Two similar hands I played this weekend. Both played at 2/5.

Hand 1:

Stacks $600 eff.
Hero: 55wm, card dead, playing tight.
Villain: 30yo Asian TAG. Opening a bit too wide in late position, cbets every time, gives up on turn too much.

Random fish limps in MP. Villain raises $20 from LJ.
Hero calls with T8 on BTN. Fish calls.

Flop (~$60): Q97

Checks to hero who bets 40
Fish folds, Villain check-raises $130

Hero?

Hand 2:

Stacks $1400 eff
Hero: A bit more active in position today, especially over the last hour.
Villain: 30yowm. Quite a bit nittier than villain in hand 1; doesn't always play button, often limp-folds button.

Random fish limps in MP. Villain raises $30 from CO.
Hero calls with K9. Fish calls.

Flop ($90): A93

Checks to hero who bets $60.
Fish folds, villain check-raises $150.

Hero?

-----------------------

Correct answers include "fold pre" and "fold flop," and to be clear, my policy is to fold to check-raises. And I doubt I'm leaving much money on the table by doing so, but still.

In hand 1, villain has basically super-glued his chips to the table, this is a bluff approximately never. I figure I have 15 outs to a hand I can win with, figuring I can bomb any turn spade and probably take it down, and can probably squeeze some value out of a straight. I think this hand might be a call.

In hand 2, I don't think it's out of the question villain is on a flush draw, I've been cbetting a lot of air with success over the last hour. However I think I will see AJ+ more frequently. Doubt he pays me off if I bink a flush, unless he binks one also. I folded this one but I wonder if I might should have clicked it back.

hand 1, prob 3b pre against described villain if you are going to play the hand. i think b/f flop is pretty bad, so i would call and look to bluff spades and play in position.

hand 2, am i reading this correctly, you are saying you folded this hand? that's absurd and quite bad. you are almost getting the immediate odds (you are getting like 3.3:1 immediate) to draw out if he has "AJ+" and that doesn't count the implied odds (of which there are infinite, if you are 1400 effective), and possibly winning the pot in position as a bluff occasionally.
fairly sure the standard play would be to call, which is what i would probably do. i think there is a lot of merit to 3betting and just bombing turn and bombing river, and i would think villain would have a very hard time calling with anything except for AA in his range, since you can so easily have sets and block 99.
geez, dont fold that flop in position tho

Depending on what their check-raising range is, the correct strategy against players like this is sometimes to check back.

I would have checked behind on hand 1. On hand 2, I'd probably bet against a player I'd be happy to 3bet against and check behind against a player who I am unhappy to get check-raised by.

In both of these hands, I would have AQ in my range if I checked the flop.

Hand 1 is a pretty horrible call preflop. If I get to the flop If I'm drunk or something I'm calling c/r planning to bet when I hit and spades, but not being surprised at all when he c/c down with a set or Aa when the spade hits, then berating myself for playing the hand in the first place when that happens.

Hand 2 given stack depth I can get behind playing this if you have a good feel for villain and a plan. Never folding to the flop c/r, your implied odds are huge.

dislike both calls pre.

If you want to "exploit" someone checkraising you, who is never folding, when you're behind, then fold.

Not folding second hand, though. Too much equity, and we might sometimes be ahead.

I think you're right.

This was the first c/r from either one. I was a little surprised the first guy checked; guess that should have been my clue eh? Definitely shouldn't have tried to bet flop without raising pre.

Second hand, yeah. Should have backed off the cbetting thing one hand earlier. As seen though the retrospectrosope, a fine instrument. Although, I should have been happy to raise this guy. Momentary testosterone lapse.

as a general statement, in llsnl, instead of making your checking back ranges stronger - like checking back AQ in either hand (for balance, i'm guessing?)... you should just bet/bluff more frequently so you can feel better about betting worse hands for value.

I probably fold both hands pre but hand 2 is closer.

Hand 1 - that's a weird spot to check raise. Why risk it getting checked through? I wouldn't fold to it in position.

Hand 2 - cbet is fine and definitely not folding to c/r.

As far as exploiting check raising tags. It really depends on the board.

If he is check raising 8d7d3s then he knows he can't effectively check call on those boards because your bluffs have equity against his hand.

If he is c/r a KdTs5c board well that makes no sense because he can easily check call those boards.

Against most LLSNL villains though auto cbetting ATC is going to be profitable because people cbet way too much and have unbalanced checking ranges.

But just beware that some boards you are much more likely to be check raised than others.

^yeah hand 1 was a little weird. After the hand he claimed to have As. Maybe he was on AQ? He is kind of a fraidy-cat ott and I think he was just trying to end the hand.

Still not sure what villain in hand 2 was up to. It's easy enough to range him to sets, AJ+ and flush draws. On the face of things, that would be a raise I think. But I couldn't convince myself to rule any of these in or out. Whole thing came from left field. At first I thought most of his range was draws and then I talked myself out if it and decided his range was sets and AK, and that he would only call with better if I spiked the flush.

What the heck does it mean when 2/5 players checkraise? So far it seems to me it's usually a very good hand. Although I know for a fact I got bluff-check raised by a different player a few minutes after hand 2.

Should I have left some flush draws in V2's range?

Interesting comment. Presumably this is because you semi-bluff too much on certain 2-tone boards.

I wonder whether you'd have better results with semi-bluffing less often. Instead when the flush card hits, and you don't have a flush, you could try bluffing more?

Or instead try semi-bluffing the turn more often? If you have to fold on the turn, it's less of a disaster than folding either of the hands above on the flop where they both have tons of equity. It's also unlikely that a Villain would check a strong hand twice in a row just to check-raise.

I probably do.

One of my favorite tricks, if I can isolate a tight player. Has to be a consistent narrative of course.

Some like checking, some like betting. I was pretty much on auto-bet here, and shouldn't have been. Good pickup, thank you!