Here are two hands, someone flopped top pair in each of them and played it "slow". Once with spectacular results, once that ended in disaster.

The setting: Villain is late 40's wanna-be but will never be poker pro. Scruffy, unshowered, looks like his mother dressed him. Kinda nerdy, and LOOOOOVES to talk about poker strategy at the table. He will make weird plays sometimes I think just for the chance to talk about it after. He's capable of making hero calls, tough lay downs, big bluffs and slow plays, but seemingly never at the right time. He definitely suffers from Fancyplay syndrome and probably caught it by reading too much 2+2. If you gave me 3-1 odds or better, I would put money down that says he's reading this right now.

Table is pretty quiet. It's a casino weeknight. No one is really getting out of line, but I have noticed that more pots than usual are being limped.

Hand 1: Eff stacks are ~170

Hero limps in UTG +2 with AhJh, folds to villain in BB who raises to 15, folds to hero who calls.

Flop Ad9s4c
Check/check
Turn Ad 9s 4c 8d
Check/check
River 3c
Villain bets 30
Hero raises to 60
Villain calls with JJ

Hand 2 (THE VERY NEXT HAND): Eff stacks are ~100

Hero limps UTG+1 with two red 4's
Folds to villain in SB who raises to 10, hero calls. Heads up to the flop of

Ks9h7c
Check/check
turn 4c
Check/Hero bets 20/Villain calls
River As
Villain shoves, hero calls
Villain had AK

Villain said he only checked the flop because of the way I played the previous hand. He assumed that if he checked the flop, I wouldn't figure him for a king, and I would call down light on the end. Probably not the best deduction since I'm not calling his river shove with tens, but whatever.

I've realized that I do this A WHOLE LOT. That is, checking back to pair on dry flops. I find that if i have a good, but not great top pair hand that it's really difficult to get called by worse hands when you c-bet a dry flop in position. So I will often check back the flop and either bet the turn, or call a villain's lead on the turn setting up larger river value.

It's great to get 3 streets of value, but I don't think that's very common with TPGK hands. Two streets of value isn't unthinkable, so why does one of them have to be on the flop?

This line seems to get value from weaker top pair hands, and good second pair hands like in hand 1. However, I'm often giving a free card that can ruin me, not always obviously, as it did the villain in hand number 2.

Thoughts?

i like it. its very dependent on situation. in general i find most villians call flops much more lightly than rivers for instance. so usually id prefer getting those two streets of value on flop/turn or flop/river. but theres a lot of times (dry flops, fit/fold villians) when checking flop is very good and like you said allows us to be underepped in most villians eyes (many of them find it impossible for you to have flopped top pair if you checked back the flop) and allows for good value on turn/river.

I'm wondering why you blatantly violate the rules of this forum with rude, argumentative, and condescending remarks and there are no consequences.

Thoughts?

So, YOU were the villain in this hand??

Damn, I wish someone offered me those 3-1 odds.

he actually got banned for 3 days zero, so did i lol

He's about to feel what that's like

General rule: bet your hands for value. Don't give free cards to villains who will happily pay to draw too wide.

Specific situations: sure, If you've got a good read on villain's betting line, and particularly if he likes to attack weakness or play table sheriff, this can be a great line that, bonus, leaves him frustrated and stewing.

I think the key is developing strong player profiles so you know when to switch away from the general rule to this alternate line.

The only downside to this strategy is when V bombs the turn and river and you obviously call thinking he's attacking your weak check OTF and your TP should be good, and they turn over two pair or better and you curse yourself for not betting flop which would have let you get away cheaper after V c/r'd the flop.

Also, if V has second pair, they probably call your turn bet because your hand is underrepped when you checked TP otf, but they're probably not calling river very often unless they improve or you bet super small/same as OTT. So most of the times, you're only getting one street of value and not two.

But I like the line when you have some history with stationy Vs and do this for deception/pot control.

But more often than not imo, it's just FPS to not bet flop and define your hands from the start.

I think there's pre-flop problems in both hands. In hand #2, you've got a maximum of 10-1 odds for set mining. That's not ideal. If hero's stack is $100, you shouldn't be limping 4s from UTG+1.

In hand #1, AJ is not a good hand to be l/c pre-flop. It's dominated by AK/AQ. It's in bad shape against JJ-AA. You're only going to flop a flush draw 1 out of 16 times. I don't get what the plan for the hand is. Flop an ace and hope to not get value owned by AK/AQ? Flop a jack and hope V doesn't have an OP? Either raise AJ yourself or fold it to a raise. Don't l/c; especially heads up.

I don't check top pair on the flop unless I have a good reason. People will call the flop A LOT lighter than they should. So, there's a ton of value to betting the flop. People will peel off with pps, middle pair, gutshots, bottom pair....all kinds of junk. When you bet the flop, people just think you're c-betting. So, if you're c-betting as a bluff, you should be c-betting for value, too.

The main exception for me is when a villain will autofire the turn after the pfr has checked the flop. Then, it's good to check.

Also, I wouldn't call the results from hand #1 "spectacular". You got 30 BBs out of him while giving him 2 free cards. If villain is calling a raise on the river, I'm sure he would have thrown in at least 30 BBs if you just bet 2 streets. It sounds like he just got emotionally attached to his JJ. Calling a raise on the river with jacks there is pretty bad.

ps - never talk poker strategy at the table.

Jesse, thank for the responses, but I think you might have a little case of MUBS.

First, hand #2, there are more ways to win with a pocket pair in position than just making a set and stacking a guy. Secondly, this hand was giving me about 10-1 odds which is borderline for set mining. IN this case I think leans towards fine because his stack is so short that his stack-off range is wide enough that we can set mine with only 10-1 odds. In addition, I'm doing more than set mining. If villain checks a flop like J85, I'm taking down a lot of pots uncontested.

On Hand #1, I mentioned this table is letting a lot of pots go limped. Suited aces are perfectly fine to play if you think you can see a cheap flop. I'm not playing this hand solely for it's 1 pair value. It's a hand that's good enough to see a flop for $2, and you'll never convince me other wise. When it got back to me, we were heads up, and I was in position, against a weak opponent, with a suited ace. If you're folding in that spot, then please come and play at my table.

You talk about not checking top pair because you're afraid of villain hitting a 5 outer on the turn AND us not being smart enough to realize that a weak player, out of position, has started bombing the pot.

You say to c-bet for value because people will peel light. Could you really get two streets from JJ here if you bet flop and bet turn? I doubt it, that's why I consider the results of this hand spectacular. Alot of times, villain will just check/fold. Alot of other times, he'll peel and fold to a second barrell. In other words, players who arent' as good as I am would get one bet in this hand. I got two. SPECTACULAR.

Now.....this thread is not about critiquing the specific hands. It's general discussion about the merits and pitfalls of checking top pair. The example hands are not for analysis, they are to ILLUSTRATE how checking top pair can 1) lead to additional value (hand 1) or 2) allow opponents to draw to equity they would have folded (hand 2).

pitfall:

when you check the flop, you allow completely dominated hands that otherwise wont put any money in the pot unless they hit their hand draw for free. ex, V raises with 88-55. Flop comes AJ2. he's done with the hand and will check down, so you wont get any additional value from him unless he spikes his set. i'm not worried about him spiking his set, but why let him draw?

merit: you will get some value from weaker TP or 2nd pair hands. but this is kinda obv.


this is just a different variation of [F] cbet/ [T] check/ [R] bluff catch or bet for thin value. it's not a bad line to take, its probably just V dependent on which it works better on.

double checking any relatively strong TP, ex: AJ in hand 1, is kinda pointless though, imo. if you think you'll get more value from raising a river than you will from just betting 2 streets, ok thats your opinion. i think, like a lot of the stuff you post, it worked this time, next time it probably wont. if you were to run this play over a large sample, 1/2 using a double check/raise river line and 1/2 betting for 2 streets line, i think you would be more +EV by betting 2 streets

Checking top pair on a dry flop is fine if you can get $$$ in on additional streets from worse AND you know when to lay down when you're probably beat.

Generally speaking though, not betting top pair in LLSNL is AIDS. Against randoms, you will get light peels. You will get worse to call. You can bet multiple streets. YMMV, as it seems you play in tougher LLSNL games than I do. I suspect, however, they're no tougher than what I face.

There is a time and place for this, but it's generally against players who are better than your average LLSNL players, and there's actually a lot to consider.

I will frequently check back TPGK against decent opponents on dry boards who I know will fold flop if I bet, but if I check flop will interpret my check as weakness, and who will bet for thin value with a weaker pair once I show weakness.

However, LLSNL are generally the opposite of this. They will call with dominated hands but will not bet thinly for value. So I think you're missing value most of the time.

Also, you need to have a balanced range. Ok, not so important at LLSNL, but still something to consider. If you are cbetting whenever you miss but checking back TPGK then a thinking opponent will catch on. Your range is extremely unbalanced. You don't want to give your opponents the impression that you bluff when weak and try to get to a cheap showdown with a piece.

In conclusion this is a move to make SOMETIMES bc it adds an element of randomness to your play. But GENERALLY just bet your TPGK hands OTF. You often maximize value when you take a line that is contrary to your standard line. So if your standard line is to bet OTF then doing this sometimes could add EV to your game.

I play against more reg-heavy lineups than average, so I check top pair on the flop more often than usual.

I'll say that checking top pair sometimes is more correct when you want to make opponents wary of a delayed c-bet and that plays sometimes bet TPGK too often on the flop in very multiway pots.

This was basically my thought on this. The idea is to C bet frequently so sometimes ayers will peel light. People don't just auto fold to c bets on dry boards anymore. I don't mind taking bet/check/bet lines

The punishment for being rude, argumentative and condescending is that posters stop responding to the threads created. The best players that populate the forum rarely contribute to strat threads, unless they know the OP will accept the suggestions without arguing about them. That is a reputation that takes a while to develop.

^dude, Below Zero's post was entirely trolling. 100% unnecessary and disruptive. Nothing in the OP or any post in this thread remotely provoked this.

Why validate it by answering?

You just contradicted yourself.