It seems like we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand the points you're making, and the strategy you're describing, and I don't think it's the best approach to the situation. I do think it can certainly be a winning strategy, especially in games full of fish, but there are better approaches out there.

I'd describe it as the overaggressive TAG strategy that is pretty common out there and that I've dealt with a bunch. A lot of times the folks who play that strategy do understand the power of aggression, which puts them a level above the really nitty tags, and two levels above the loose-passive fish. However, adopting constant aggression just because you're not comfortable with any other approach doesn't mean that constant aggression is the best approach. I understand that it makes things easier on you to always do the same thing, but that doesn't mean that that's the best thing.

You've said some stuff which I'd describe as misconceptions - that the goal is to win pots instead of to win money, or the focus on one hand at a time instead of an overall strategy, or the desire to "take control" of the hand. If you don't agree with me, whether through being genuinely convinced of your approach, or through ego, or through some other reason, that's certainly up to you.

To look at your main example again: you flop middle pair on an ace high flop. Let's assume it's a heads up situation. You check and he cbets and you checkraise.

The main things that can happen here:

1) he has an ace or better - and your line will cost you extra money, by making the pot bigger in a spot where he isn't going to fold.

2) he has a pocket pair under the ace but above your pair - and your line will cost you extra money, by making the pot bigger in a spot where he isn't going to fold a better hand. Now, if some players are folding those hands to you in these spots, then great, but I think you'll agree with me that that is pretty rare. Also, if that is the case, then you should be checkraising different hands in this spot (like bluffs) instead of second pair.

3) - he has a weak hand and plays it straightforwardly (let's say a really weak pair, or a hand with one overcard and one undercard, or the example you're most concerned about, where he has two overcards to your pair, ie 6 outs). your line will cost you money by making him fold a hand that is pretty far behind you and would potentially have bluffed off some more money to you. I know you're very worried about giving a 6-outer a chance to win the pot, but relative to the pot size the 6-outer is making a smaller mistake by staying in the pot than he is by folding. Put another way, you don't want him to fold. What price are you giving him when you checkraise, and how does that compare to the number of outs he has? What price is he getting when you checkcall the flop and he bluffs the turn unimproved? If he constantly checks back the turn with air, what does that mean for how you can play the river in this spot? What does this mean for how you can change your flop play in future hands?

4) - he has a weak hand and doesn't play it straightforwardly. Perhaps he calls your flop checkraise and then raises the turn either with air or with a picked up draw. You likely will fold the best hand now, which costs you a good deal of money. He may also call twice with some medium hand like ace high, and then bet if checked to, where I imagine your plan is to checkfold. This also costs you money.

5) he has a medium/weak hand and plays it aggressively on the flop. Let's say he bet3bets a flush/straight draw, or ace high (terrible but lots of people do it). Are you going to 4bet? Are you going to call and check-call down safe runouts and fold bad ones? Are you going to call and then donk safe turns? You've created a situation where you've made the pot much larger while being out of position, which means that a mistake will be more expensive. Basically, it's putting yourself into a tough spot unnecessarily.

6) he has a hand weaker than yours that will call down unimproved when you checkraise and barrel. Based on how you describe your image you probably get paid off here some of the time by ace high or smaller pairs. This probably makes you equal money to a more passive strategy, or perhaps more. However, I do wonder if you're also checkraise barreling draws here, or pure bluffs? If not, I think that over time your opponents will realize that when you checkraise barrel a dry spiky flop you usually have a pair, and then they won't be calling down weaker stuff as often. If they start folding a lot, then you can checkraise different stuff on this texture. And if they always double barrel when you checkcall this flop (because as you've said right now your flop checkcall range is very weak, so observant opponents probably will fire twice) then you can start checkcall checkraising vs them.

If there are some other scenarios here that I didn't cover, let me know and we can talk about them. I imagine you'll want to flesh out the 6 outer fold vs call thing, as that seems very important to you. But it's important to keep in mind that that is only one scenario of at least 6 that can happen here, and that you don't know what the opponent's cards are - only what his range is. You should construct and employ an overall strategy that is most profitable against his range, and not just against one sub-scenario. A hallmark of very strong players is that they have a coherent and balanced overall strategy that they apply over the long run.

So, I believe that your strategy costs you money in most or all of the scenarios on this kind of flop texture, which is why I don't think it's the best approach. By costs you money, I mean that it's less profitable than the best strategy. Since you seem like a serious guy, and 40/80 is big money, I'll assume that it's important to you to keep improving your game as much as possible.

2 sides to every story again. I'm speaking of the posters you deem great for the community and who you deem the takers and bad for the community. I have always seen it the other way around. The one's not creating new threads and only answering others i find to be lazy and less caring to help the community. And more likely to be insulting. Where the people creating new threads evoking more discussion are posters better for the community. It takes time and effort to think of ideas and put them down into words in a well thought out new thread. I feel that should be commended not seen as a negative. It takes very little time and effort for posters to only respond with 1 or 2 lines of how they woulda played it. And in fact it can be seen as insulting when someone makes a well thought out thread that took alot of effort only to be minimized with one line criticism or not giving a more thoughtful explanation as to why they felt a play was bad. Sometimes they genuinely respond to help others but other times to feed their own egos. And where it's ok for them to give advice or criticism in any tone but not ok for other solid players to criticize them. I don't see how the posters putting in less effort gets your praise over the posters who are putting in more effort?

Thanks again BBB for making this detailed response. I learned a ton reading this! As a side question. If I'm defending an MP raise with 78s and flop middle pair with no draw (like T72..no ace), I suppose it is correct to check-raise flop for value because naked overcards type of hands are not likely to fold so we don't "fold out hands that we beat"?

just to make sure i'm summarizing you correctly:

people who give help to others for free, without asking for help... = bad
people who ask for help constantly, without helping others... = good

is that correct?

I would think that you will also run into folks that will adjust and 3bet often when they are ahead and sometimes when not. Making it more expensive / difficult to play this way. Especialy in mid-stakes.

I am more likely to cr with top pair against what I perceive to be a continuation bet that likely missed, than with a middle pair. E.g. 9 high flop and late position opener bets when checked too.

Getting hyper aggressive with medicore hands when there are often better hands out there seems like a big leak.

Try to only sometimes cr mid pair if at all - so they may not see that you do it fairly light often and adjust... Just my .02, and 1000th post

BBB; let me summarize. You could be the best player and person on earth; however, you come across as stuffy and other colorful words in your replies and handling of "your forum" on just about everyone with under 1000 posts. Moving or closing ANY posts is plain out Nitty

LOL! Now that's more like it as far as being thorough. Much better than "no, this is bad strategy". I really enjoyed reading your "socratic" way in writing this post also btw. But again 2 sides to this story. I mean to the naked eye your post can be seen as a thorough informative correct strategy advice post helping me see the err of my ways. But to a trained eye we ask what did you really say? While lengthy a post i couldn't find where you showed proof that your strategies are better. All i saw you do was list scenarios that come up when a hand is played more aggressively or less aggressively. But not where it shows proof your way is better? And in actuality you didn't even show much of how you'd play all those streets in the 6 examples. Just the negatives of my way could be bad by carefully wording how i'd react to make my play look unprofitable or make less money. I don't remember saying i'd bet fold the turn causing me to lose lots of money for instance. You're in call down mode why can't i be in call down mode but just making the pot bigger? And i may even induce more bluff raises on turn to make it even more profitable?

Then you say i said some stuff that are misconceptions. Again no proof they're misconceptions. And you made up one saying i said the goal is winning pots instead of winning money. Where did i said that? Maybe when i said the more pots you allow me to win the more money i will make. That is very much different isn't it? As far as control of hand the game becomes more profitable imo when it's only up to me in position whether we put any more money in after you check call the flop. Of course i'd love to discuss more of not giving the 6 outer 2 streets to hit for free. So you want or rather have him to stay in with a 6 outer without him having to pay anything to get there rather than fold? Why? he stands to lose 0 more but gain all the pot and bet if hits. And not get only the flop but the turn to see free 6 outer. As once your opponents see passive line they won't fire the turn on a bluff they'll shut it down unless they improve

So basically all you said in this post is that your way is a better strategy because you say so. And that i have flaws and misconceptions in my game. And that if i disagree it's probably because of ego lol? Why can't it be the other way around?
Anyway, it's all good. Lets just agree to disagree.

so BBB listed 6 scenarios why a check raise on the flop is bad with detail explanation and you still ask for "proof"? What proof are you looking for?

I feel like you just want to make a post about your strategy and wait for everyone to say "great!, why didn't I think of that???". Why ask a question and be so defensive when stronger players try to help. When I make a post seeking help I genuinely hope people like DougL, BBB and Phunk will response because I value their opinion. but I get it, you are not really looking for help. Good luck!

BBB wins for most content and most organized thinking. Sorry.

I listed many reasons why a checkraise is good and imo the most profitable. And he listed why he feels it bad and less profitable. But he does not explain or prove where his way makes more money. My style i will be winning more pots hence imo more money. Where has he shown me more money? Why do you only give him credit for the positives on his strategy but ignore the negatives of his strategy. And ignore the positives of my strategy and only focus on the negative. It's like you only see what you want to see. There was not one shred of evidence proving his strategy better yet you saw evidence. If you want to believe him go right ahead but it doesn't make it proven correct.

I wasn't defensive. I look forward to open discussion and differing points of view from everyone so everyone can get better. As long as it's done in a positive and respectful manner that is. I didn't feel i was being talked to in a positive respectful manner is all.

Not quite. The ONLY valid reason you mentioned for your strategy is that they will (sometimes) fold the 6 outer.

He did explain it. It's up to you to take all that information and finish your homework: give them some ranges, a strategy, and do the math.


It has been explained to you before: winning more pots is NOT equal to winning more money, even more so in HU pots. Examples of this fact are trivial to create.

The only negative you pointed out is: k/c gives the six outer a chance to beat you for one fewer SB. You need to consider ALL the positives mentioned and do a bit of work: put in some ranges, give them a strategy and calculate some ballpark EVs for typical 40/80 players' tendencies.

That's why I recommended above you do the numbers for the simplest case against a tight passive (where it's easy to calculate the exact profit of the strategy) Then you can move on to calculate what happens if they call the k/r with overs to the middle card, then compare it to calling the flop and you get to check raise the turn or river some % of the time! (something the flop k/r line never allows and puts your opponent to a decision after putting in 3SBs instead of just 1SB) and then add the case where they barrel with air.

Now that you know what things to consider, it's on you to finish the work and do some calculations. Btw, this is the kind of thing that experts who play in the micros online are used to doing and can help you with. The midstakes crowd is less likely to do the actual homework for you (since they are your 40/80 opponents that will raise the turn holding air for an instant profit -since you only k/r weak pairs on the flop- )

To give your strategy some credit, it's not that bad against a tightish passive 8/16 player who never bluffs and likes to fold a lot, but much better is raising ATC (your calculations should show an instant profit close to 2SB if they play as described in that "easy case")

BBB is like Morpheus to your Neo, DarkCheck. He can only show you the door, you're the one that has to walk through it.

Good post.

For the bolded part, i never play live but i tought because it was exactly that, live must be easier to use pure aggro/exploitive line like darkcheck use because it takes much longer to acknowledge (and rarer to play vs regs than online i guess)?

OP, I think its pretty terrible strategy for the most basic of reasons, that I don't think you or anyone else has mentioned despite being quite important (although I agree with all the reasons that BBB and dougL posted on why it's terrible). I'd like to see if you can guess why before I post my thoughts though.

This approach is problematic, most people don't come here looking for other ways to play situations, they come here looking for the correct way to play a give situation. Yes, there will be times when check raising small pairs on A48 flop is correct and you should do it. The vast majority of the time its just plain wrong and its not very difficult to see why.

Virtually all of BBB and DougL posts in this thread are both helpful as well as overly courteous. The fact that anyone could find them to be demeaning/condescending/ or mocking is just hilarious.

The unfortunate truth is that you have posted a lot of content that is just wrong. That's really all there is to it. If you truly come here to discuss poker and get better you need to recognize the fact that there are people out there who are better than you (BBB is likely one despite you thinking otherwise) and be willing to accept when they say you are probably wrong about certain spots/situations that you are in fact likely wrong and start taking the steps necessary to identify why you are wrong and how to correct it.

I also think there is a small chance that you could be a high stakes crusher just trolling everyone here and baiting someone into a heads up for rollz challenge, in which case that would be hilarious, albeit unlikely.

Really? You think BBB was overly courteous? You didn't read between the lines. BBB bluffed you in a sense. While he didn't say any bad words, to trick people like you apparently, he spoke in a very condescending tone. I'm sure even some of the people not supporting my stance on the hand would admit that.

Look at his longest post with the 6 examples. He uses words like "since you seem like a serious guy"(in a sense mocking me saying it sarcastically. As he feels me a weak novice player so wants to mock me) and "and 40-80 is big money"(maybe 40-80 is a small game in his eyes so he wants to show me he's a big money player, not playing for peanuts like me. That he's offended i dare question him the high limit player) "i know you're VERY worried"(again mocking me using the key word VERY) Like he's saying it in a sarcastic "i know you're VERY worried" essentially saying i'm dumb for worrying about something so trivual. That i should be thinking about the bigger picture. "i know it's VERY important to you"(again using very in a sarcastic demeaning way to talk down to the pion(small,ignorant, unimportant) person he sees me to be.

There are many other words in posts but i think you see the point. I hope you enjoyed my class on "reading between the lines" sarcasm 101 w/Darkcheck. Btw, i'm just joking with you here as i can see how words can be misinterpreted.

You say most people come here to find out the right way to play hand. Ok And? Just because most people do that doesn't mean i have to does it? I'm not an inexperienced player even though people are trying to make it appear that way. Why can't i be one of the guys who helps people? And why can't be one of the guys that doesn't see the teachers in this forum as his teachers but more associates? BBB even says he likes posters who only respond to others posts to help them where they messed up. Why can't i be that?

I'm being greatly misunderstood in many ways. 1. my level in poker 2. people think i'm the bad guy. I'm a nice courteous person. But when i feel people are not being nice back i know how to be not nice. No worries!

Again seeing what you want to see. All BBB's moves are awesome because he said so do the math to find out. And all Darkchecks moves are dumb because BBB said so. But let's not do the math on this one in case he's right?

It isn't the only negative i pointed out just the most important one. As he suggest wanting to keep his opponent in with 6 outs even though he'll allow him to do it for free. Let's say opponent has q10. So BBB suggests check calls instead of checkraises because he wants him to stay in? My question is why? Unless your playing a real dummy he knows you have something on this dry board and are not going anywhere. So he can safely check back turn allowing opponent a free turn and river card to spike a 6 outer. And allowing said opponent to do his own bidding. Meaning if opponent hits a q or 10 he can value bet the crap out of BBB. So essentially in my eyes BBB gained nothing by keeping the opponent in(which he wants) because he didnt make him pay, but loses everything if opponent gets there. Nothing to gain everything to lose doesn't sound so optimal poker to me.

I also mention besides 6 outers gives all outers free looks. There are pros and cons to both sides but this to me outweighs the others. But whether i'm right or i'm wrong it certainly close or worth discussing. For sure not being called a noob with poor poker understanding/poker misconceptions by a mod(clearly trying to irritate). I could say the same of his argument if he can say it of mine. That he has poker misconceptions. But i didn't/wouldn't say it to anyone without being insulted first. As it's said in a condescending way. If he truely wasn't trying to be insulting he woulda just replied with how he woulda played it. Not driveled on in "socratic" tone about my shortcomings/misconceptions/lack of understanding in my poker game. I don't even remembering asking him what he thought of my game? Hmm? Weird that he would volunteer it unless he wanted to try and put me in my place?

I'm glad you asked to make sure as you're not summarizing me correctly..

What i'm saying is take 2 posters who are excellent poker players. Top player 1(TP1)-Not famous just on the forums to provide good content. Makes new threads and puts in more time. Doesn't receive any monetary benefits. TP2)-big name/hierarchy just comes on 2+2 to breifly browse and if he sees one post that interests him makes a quick response on how he plays it. Never makes new threads of his own. Gets benefits as far as coaching job and backing. Usually speaks in a bloviating tone to put posters in their place.

So TP1 Thinks out topics and interesting hands he's played and puts those thoughts/ideas together into posts which is time consuming. It's almost like writing an article for a magazine in a sense. So essentially TP1 does both. Helps others by responding to their posts but also creates new thoughts and ideas for the community to grow and think outside the box on occasion. And he does this for free. While TP2 gets the glory, the benefits, while doing nothing more than responding once in awhile to someone else's thread which takes very little time.

So to see TP1 as a negative and TP2 as the positive seems odd. I get that getting free advice from either party is better than nothing. But i think the guy putting in more work and not getting anything in return for it is the guy to be seen as better for the forums.

You called his range.You called your range.And first one is obscure and the second is transparent... "what on turn or river" depends how he manipulates his range
P.S. I want such a transparency in every hand.

Yes if villain is the type of player that will both bet/fold K-10 here while also checking back turn with it then check raising any pair here is fine. However, (a) thats not true of most players (b) good players will make your life very difficult and most importantly (c)...

One problem i see you may have is that you are asking yourself what's the best play for this particular hand (or even worse what can I do to win this hand). At a smaller game this might be fine; however, you seem to be completely ignoring the question how does this play/line fit into the the context of my overall strategy (a point that I don't think anyone has actually mentioned unless i missed it).

Basically, when you check-raise every pair on the A82 flop, what's the distribution of your flop check call range look like? Please answer, i'm curious. Because the way that I see it, is even if check raising middle pair here was proven to be neutral EV here on the flop (in a vacuum), which I don't think it is anyway, what check raising does to the rest of our range and our overall strategy would make check raising terrible.

What you don't get is if player 1 is a good player and player 2 is a very very good player, he likely will get little to no value posting any questions. So the insight he provides (worth a lot) far outweighs the value he receives (which is none)

Well who says player 2 is better? Maybe better in their own eyes or posters eyes because their more well known/hierarchy. Maybe player 1 is better? I didn't pose the question where player 1 or 2 was better. I was essentially posing it as equals for arguments sake. As if they are both excellent players they are close enough to equals for argument's sake.

And why does 2(very very good)in your scenario need big value to help the community and post new threads? Why can't it be done just purely to help/give back the community? A community that as gotten them coaching, backing, moderation, education(when they were once newbie's). That's part of my point. You and 2 feel he needs to be able to earn(you saying less value) something whether it money,coaching, backing, modding, prestige, fame to want to give his time. While 1 gives his time knowing he won't benefit other than helping.

Even if 2 was better it still wouldn't make BBB's point of their style being better. Style meaning only responding to others posts and not making their own threads. As it is the lazier method. He is only answering your questions. Wouldn't it be better if 2 also made his own new threads making you think? If he's the best player he prolly has some great insights/ideas to share no? Just because in your scenario he plays better doesn't mean we should praise 2 for his work and discourage 1(telling him better to answer others posts than make new threads) As 1's at least trying to do more where 2 is doing the minimum and not trying as hard as 1. 1 should be praised for his effort not seen as a negative.

what about my other post?

We get it dude, you feel slighted. The thing is that people post for different reasons. If you want to help, then try to help. These long posts you're making aren't helping though.

I remember one time I made a post and backed it up with lots of math, to which BBB responded "that's not analysis." which suggested that without lots of hard data to support my claims, my advice should be ignored. Was he being mean? I don't think so. The fact is that I was making an outrageous claim that went against a widely accepted axiom of limit poker and without hard data to support my claim that my strategy would win more money in the long run, my claim would be rejected. At the time, I didn't even think that a 30k hand sample would be enough to sway opinions, so I left out my data and tried to prove my claim through concept.

While you have certainly tried very hard to prove your claim through concept, we will not accept your claim that your strategy is more profitable than our standard play in this spot. Perhaps if you put some math behind it, we could give you more credit. As it has happened, all you have said is that you win more pots and make six out hands fold, both of which are not necessarily bad things, but they in no way prove that your strategy is more profitable than the standard play of check calling in the spot supposed in your original post.

So now we're at an impasse. Both sides think they're right. Since the standard play is to check call in that spot, the onus is on you to prove to us that your way is better through math and data.

Actually i think it is more common than you think for people to be more likely to folding hands like Q10(you switched my q10 to k10. But really a huge number of hands fold here against the average opponent. An average opponent is not a pro) to a checkraise on flop and checking back the q10 on turn if they get a check call on flop. A very high percentage of players will chuck their hand if getting checkraised on this flop if they hold middle and face cards that don't connect with board(A82, A62, A64.) And they will also check back turn as their scared your slowplaying an ace or whatever. The average 2+2'er might peel more often as ya'll seem to can't wait to stay in with air on this awesome flop for q10 lol. I mean i don't know what ugly game BBB and others are describing where we're playing all shorthanded/hu superstars that will be peeling with such a wide range when getting checkraised on flop and looking to exploit with turn bluff raises and own us.

c) I don't have a check call range here. I want to be balanced so i checkraise any hand i plan on continuing. How is that terrible? Not sure what i do to win this hand differs from my overall strategy and balance and making it terrible? i keep hearing from people here about how i'm only worried about this hand and not seeing the big picture. This situation will be the same next time too and i'll do it again! I think when you check call is when you're not balanced. Are you guys check calling your whole range? If not then prolly your checkraises contain an A most of the time? So check calls are middle pair, bottom pair, king high? What else are you peeling with? Q high?

Anyway later!

Who says it's standard to check call? Is there data already? The onus wouldn't be on me as i'm nobody. It would be on the experts who said it was wrong. But i'm not trying to call anyone out. I just want to move on as not looking for negativity. I just didn't think i deserved being so slighted as you say. Especially for something i might be right about.