An Alternative Play When Inducing Bluffs/Bets

[James.]

In today’s tighter more aggressive online environment, HU situations are more and more common. Along with these HU situations comes the task of maximizing value with marginal made hands while losing the least to better hands.

A lot of our opponents at these levels and in these games are very aggressive. This is particularly true in the shorthanded 6 max games. A good strategy to obtain value and thwart paying a lot of money to showdown is checking the turn to induce a bluff. This is a viable strategy for holdings that have HU showdown value as weak as Ahigh(and sometimes King high).

A variation of this play that gets discussed less often is checking the flop rather than the turn, in an attempt to induce multiple bluffs on the big streets. When used in the proper situation you can obtain an additional small bet over the more common bet flop/ check turn/ call river line. This works best with pairs of Aces and Kings(and to a lesser extent Queens) but is a good choice with any showdownable hand. The weaker your hand the more aggressive you prefer your opponent to be. For example:

You open on the button with A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], the aggressive big blind calls.

Flop: A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

He checks, you check.

Since the pot is small and your opponent is aggressive, checking behind here can be a strong play. While it’s true the board is draw-heavy, HU it’s less of a concern and the small pot reinforces this also.

Given our opponent, since we showed weakness he is likely to fire the turn with most pairs, draws(as weak as a gutshot) and even as a pure bluff. On the river, many times the same thing holds true. He will bluff missed draws as well as other junk holdings, valuebluff most pairs or bet simply because betting is fun.

As I stated before, the more aggressive the opponent the weaker the hand you can check behind with:

You raise in the MP with 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], the LAGgy big blind calls.

Flop: A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

He checks, you check!

While on the surface this is clearly a debatable play. As long as you are certain you are showing down(since you’ve under-represented your hand) in this situation, and villain is very aggressive the flop check can increase value later. Why? It expands your opponent’s hand range. When you widen his range, you increase your equity versus his holdings and as a result make more money off of every bet that goes in. Most LAGs can barely contain themselves when an opponent shows weakness or they think they can push an opponent off of a hand. This allows you to punish them for their over-aggression by inducing them to haplessly put money in on the big streets when there is no way you are folding.

It’s generally not a good idea to do this against passive opponents. They pay off with very weak holdings and if they checkraise you can safely fold your hand. Checking the flop against them is giving up too much value.

As discussed, checking the flop has advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages:

You are giving a “cheap” free card as opposed to checking the turn and giving a freebie on a big bet street.

In terms of equity, you can gain value since you widen your opponent’s range postflop.

You induce your opponent into bluffing the big streets(earn an extra small bet over the traditional bet flop, check turn, call river line).

Not as much, but if you decide to raise a big street for value(because you have improved or your holding warrants it and you think your opponent may pay off), your odd play might result in a calldown that otherwise might not be made.

Mixing your play aids in keeping your opposition off balance.

The small pot gives you leverage to maneuver without “costing” much if you do get outdrawn.

Helps mitigate losses to better hands while giving yourself a free shot to outdraw your opponent.

Opponents start “donking” into you more with hands of value(because they are afraid you’re going to check behind) making it easier to read their holdings.

Disadvantages:

Any time you give a free card you risk being outdrawn.

If you don’t properly assess your opponent’s tendencies it can backfire and you lose value.

You lose an extra small bet to a better hand the times you are behind and don’t outdraw your opponent.

Obviously all advantages and disadvantages are relative to your actual holding, your image, and your opponent. Also, there are probably some other benefits/disadvantages that I’ve excluded(feel free to add them). The point is, this play can be a viable alternative to the standard turn check behind. In fact, it can be superior in a couple respects when used in the proper scenario.

Also, you must balance this with other flop checks and flop bets. Keep in mind, I’m not saying to start checking behind the flop every time you’re heads up with position with a made hand. Routinely doing that without regard to your opponent is going to sacrifice way to much value and give too many free cards. Rather, as with all strategies pertaining to Hold Em, mix this with the rest of a well-balanced plan and you make it tougher to play against you while increasing your earn in the long-run.

[NinaWilliams]

I dont really like this. In the A4 hand there are tons of hands that he could c/r the flop with, allowing us to get in 1bb on the flop and turn. In the 77 hand, there are too many overcards that beat us and any opponent with a brain should realize that we're not folding the turn so I dont think you induce a bluff often enough for it to be correct.
Its also really hard to balance. I dont want to be checking T9 on a A74 board just to balance the times that I check KK or something.

[Bob T.]

Hmmmmm, I like it the idea, but at the same time, if I raised preflop, and I am headsup, in position (especially against one of the blinds), I just can't imagine checking on the flop.

[Yads]

If your opponent is aggressive he will raise you with any piece of the flop so you're only really getting value when he has total air. All you're doing is giving up value.

[One Outer]

I like this concept on the surface but I'm concerned about how it may play in a live game. My concern is probably silly though. You advocate doing this only against aggressive opponents for good reason. I just don't come across that many in my live game. I guess that just means I wouldn't have as much occasion to use it.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
In the A4 hand there are tons of hands that he could c/r the flop with, allowing us to get in 1bb on the flop and turn. In the 77 hand, there are too many overcards that beat us and any opponent with a brain should realize that we're not folding the turn so I dont think you induce a bluff often enough for it to be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

my examples are probably poor, so don't get bogged down by them.

also, as i stated this isn't a default strategy versus uknowns. your opponent needs to be fairly aggressive. as is stated(in reference to the 77 hand) the lower the pair, the more aggro the villain needs to be. for instance in the second example we would need to know villain is capable of 3barrelling pretty frequently to make it correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Its also really hard to balance. I dont want to be checking T9 on a A74 board just to balance the times that I check KK or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as balance goes, it's really not that difficult to work in a couple flop checks here and there. it doens't necessarily need to be a HU situaion to balance it, either.

it's kind of funny how alot(not necessarily you) 2p2ers will not take issue with checking behind on the turn in some situations because it's a generally accepted 2p2 practice, but doing something that is unorthodox like checking the flop freaks them out to the point they just won't even consider it.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
...but doing something that is unorthodox like checking the flop freaks them out to the point they just won't even consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't consider it when the LAGgy opponent may well fold his two live overcards on an A-high flop to our low PP, especially if your plan is to commit to spending two BBs to get to showdown no matter what the board brings.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmmmm, I like it the idea, but at the same time, if I raised preflop, and I am headsup, in position (especially against one of the blinds), I just can't imagine checking on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

use your imagination, bob t. this isn't exclusive to blind steal scenarios when we've raised from LP. it was just the easiest example to construct.

maybe i shouldn't have included any examples because it's not like these are only applicable to blind steal situations. in fact, against certain opponents it really doesn't HAVE to be a HU spot(though it is most effective with one opponent b/c then you often are sacrificing too much value). i feel like the examples given are hindering the concept more than help explain it.

and i will continue to harp on this: YOUR OPPONENT IS KEY. you must know your opponent's tendencies to viably make this play. i will also add that 2p2ers as a whole(IMO) probably don't check behind on the flop often enough, but that is really sort of a different issue all together and i don't want to derail the thread to that point just yet.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't consider it when the LAGgy opponent may well fold his two live overcards on an A-high flop to our low PP

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're worried about a 6outer in a 4sb pot?

[ QUOTE ]
especially if your plan is to commit to spending two BBs to get to showdown no matter what the board brings.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, this is a function of the opponent. by virtue of the fact that our opponent is aggro enough that we can consider checking 77 behind on the flop means we can likely call down regardless of what the turn and river bring.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this concept on the surface but I'm concerned about how it may play in a live game. My concern is probably silly though. You advocate doing this only against aggressive opponents for good reason. I just don't come across that many in my live game. I guess that just means I wouldn't have as much occasion to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.