Check-Calling

Introduction:

This is a subject I have a lot of trouble with, and I think it's a source of a major leak for a lot of micro stakes grinders, hence me attempting this COTW to summarise my thoughts on the concept, and hopefully generate some helpful discussion. I don't claim to be a great player by any means, but hopefully I can help some people, and in turn better players can help me.

The Problems / Pitfalls with Check-Calling

• It is a passive action - by it's very nature we have to be OOP to check-call, and we are choosing a passive action. Generally passive play =/= winning play, especially when out of position.
  
• The worst play - "Calling is the worst play in poker" - this is a bit of a 2p2 mantra, but it's generally true, it should usually be the option at the bottom of the pile when we are making our choice.
  
• Exploitability - It is easy for good hand readers with position to exploit players who check-call too much, and it's very difficult to balance a check-call range without becoming a hugely passive player and losing value on our big hands.
  
• Wrong Hand/Wrong Situation - A lot of people check-call with the wrong type of hands, in the wrong type of situations. They do this, because they fear all other options may lead to a difficult situation, so they basically revert to check-guess. These are going to be break-even players at best, but more likely losers. I will go on to explore common leaks like this later.
  

So if it's so bad / problematic why do it?

• Because if we had no check-call range, we would be hugely exploitable. Villains would just be able to bet any two cards against us every time we check and they would auto-profit (assuming our check-raise range isn't huge!)
• because it can be the best option when all other options have been considered.
• Because it can be profitable if done correctly. When I filter for flop action check-call in HEM, I am profiting at +350bb/100 over 1621 hands. Now obviously this includes some slowplayed monsters in there, but in order to slowplay our monsters, we have to balance our range by check-calling non monsters. I have made some pretty horrendous check-calls in this list as well, and I'll show some of those later in this post, so my profit could definitely be higher than this if I fixed those leaks.

How do we arrive at a Check-Call decision

• Process of Elimination - generally speaking, because it's usually low down the list of favourable options, we usually end up with a check-call decision as a process of elimination. I wrote a 4k milestone post on how we select our line options over in STT Strategy - here is a link which should hopefully explain this subject. NJD77 4k Milestone Post. I would however like to say that since I wrote this post, on reflection I think some of my check-call thinking was wrong, and I hope to correct it with this post.
• Don't forget check-fold! - more often than not check-fold should be way more desirable an option than check-call, so don't get into the habit of thinking "well I can't check-raise, I can't bet, but man, I've got a pair, I can't fold, so I'll check-call" This is how fish-think. Sure there are times when check-call>check-fold, and this post is all about trying to find those spots.

Good Situations to Check-Call

• When a Villain offers us direct odds to draw to a hand that beats his range. Sometimes villains will just make horrible bet sizing errors when they are holding a clear strong value hand. If we can't check-raise because we don't think he will ever fold, and we're behind his range but have equity to make a check-call versus his bet size, then we should do it.
• When a villain offers us implied odds to draw to a hand that beats his range. Preferably we will have both direct and implied odds, but often we will find we only have implied odds.
• When we are drawing to a Nut Flush or a Nut Straight. These are hands that crush most villains betting ranges, and if we can hit them, we can often recoup our value via implied odds. It's important to note that chasing draws against weak ranges from strong hand readers is going to be a losing proposition. We want villains to have a strong value range, and be poor hand readers (bad nits basically!). It should also be noted that be more inclined to check-call with Straight draws as opposed to Flush draws, because the former is often far more disguised when we do hit.
• when boards are dry and we are in a WA/WB spot, villain is not a double barreller, and does stab at pots when checked to. Often we get no value when we are ahead and value town ourselves when behind if we bet a flop. We can therefore opt for a check-call, but only if we're sure our villain isn't the type to bet/bet/bet if he reads our action as weak.
• when we are multiway - implied odds always rise when we are multiway. The important thing to note here is our relative position, and we don't want to be check-calling if we're a long way from closing the action. The closer we are to closing the action, the more inclined we should be to check-call.

Here we have direct odds and great implied odds, and we are clearly up against some strong ranges. Our hand is well disguised, and so we can check-call the flop here.

Bad Situations to Check-Call

• When we have the best hand and worse will call if we bet (ldo!) - this is basics and should arise out of our process of elimination above.
• With TP/MP type hands multiway - these are terrible hands to check-call with, as they rarely improve on later streets (and by improve I'm not counting 2-pair as much of an improvement!) They have lots of reverse implied odds and generally we are just hopping aboard the express train to value town when we start check-calling TP/MP type hands, especially multiway. This is a major leak for a lot of players.
• On turns with a strong hand, where we were the preflop and flop aggressor. I see this so often, where someone opens KK pre, bets a QT7 flop, then when a villain floats, they get major MUBS and start check-calling a turn 7. This has to be another bet for value the huge majority of the time, and yet people just surrender the initiative with no good reason. They are spewing value, and putting themselves in horrible turn and river positions. They often cite terms such as pot-control, which is even more horrible! This is also a major leak for a lot of players

This hand below is gross from me imo. Long term I'm going to be spewing playing like this. I just generally hate playing MP like this.

Which Villain profiles should we check-call against?

There's no rocket science here.

• Villains who bet too much in position when checked to
• Villains who aren't aggro on turn and river
• Villains who don't hand read well.

Check-Calling to Induce Bluffs

This deserves it's own section, because it's such a money spinner. Occasionally we get the type of fish that will chase a draw on the flop and turn, and then spew horrendously on the river when they miss and we check. If we can get a note on someone that they do this, that note is just pure gold. You need to be able to read these players and what they are doing - I'm not going to go into the details in this post of how to size bets on flop and turn to determine that they are drawing, and what textures apply etc. - that's for another time.

Don't make the mistake of firing the third barrell here, when a far more profitable option can be check-call to induce a bluff.

It's generally best to do it on the river, but it also works against shorties on the flop -

like this example below. By betting the flop I prevent him from bluffing, and his range is so much wider than just K-x, so I check-call to let him bluff to me.

This guy is gold, I took a note and caught him doing the same thing on 3 future occasions.

Summary

There's tons more I'd like to discuss, but I think I've said plenty so far to kick off discussions. All constructive criticism welcome.

• Use check-call very sparingly and only after a clear thought process - not as a default.
• Check-call with big flush & straight draws, not TP/MP
• Be more inclined to check-call multiway, and if closing the action.
• Don't become a passive fish

Very nice. And don't forget about board texture. You should be less inclined to check if giving a free card is problematic.

Thanks, and yeah I think I covered a bit about board texture in my 4k milestone post that I linked to.

Just thinking again about hand 1 - not sure if check-shove might be better than check-call. Thoughts?

Great stuff. Thanks

yeah, I think check shove would be pretty good depending on your read of MP1's range. It almost works as a postflop squeeze play. The risk is that it would be easy for CO to be slowplaying a set since the board is so dry. You don't necessarily know that he's weak. But it's hard to make a set in general and even if he has one, you've got a lot of equity.

I personally hate c/c which is probably a leak. I tend to balance by cbetting wide, so I don't have much experience in that aspect of the game. Me likey initiative, so if I check the flop, it's with the absolute bottom of my range and you're probably safe to just take it down.

Two things that I forgot to add which I think are important:

I generally think check-calling small pots on later streets is way less of a leak than check-calling on the flop, just because often when players check-call on the flop they make a small mistake, but they go on to compound a small mistake into a huge error on later streets. When people check-call a river in a small pot, there's only so much damage can be done.

Often with our MP/TP type hands OTF, check-raising them and turning them into a bluff is going to be better than check-calling with the intention of check-calling a few streets. At least this way we keep up the aggression, and generally put ourselves in a spot where we aren't compounding errors into a huge river error like above.

In ur 2nd hand u didn't bet u were check calling the whole way u said by betting here and u were not betting

3rd hand sorry

Yes I was, I was trying to say that if I did bet, I would prevent him from bluffing, and so I thought check-calling with a very low SPR was a profitable line.

Ok ya and I agree as long as the player is not a tag or nit

I spot where Im unsure of the best line to take is say we are in the BB with 88 and call a MP raise whose range is something like

22+,AJs+,KQs,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,AJo+

Flop is T42r

So we know he only has an overpair 26% of the time and TP only about 13% and the majority of the time (49%) he he has overcards.

we are basically 50/50 against his range so whats the correct line to take in this situation and why?

Lets say villian is a 15/11 Tag - Cbets flop 65% cbets turn 45%

Excellent example imo.

This is a spot where I hate check-call, check-call. We are just going to get owned a ton of the time. I'd rather turn my 88 into a bluff on the flop personally. The board can get a whole lot worse for us on the turn and river, and villain is going to put us on exactly what we have and act accordingly.

I'm going to rule out c/c personally, so our options are:

1. Check-raise
2. Donk-bet
3. Check-fold

On this board texture, I quite like turning our hand into a bluff and check-raising personally. It's hard for villain to have a strong hand here, and by flatting pre and check-raising flop we rep a lot of strength and get folds a lot of the time. I see this as preferable to stationing it up for 2 streets. If he calls our check-raise, I'm done. I'm also check-raising all flopped sets and overpairs here as well.

I hate c/ring in that spot. We have like the worst hand ever to bluff with. C/f>c/c>c/r. And fold pre beats pretty much all.

Edit: And im never c/ring flopped sets or overpairs here

Really you think folding pre is better? I hadnt really considered folding pre but i can it might be the best option really. isnt that a little too tight though,


how about if we change the hand up one to 99?


What about if we change the Open raise to the CO, calling now or 3betting?

Im not sure I like C/R here as we rep to thin I think, if the board was more connecting i like turning weak made hands into bluffs more OTF because the board can only get worse most of the time for villian

Curious on this bit? What would be a good hand to c/r bluff with on this board in your view. Are you thinking hands such as AK/AQ with a back-door FD would be better because if called by JJ/QQ then we can bink the turn and/or river?

Do you think 88 is bad because it's too strong to turn into a bluff or because it has low equity when called?

Also, do you think c/c>c/r on the flop in a vacuum ignoring what we are going to do versus a turn barrell on say a J/Q/K/A turn. I find I make more mistakes when c/calling this flop knowing that I have to realistically call a lot of turn barrells, so I take a spot where I know I'm likely going to make a lot of mistakes on later streets and turn my hand into a bluff on earlier streets. Is this a big leak?

I agree that fold pre is a solid option here.

Actually I think an A or K on the turn is the best card to check raise on the turn when the flops so dry like this as villian will always barrel it and even if he has TPTK we now rep 2+ or sets pretty well.

So if we change the open to the CO/BU are most people 3betting 88/99/1010 from the BB?

I think this makes a lot of sense. Often times I've questioned how much value on average, across all player types can be extracted from Overpair and TPGK type hands. I think with overpairs and TPGK hands, you can extract 2 or even 3 streets of value normally, but with middle-pair or top-pair-weak-kicker type of hands, the amount of value you can extract drops to about 1 or 2 streets (preflop and flop), so why not utilise this knowledge and turn these type of hands into bluffs/semi-bluffs on the flop, and take the pot right there, instead of check-calling minbets across all 4 streets or making more serious mistakes with weak holdings, on later streets.

My questions regarding this is therefore:

Should we check-raise TPTK and Overpair type hands too? or should we aim to check-raise more marginal hands like TPWK and MP instead?

What do other regulars think of this?

incoming tl;dr:

Sorry been away from this thread. Let me try to explain what i was saying and then ill answer the questions you guys threw out. Starting at the beginning...

So folding pre is obviously EXTREMELY nitty. But the game we play of full ring no limit holdem is a nitty world. What it comes down to is that our hand is extremely difficult to play in a +ev way OOP without a very good read on our opponent. Medium pocket pairs are good because they have built in SDV and the chance to hit a set. But we have 2 problems: its tough to get to showdown and have our hand be best, and being OOP vs a decent opponent our implied odds for when we hit a set just really arent there. So im not saying I always fold 88 here, im just saying you should have a reason to play it and not just autopilot a pair pre and call. Were OOP with no initiative, its OK to fold.

As an aside, I dont know what your cold calling range pre would be in this spot, but mine is pretty damn narrow. Think how easy it is for a good opponent to play against 77-TT/AQ or whatever you might be cold calling now.

Alright, so onto the flop. We check to the aggressor and our options come back as:

c/c: our hand has SDV and we think we can get there
c/r: we cant win by getting to showdown, but we think our opponent folds enough of the time to show a profit
c/f: we cant win. give up while its cheapest.

So as i saw it c/f>c/c>c/r.

Starting with c/r: For starters, think how often we need our opponent to fold to show a profit (someone can do this equity calc if so inclined i just know there isnt that much dead money compared to the size of our bet). We also established that our opponents range actually hits this board decently, since he flops overpairs with a decent chunk of his range. So our opponent is going to be sticky and we need him to fold a lot. Bad. And then the problem comes on the turn when were drawing to 2 outs, weve bloated the pot, and basically cant win unless we keep barelling off with no equity.

And thats where the comment that 88 is the worst hand to do this with because we just never have any equity. Its tough to say what our range preflop would be in this spot, but a hand like AQ would be better just since it has better equity. If we have anything sooted or three to a straight, those are good options to, because some of the time well see an equity jump that helps our turn equity when we barrel. And remember that the more pot equity we have the less fold equity we need to show a profit.

And another quick thing about balancing, why i wouldnt raise bluffs on this board or value hands. My personal value range in this spot is like nonexistant... it would be top set only, because im for sure folding small pps pre. So if i have THREE value combos, im not raising the flop with them (usually). And if im not raising my value combos, Im not raising bluffs either (usually).

Ok, so thats all the reasons i hate c/ring here. What about c/cing? Our reason for c/cing is almost exclusivly to get to SD. How we go about getting to showdown with 2 cards to come OOP vs a decently strong range is impossible for me to see. Basically theres no way i can plan the hand profitably from this point, which is why i just fold.


Now see if theres anything i missed...


To rep what?

I think most people are [correctly] flatting pre

Alright, thats quite possibly my longest 2p2 post ever and not really about c/cing but i hope i cleared things up. Feel free to ask more questions or tell me im wrong.

Enjoyed reading it.

Quick question on bold part. Shouldn't we be more inclined to check-fold rather to check-call against villains who aren't aggro on turn and river? Or did I miss something?

Neil - Nice post as always. Haven't read the comments, and it's too late for me to add much...need some sleep. Will try to add something later.

Also, you couldn't drop 50 posts to BBV or something to make this a sexy 5k COTW?

nice write up i understand reasons for check/calling turns but whats plans for river?

a spot i find difficult and often c/c is

open UTG QQ 3x
btn calls

flop
K45r

hero bets
villain calls

turn 9x

hero?

i think this is a check but problem is vs a reg we would have to start checking Ax to balance? or is my concept of balance totally wrong?


good post gadolparah i read it twice lol i think it answered question to a spot i was having trouble with

i had a spot i was thinking about last few days
BTN opens
i call bb 77
flop 226

i find this spot pretty tricky if villain is reg he can just 3 barrel me because i have no 2s ever big PP i 3bet and even if i had TT JJ the board can run out pretty bad for me like 226KA or something like that + some times he does have real value hands like 2x TT+

but if were facing a villain like this we should prob just fold pre am right?

that spot been on my mind constantly that i didnt play poker for last 2 days lol

Thanks, nice post.

Some of the hands seemed a bit confusing and I wasn't sure how I would play them, but most of them seemed pretty standart.

I think I only c/c here if the villian likes to float a lot. I would bet again vs most villians.

EDIT: Hmm now when I think about it his range is PP,SC mostly and some AK AQ hands. If he raises you on the turn he prolly just has a set unless he is really good and raises bluffs here to fold your TP hands and what you have now, if he calls again you are still beat. So actually c/c here seems like the best option now.

I think this spot is very villain dependent.

I'd take a look at his fold-to-flop c/bet%, and if it's low, then I'm definitely just going to barrell again for value (and I'm bet/folding). If it's really high, I'm likely just going to check-fold the turn. If it's somewhere in the middle, it's a tricky spot! I don't think there's a lot of place for check-call here though.

If we do barrell again on the turn and villain flats again, I'm likely just going to check-fold nearly all rivers. He won't call a third barrell with worse and I expect him to check back a lot of his mid strength K-x and his 66-JJ, so if he bets, it's usually for value imo, and we can make a fold.

If we check/fold the turn, and villain checks back, I'm probably bet/folding the river for a bit of thin value versus 66-JJ.