Is Check/Raise a Valid Poker Strategy?

[Meathead]

The Check/Raise is a poker strategy in which you pass the bet and then raise if someone bets after you.

 

Some poker players consider this to be a breach of unwritten poker etiquitte. Do you?

 

Note that this is a public poll**. I’ll be asking everybody who votes to either state or agree with a specific rationale for how you voted.

 

And you better answer me or there’ll be no soup for you.

[Meathead]

**Note that in mid-composition I noticed I couldn't find a public poll setting so you're just going to have to spill the beans yourselves.

 

You are getting very sleepy ...

[ofiba]

Unless the rules state otherwise, all is fair.

[Ghost of BiB]

Got burned, huh?

[theNose76]

Always works best when you have the nuts and know it - like a full boat or ace high flush - and you check and the guy after you raises BIG because he's either got a flush that you beat with your boat or a lower flush than your ace high - then raise all in. So easy.

[Bear]

It's not really something that I would do, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it either.

My strategy in that situation is usually to make a low to mid level bet. That will kind of keep someone with a mediocre hand in the game, and at the same time make the person with a good hand try to bump it.

I'm not really a fan of checking, but it a legitimate part of the game, however you want to use it.

[slothrop]

ACcording to this website it is allowed.

[IndyMark]

With all due respect, what type of poker player thinks it is a breach? That is similar to saying a fake punt in football or an onside kick should be illegal.

 

There are only two types of poker players that I know of that would believe a 'check-raise' is a breach of anything, and they are (a) bad (b) sore losers - kinda like Helmuth.

 

It is a great strategy -

[ATBNG]

The Check/Raise is a poker strategy in which you pass the bet and then raise if someone bets after you.

 

Some poker players consider this to be a breach of unwritten poker etiquitte. Do you?

 

Note that this is a public poll**. I’ll be asking everybody who votes to either state or agree with a specific rationale for how you voted.

 

And you better answer me or there’ll be no soup for you.

452198[/snapback]

 

Anyone who considers this to be a breach of etiquette is in my mind not a poker player, but someone who wants to play some other inferior game which is simplified in order to protect himself from others who are smarter or better than he is.

 

The check/raise is an essential part of poker strategy.

[Pete]

Of course it is! Check Raise is a powerful poker tool. Breach of ettiquette? In poker?

[ajzepp]

Of course it is!  Check Raise is a powerful poker tool.  Breach of ettiquette?  In poker? 

452288[/snapback]

 

That's what I'm saying....I do that all the time online....I'd probably adjust things if I were playing live, but online you can use other peoples aggression against them pretty effectively. I love to lay in the weeds and let them sense weakness.....that can lead to some very nice pots

[Meathead]

I was in a game recently, quarter ante and fifty cent raises, so pretty small stakes. Anyway, I check/raised and one of the guys got annoyed. He said I was playing "trailer park poker."

 

I just don't understand that mentality. Regardless of the stakes, the object of the game is to accumulate chips/money by extracting it from the other players. There’s only so many strategy tactics available in poker, check/raise being just another. If you can stone cold bluff to try to take money away, why can’t you check/raise?

 

It makes no sense to me but I know a lot of people who hold that view.

[Meathead]

It's like when people at a Blackjack table get annoyed when somebody to their left isn't playing correctly. They think that the "bad" player is messing up their cards. But how do they know the cards they subsequently get won't help them instead?

 

There's no logic to some people's gambling rules. I guess that's the point.

[ajzepp]

People whine all the time when I play online poker. Just this morning some guy was crying over the fact that I was playing low suited connectors (I think it was 4-5 diamonds). I was on a flush draw and he was betting like a fish, so I stayed in and chased it. Well, the A of diamonds hit on the river giving me my flush. He must have hit his ace, so he raised and I called. He typed a message in the chat using profanity and calling me stupid for even playing the hand to begin with. I promptly explained how betting like a fish invites people to chase their draws, told him to quit whining like a baby, and then dropped the F bomb on him. Punk...

[theNose76]

It's like when people at a Blackjack table get annoyed when somebody to their left isn't playing correctly. They think that the "bad" player is messing up their cards. But how do they know the cards they subsequently get won't help them instead?

 

There's no logic to some people's gambling rules. I guess that's the point.

452312[/snapback]

Blackjack at a casino is vastly different. The whole object of that is for the dealer to bust - and if you got a guy at the last seat who keeps hitting when he shouldn't and then the dealer ends up with a 19-21 and everyone at the table loses when the dealer should've busted, then you should get pissed. If say the dealer is showing a 2-6, you shouldn't hit on anything you have that's more than 11 - some might not even hit at all. If the guy in the last seat hits no reason and gets a 10 (and maybe busts), then the dealer's turn is up and they turn over a 10 as well, making their hand a 12-16, they would have busted immediately if the guy hadn't hit. A guy was doing that the last time I was at Fallsview Casino and I got REALLY pissed because I lost about $100 and at least half of the hands were when he hit and took the dealer's bust card.

[Webster Guy]

Of course the check/raise is valid. It is used to get your opponent(s) to bet more money than they normally would. If they have a marginal hand and you raise they might fold. If you check, then they think you are weak, put their own money in the pot (maybe even a lot, to make you fold with your "checked, weak" hand). Then you raise above them, they are already in for a lot so they might call just because they are in for x amount of money already.

 

However...

 

Take a game like euchre. When I play euchre for money, there is an unwritten rule among those I play with that there will be no renegging. Some may say, well renegging is part of the game and if you catch me it's 2 points against us. I do not like to play against those guys, because even though I watch the cards and can catch most reneggs, I do not want to have to diligently watch every hand. So in the case, renegging is not "proper". It is an unwritten rule that most use and I like.

 

So, for me, it depends on the game. If a check/raise was ever an unwritten rule at one point in time, it is gone now. ESPN tournaments use it all the time and thats where most have gotten their knowledge in the last 5 years.

[Webster Guy]

Blackjack at a casino is vastly different.  The whole object of that is for the dealer to bust - and if you got a guy at the last seat who keeps hitting when he shouldn't and then the dealer ends up with a 19-21 and everyone at the table loses when the dealer should've busted, then you should get pissed.  If say the dealer is showing a 2-6, you shouldn't hit on anything you have that's more than 11 - some might not even hit at all.  If the guy in the last seat hits no reason and gets a 10 (and maybe busts), then the dealer's turn is up and they turn over a 10 as well, making their hand a 12-16, they would have busted immediately if the guy hadn't hit.  A guy was doing that the last time I was at Fallsview Casino and I got REALLY pissed because I lost about $100 and at least half of the hands were when he hit and took the dealer's bust card.

452323[/snapback]

 

I respectfully disagree with you. While the "anchor" of a blackjack table has an "unwritten responsibility" to do as you suggest, I have read that with most casinos going to large decks (8, 12) that the anchor should play his hand according to the regular hit/ rules. As long as he does this, it will not make any difference to do anything beyond using the hit/stay rules that apply to everyone at the table.

 

[Edit: I re-read your post. You are talking about anchors who violate normal hitting rules. I agree with your post.]

[Meathead]

I've heard that BJ logic a million times and I still don't agree. A bad player has just as much chance of helping everyone as hurting them. What if he hits when he shouldn't and he takes the five of clubs that would have given the dealer 21, yet next card is face and dealer busts? It works both ways. People only remember when it hurts them, though.

[theNose76]

I've heard that BJ logic a million times and I still don't agree. A bad player has just as much chance of helping everyone as hurting them. What if he hits when he shouldn't and he takes the five of clubs that would have given the dealer 21, yet next card is face and dealer busts? It works both ways. People only remember when it hurts them, though.

452335[/snapback]

The reason why it's logic is simple - there are more cards worth 10 in the deck than any other. There is a MUCH greater chance of hitting and getting a card worth 10 than getting any other card in the deck. This is why more times than not, it hurts the other people at your table if you hit when you shouldnt.

[The Poojer]

In the old west we used to shoot people for doing that