark, although in my game, I dont get to see it very often.

Bill H.
ps where do you play in California? Im in Vegas, but i go to LA often. Im leaving this afternoon as a matter of fact.

 

[zebranky]

good sense

I beleive it is more equitable to bet every flop when oop then it would be to check blind. Poker is a game of mistakes. When you check you leave the broadest range of decisions to your opponent. When you bet he is more limited in his responses.
Poker is also a game of pressure. Always try to put your opponents to a test. Most of the time apply pressure. Betting out is the application of pressure.

For the record I LOVE opponents who always check dark, although in my game, I dont get to see it very often.

Bill H.
ps where do you play in California? Im in Vegas, but i go to LA often. Im leaving this afternoon as a matter of fact.

You know, maybe I'll try it your way and start auto-betting OOP on all except the huge PF pots - it makes a whole lot of sense in terms of pressure, and if nothing else does get me some fold equity and the same effects as the blind check for a relatively small price.

And I usually play at Hawaiian Gardens, although I do play Hollywood Park occasionally. I'll probably be at Commerce one day this weekend for an LA Poker Classic event, although they're starting to go up in price, and after the excrutiatingly bad 1st hand I got at the opening event, I'm not sure I want to try my luck again...

 

[stormswa]

blah blah blah

instead of betting, checking, going all in, folding, grabbing waitress butt in dark ( well actually its after you grab her butt you are in dark) why not try betting on flop. Its a crazy concept and idea but hey it might just work.

I have always thought doing stuff in dark is dumb but thats just me, if you are going to do it try it once in awhile not all the time.

 

[mrsnake3695]

One thing that was touched on is that if your opponents know that youare always going to check blind the flop then they know going in they can see 4 cards if they want to when they call your preflop bet. That will bring in more speculative hands like connectors and one and two gappers. Is that what you want when you have a big pocket pair?

You should never play the same way all the time and be predictable, it gives your opponents too many opportunities to exploit you. Doing something sometimes to throw your opponenet off has value but it loses it's value if you do it all the time. You are giving your opponents too much information about how you play.

 

[zebranky]

instead of betting, checking, going all in, folding, grabbing waitress butt in dark ( well actually its after you grab her butt you are in dark) why not try betting on flop. Its a crazy concept and idea but hey it might just work.

I have always thought doing stuff in dark is dumb but thats just me, if you are going to do it try it once in awhile not all the time.

Too radical for me to try, I'm not insane!

Actually, I'm trying to go outside of my regular game and try a lot of different tactics (I had a blast playing as a LAG maniac, but overall it wasn't profitable for me). Right now I'm purposefully trying to work through some of the stranger tactics I've seen to try and find out which ones work for me and which ones don't). And anyone who wants my money, be in LA for my next evolution - auto-raise. I know one guy who averages out well playing this way, although his BR has very big swings because of it.