I don't have clear idea of using this option
And if you hear this what hand you suspect the opponent can have (before a flop appears)

Don't read too much into it. It usually means they are a weak player trying out a 'fancy' play they saw some other weak player do.

The opposite of "betting to see where you are at"?

I saw Phil Helmuth doing it several times in different shows (HSP included)...

Theory proven!

It can't be game theoretic optimal (except maybe in a multiway pot), because removing options is always bad in that sense. If you think your opponent will react badly to it (like maybe checking back a lot more than they should), then by all means do it to exploit them.

As Nichlemn says, it can't be game theory optimal except in multiway pots (and probably isn't optimal there either). On the other hand, it often costs very little and definitely can influence other players' behavior. Almost everyone does things like smooth call or pretend to be undecided in hopes of influencing other players. Table image does matter. And a blind check is actually a meaningful signal, as opposed to ones that are pure image.

Logically, checking blind says you know the other player will know for sure whether or not he has you beat, regardless of what the last card is. You're not just claiming that, you are giving up an option that has some value in any other circumstance. If the other player believes you, he will almost certainly conclude that you have him beat. However if he takes it one step farther, he will conclude the opposite, because you appear to want him to check. Then he can take it another step farther and think you really want him to bet.

Checking blind in a situation in which it is plausible that you know that the other player will know whether or not he has you beat regardless of the last card can help if the other player is good enough to understand the logic. For example, suppose the board is four hearts with no straight possibility, and you made a large bet that was called on the turn. If you have the King of hearts, the only hands that can beat you have the Ace of hearts or two pair or trips. In all those cases, regardless of the river card, the other guy will know whether he has you beat after he sees the river card. If he has none of those hands, and believes you have the King of hearts, he will know he has lost to you.

So checking blind represents the King of hearts with a kicker that doesn't pair the board. The other player has the option to see whether you're telling the truth, if he checks, you have to show your hand. That makes it different from a bluff in which the other player has to pay to find out.

Of course, the other player can ignore your action, in which case it cannot help you. But good players try out figure out the situation rather than ignore information out of game theory defensiveness. If you can outguess the other player, you can profit from this move.

But don't try it on a player too weak to figure all this out. There are easier ways to get his money.

I play in a regular low stakes NL game with a guy who does this a lot, and I fail to see the value. If you check dark, but call a bet and see the next street, you haven't gained much because, by calling, you've signaled that you have some kind of hand. You achieve the same result by waiting for the cards to hit, then check/calling, instead of being "mysterious" by checking blind. As other posters have mentioned, it's usually just FPS that is removing an option of play from your arsenal, which is not smart.

checking in the dark is the stupidest thing ever invented imo

If I see someone doing it, I insta label them as a bad player.

I bet dark sometimes (very rarely) because against certain players it causes them to spazz raise.

Most players who check dark, know that whether they hit the flop hard, or whiff the flop totally, they will be checking 100%. It's mostly used in big, multi-way flops. It has no benefit to the person doing it, expcept if they feel they might give off something when checking with a made hand, if they hadn't have checked in the dark.

It's pretty easy to play against these sort of players. Bet strong and hard if they're dark checking HU. Multiway, if they're dark checking, then raising, they're going to have a pretty huge hand.

And finally, you won't see many strong players do this.

it;s something a lot of bad players do. i think they do it because they want you to check back too, this way they can get to a showdown cheaper. the other day i opened 99 for 800, sb called and checked dark, so i was lik eoh wait, if you're gonna check dark i'm gonna bet dark, so i thre out 1k dark. flop was J94 ad he insta folded.

i do see one advantage of checking dark though, and i assume it's the reason hellmuth does it. by checking dark, you can look at your opponent and see their reaction to the flop, opposed to them seeing your reaction to the flop. if you're good at reading people, this is a huge advantage. most of the time you're going to be checking anyway.

I googled a little
http://www.pokerology.com/masterclas...odges-bullets/
WSOP Main Event 2008
...Hellmuth checks in the dark before the flop. By doing this, he is controlling the size of the pot but also can disguise his hand and make a read purely of the actions of the other player. Pasintino now says “you check to me? I check too.”

checking in the dark is a limit stud move, as is the more interesting variant, betting in the dark

both suicidal in nlh

I think it has some merit when hu oop. Now I have never done it, but I don't like when they citd to me, because I cant get any read on what they think of the flop, and it keeps their range really wide. Alot of bad live players give away alot of info when they miss the flop and check imo

Strategic options have a non-negative value, game theory-wise, but not necessarily a positive value. The value may also be 0, as is the case with dominated options. It might turn out that donkbetting is a dominated option, in which case a optimal strategy could involve checking every flop regardless. I don't think checking in the dark can be part of any optimal strategy, because denouncing checking before the flop is dealt can not do worse game theorically than checking when it is dealt, except when it makes your opponent react differently. So I agree to the second part of your post.

It's clearly not GTO but it can be optimal if your opponent will think you have a different range than you actually have when you check dark. So say you have a strong hand but opponent cbets too much so you're gonna check most of the time regardless but if you check dark they will think you're weak and continue with a wider range to the ch/r thinking you're just playing back to defend your dark checks.

That said I never do it and 99% of the time it's just dumb and it's a move they want to make to feel cool.

These two things are exactly why I do it.

For players who label me as bad or stupid, they end up widening their range, playing more pots against me OOP and trying to steal when I have strong hands. They change their game and I profit, because they are making the wrong moves. Its not something I recommend doing often, because the idea of "checking to the raiser" applies here. Still, I do it a few times early on and it gives people a false impression of me. First impressions stick: I could play a total TAG game and they would still see me as a moron.

Against good players it doesn't change their methods and perceptions, so its also a piece I use to put people on skill levels.

There's one very specialized situation in live poker when I check in the dark.

It comes when I am playing kill games in limit. In this structure, if you win two pots in a row, you have to post a special third blind, a "kill" blind which is 1 1/2 or two times the big blind, and the hand plays at the higher stakes (i.e., in an 8/16 game, the hand will play at 12/24 or 16/32).

In some casinos, the "killer" acts last pre-flop. But in others, the killer acts in turn.

If I have the kill and am under the gun, I have found that if I look at my cards and check, I just get abused by raisers because I've basically announced to the table that I don't like my hand very much. (Remember, if I defend the kill blind, I will both be out of position and will need to post another kill blind if I win the pot.)

In contrast, if I very loudly and obviously check in the dark, it makes it slightly harder for the players acting after me to raise to isolate.

That's a bit premature, don't you think?

Even good players will make mistakes or bad moves every once in a while. If I see someone check in the dark once, I assume they've seen a few episodes of any poker TV programming, and that's as far as my analysis of it goes. Of course, if they're constantly checking in the dark, that's a different story.

I was in live 40r+a with this extremely loose older guy to my left. He had been playing every pot and calling all-ins with anything to double up or rebuy. I picked up kings in the HJ, he's CO, got an UTG raiser, I reraise 2.5x the UTG raise, he calls, UTG folds, and I insta check in the dark. I knew he would fire out a bet on any flop as he had committed almost half his stack pre, and he bet the flop and I reraised all in get called and take the pot down. This is the only time I've ever done this live and I didn't even think about doing it just hit me as the flop was coming that I should check dark. I don't think it really had a benefit as his money was going in either way, but I felt like it was the best move for that situation.

Honestly that's my question. About shows. I don't think they make it for fun.
I've just watched HSP Season 4. Here's a little video (sorry for quality).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4rrv-UVY8c
In one hand Phil is saying about a decision of the day.
Different hands, different players...
It's about not giving information? There should be something else

I am waiting for the situation where I am heads up and someone does that to me and I will respond that I go "all in" in the dark. And watch the expression on his face.

Checking in the dark is a terrible play. I did it quite a bit starting out because I saw it on tv, but it's very pointless for numerous reasons that I dont care to go into.

-ev4sure