check raise all-in on the flop? i dont like the play

[christyirish]

Live Game, 2-5 PLO

Button is a total maniac (but an experienced one)

I limp UTG with AK47ds

UTG+1 limps

MP(a rock who plays it as it lies) makes it 30 to run

Button : calls

Hero and UTG+1 call

4 to the flop, pot = 125

Flop: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

UTG : I check
UTG+1 : check
MP : thinks, then checks
Button: bets the pot
UTG : I check raise all in
UTG+1 : fold
MP : fold
button: thinks, and calls with 5689, no backdoor flush draw

maniac says, i know you flopped it but ill give u action.

At the time I thought it was a very bad call, but I've got a little wiser since then and I now think it was just a bit of a bad call.

However, the issue I want to post about is not the specific hand as such. In my opinion checkraising all-in on the flop has alot of drawbacks. Obviously, when it works you're getting all your money in when your ahead. However, your also offering 2to1 to see the turn and the river, compared to 2to1 to just see the turn, followed by a 2/3 pot bet to see the river when u bet out. Reasonable drawing hands will have to call the flop raise. Also, a small but reasonable percentage of flops are checked around. In general, I don't like the play at all any more. What do the rest of u think?

[Chimichonga]

I think you are likely to be giving a free card on a dangerous board with a weak temp nut hand too frequently.

This is an especially dangerous play if you are playing really deep, which can often be the case in live games.

He has 7 outs to the win, so depending on how much you had left when coming over the top, his play ranges from ok to a little loose.

[christyirish]

I was check raising all-in.

I would not make that play today, especially with a weak straight. The sort of straight I have is very weak. If the flop comes

346

and I have 57, my straight is much stronger then ifthe board comes

356

and i have 47

So I suppose it was always a bad candidiate for a check raise all in.

Alot of people play a check raise all in with top set, and what Im trying to get at is the general tactic. ie check raise allin, or checkraise more or less all-in on the flop. Do experienced players ever use this play,
(except in clear situations like against a preflop reraiser who almost surely has the bare boots)

[Chimichonga]

A lot of it depends on the table dynamics and stack depth.

With a smaller stack, i.e. one that will let you get all-in with a flop C/R, then going for the C/R is ok, especially with aggressive LP players. If you whiff, you get to determine on the turn whether or not to play the hand until showdown.

With a deeper stack, I would generally prefer leading out with something like top set, since you will have plenty of chips to left over to play with on the turn/river and you need to gather information from your terrible position and betting is pretty much the only way to do that.

C/Ring to mix it up once in a while is fine, but against better players it is more likely to let them off the hook when they hold bottom or middle set than it is likely to win you a monster pot.

[BriMc]

I prefer to lead with a hand like this.

[Ribbo]

I prefer to check raise. Leading stops anyone bluffing at the pot. And a bluffer is the only way you get the chips in while ahead.

[christyirish]

I disagree Ribbo.

Specifically, I dont think that,

a bluffer is the only way you get the chips in while ahead

In the live games I play, and in most of the online games, Im definetly getting action when I bet out from any set, and any straight draw with more then 9 outs.(maybe theyll call with worse!)

Also, i dont think that the button is bluffing. When he bets, he thinks he is winning. I'm not saying that hes looking for a call, but he does think he is ahead. If I was in his position I would definitely bet the flop.

I suppose another reason that ill get action is that if I have a hand that Im willing to call a bet with in this situation, Im liable to bet out, particularly because of the texture of the flop. (Its small, unsuited with a made but awkward straight)The texture implies that its less likely than usuual that the flop has hit anyone, and I can hide behind the strength of the made straight.

Because people know this, they will put me on a wider range of hands than simply a made straight. The check raise on the other hand screams made straight, and this is my main point. The button now knows that if he fills up his hand is good. In other words hes almost sure hes not up against top set, and is justified in drawing to a boat.

And i suppose thats my main objection to checkraise all in on the flop, your telling your opponent what u have.

[Ribbo]

Firstly, I couldn't care less if they think a check raise all in means the nuts. Because i'm all in with the best hand.
In the ONLINE games that I play, the play revolves around the button. Button players are very aggressive and bet any old piece of crap no matter how bad their hand. Other players compensate for this and check raise with a wider range of hands than just "the nuts".

There is never any justification with calling with a set against someone who has the nuts. 7 outs on the flop from 40 cards is not correct value. Likewise they are a 2-1 dog, If they know I have the nuts and somehow use that as justification for calling, then i'm going to check raise them even more! Because they are not justified in calling, and if they do call, then that earns me even more money!

[christyirish]

"C/Ring to mix it up once in a while is fine, but against better players it is more likely to let them off the hook when they hold bottom or middle set than it is likely to win you a monster pot."

I really agree with this. Sometimes a checkraise all-in allows the hands u really want to call to get away from the pot, and provides two cards at 2to1 for the hands your only kind of happy to see calling.

I suppose Ribbo is definitely right when he says that people dont need the nuts to check raise a button bet.
But I would say that, in most situations, the hands that people check raise are stronger than the hands they bet out.

[BluffTHIS!]

What makes the checkraise right in this situation is that you could indeed get allin and were likely going to be headsup against a lag on a draw if you got called, and because there would be no possibility of being bluffed out as could happen if you led. If the money were deeper or another player with a possible freeroll on your hand had bet, then a c/f would usually be in order.