There have been quite a few threads where people suggested checking when out of position and I didn't agree with them.

What are GOOD reasons for checking out of position?


Here are some that make sense to me:

- We have a range disadvantage.
- We have a nut disadvantage.
- We need to strengthen our checking range.


Reasons I've seen used that I don't think are valid:

- We hate folding when we are raised.
- It makes the hand harder to play.
- It puts us in a though spot.


Some bad things that happen when we check OOP:

- Other players get to see a free card, especially in multi-way pots, we should be very happy to deny equity to multiple players.

- We miss tons and tons of value against the average loose/passive live player.

- In multi-way pots with a bet and call(s) or even a raise behind us, checking doesn't necessarily make the hand easier to play at all.


The only actual valid reason for checking instead of betting would be because the EV of checking is higher than the EV of betting.

Having to fold to a raise or having to play a though hand doesn't necessarily reduce our EV.
It certainly could if we make bad decisions, but that's a completely different problem.

Other valid reasons to check OOP:

1) If we check we have more information before we act (assuming somebody bets).

2) We can't check/raise if we don't check first.

I believe heads up (and possibly multway), GTO in most scenarios is close to 100% check when we're the pre-flop raiser but OOP (someone correct me though).

That said, in a lot of games/players I find I can get folds at almost 50% to a half pot bet, which makse c-betting close to madatory.

I don’t think we can evaluate the merits of checking solely based on position (OOP vs IP). What determines whether I check or not includes other variables - do I have the betting initiative in the hand, board texture and what my/V’s perceived range is, exploitable tendencies of my opponents, and a plan regards to a bet (c/f, c/c, c/r).

You're very wrong.

I am probably only slightly more qualified to answer the question, but I'm pretty sure check frequency doesn't get that high. Oftentimes a very small bet can be favorable over checking, especially OOP since you don't reopen action. I think if people are producing sim results with near 100% checking frequencies across most flops they're not allowing for small enough bet sizes.

OOP does check a lot though, maybe 60-80% average? The reason being that you need a stronger range to cold call than to raise. GTO cold calling ranges outside of the blinds have an advantage vs the PFR on a lot of flops, which is why OOP ends up checking a lot. This obviously isn't true in practice. It's a huge mistake to blindly take from solvers and start applying it to soft games without considering the reasons solvers are doing things. IMO you should be c-betting at a pretty high frequency because the conditions which incentivize checking a lot don't exist. Some posters advocate range checking OOP vs a cold caller but I think that's completely inappropriate for a live setting.

---

Disagree a little bit with OP's reasons. I don't like the idea of needing to balance the checking range. It's not completely wrong but I prefer to frame it differently. When our checking range is very weak villain becomes incentivized to bet at a higher frequency and with larger sizing. This in turn incentivizes us to check some of our strong hands because they can capture EV from this aggression. It's pretty bad to be checking strong hands against passive players and it becomes obvious with the latter thinking, but not the former, even though it's basically the same concept. It also helps you to select checking candidates. You likely wouldn't want to check a nutted hand which significantly blocks villain's betting range, for example.

Often you want to check when you do well against the check/folding range, and bet when the folding range has a lot of equity against you. For example KK on A76 probably gets checked more often than 22 in most spots.

Vs competent opponents he is actually correct in single raised pots.

Vs standard 1/3 live villians ranges he isnt very wrong just kinda wrong

It really depends on the board.
I think 60-80% is a good guideline.

But as mentioned, just because GTO likes checking a lot OOP, doesn't mean that's the optimal line against most of our villains, especially in the low stakes live loose/passive games.

Of course we all know this, which is why I caveated my comments.

It's worth noting that solvers often prefer checking, even against ranges that are being played perfectly. A lot of live players will play VERY poorly vs a preflop raiser checking range, especially more aggressive players, and will range bet vs your check, and range bet large. If that is the case, then checking becomes much more profitable then betting.

For example, if you check/call on J72r as the pfr vs someone aggressive, they will often cap you at TT, and then barrel off to get you to fold, or thin value bet 3 streets with a hand like J9s. If you actually have AJ in this spot, you're gonna print.

Some players will also give up a lot of information vs a check - for example, they may bet any hand top pair or better, and check everything else, which makes them easy to exploit on the turn.

At this point, most live players have a plan vs a PFR OOP cbet. They usually have less of a refined plan vs a PFR oop check, which lets you exploit them more.