When is it correct to check blind?

[SuperUberBob]

I've always wondered about this.

I see players such as Phil Hellmuth check in the dark and have the other opponent do the bidding.

When should I do this and what are the advantages of checking in the dark?

[Pauwl]

It's usually done out of position. What you do is check in the dark before the cards are dealt. This way your opponent has no information about how your hand has improved on the flop. In stead of your opponent acting 2nd and having a decent idea about your hand based on your post flop action, he is now acting first without any information about your hand. You transfer your positional disadvantage to your opponent.

Of course your opponent could always check behind you and you could give him a free card to beat you while you were ahead on the flop.

[AKQJ10]

"You transfer your positional disadvantage to your opponent. " -- False, for reasons you yourself identified. The opponent[s] can always check behind, and you won't get the option to act again, so it's not at all like the opponent is first to act.

To put it another way -- if checking blind were so great, then your opponent[s] could do it right after you, and now the action would be back on you (but one betting round later!).

I don't see any advantage to it whatsoever. If anything it could just tip your hand, if you only do it with draws (figuring you'll c/r if the draw comes in). You can always make up your mind to check after looking anyway, so it can't possibly benefit you unless you expect your opponent to play differently knowing you've checked blind. And I don't see how allowing your opponent to alter her play can be beneficial, just at best neutral.

[icemanjmw]

On it's on this play really doesn't give you an advantage. However if you throw it out there only once in a great while then you may freeze your opponent. Of course most opponents who get frozen by this probably aren't your biggest competition anyways.

[HoldemPokerPlyr]

By checking in the dark, you give your opponent a false sense of security. If your opponent bets he will feel like he can be the agressor. On the next street though you will be able to act first and become the agressive. Allowing him to think that maybe you did actually hit on the flop.

Also, you may check in the dark to see where your opponent is at. You may be screwing around with a mediocre hand and you want to check to see what he does. It allows him to act without seeing what you do first.

-HoldemPokerPlyr

[Dangeresque]

Yes. I think that's the blind check's greatest advantage. In inducing a bluff.

[Louie Landale]

When the opponent doesn't bluff much and you want him to bluff even less and there really isn't anything you can catch that will induce you to bet.

When you want to look like a fool.

- Louie

[Fast Eddy]

I think the basic strategy is to take away the advantage of position by making your opponent make the first decision.

[PantsOnFire]

I do not believe it is ever "correct" to check blind. The only reason to check blind is when you intend to check regardless of the flop. This usually happens when you call a raise out of position like in the blinds.

One of the situations I have done this is when I am a big stack out of position and heads up against somebody who is a short stack. I am basically telling him that I am giving him the option of pushing all-in on the flop and I will decide to call that or not. I usually like doing this rather that putting him all-in right away (of course this works better against aggressive players).

I think the only potential advantage is a psychological one. You are basically saying you are not going to take a swing right out the gate but your ready to deal with what comes. It is also perhaps a bit of a "flashy" move for flaymboyant (or bored) players to use to liven things up.

I'm sure most excellent poker players could eliminate this ploy completely from their game without harm.

[BenA]

I've racked my brain trying to think of a single situation in which checking dark from the BB is a good move. But even when you are holding some crap like 82o, what if the flop comes 654 rainbow, and you miss your opportunity to semi-bluff your double gutter? With crap hands that include an high card against few opponents, why give up the chance to bet out for 'protection' in a small pot if you hit top pair? With decent speculative hands like 44 or 76s, you still need to give yourself the option to bet the best hand, semi-bluff, or bet for value. I just don't think there are any 2 cards in the world you could be holding that should always be checked before seeing a flop.

I suppose a table-image argument could be made, but that's probably weak. Confusing your opponents with random plays like that probably doesn't make up for potential losses from deviating from just playing poker. Plus, if you if you do this more than once, you need to be careful that it doesn't always mean the same thing, so that your opponents don't pick up a pattern.

By the way, I'm speaking specifically about limit. NL might be a different story, since lots more automatic checking situations on the flop might come up. In this case, confusing your opponents might have great advantages.