Checking for info: Good or bad?

[sayuncle]

If find myself doing this a lot lately. I figure out the villain has nothing but he plays his nothing aggressively. On the river, he checks. I'm damn sure I will not get a bet called if I bet. I often find myself checking. the reason is twofold: I get to see his cards and (though less likely) he might be setting me up for a CR with a monster.

Advantages: I get to see showdown and learn more about the player. I don't fall for CR.

Disadvantages: my hand gets seen. and maybe I'm losing out on some cash.

Good ju-ju or bad ju-ju? Thoughts?

[jipster]

most definately worth doing on occaision.... but be sure not to lose too much value doing it

[SplawnDarts]

That's usually a pretty good play. There's a lot of betting lines that are either nothing or a monster, and if you fall in the middle and think the nothings will fold and the monsters will raise, definitely don't bet.

[Maple Leafs]

[ QUOTE ]
... and (though less likely) he might be setting me up for a CR with a monster.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to think this may be the biggest single leak in my own game. If my opponent has shown any interest in the hand and checks the river, I almost always check behind out of fear of the check-raise push. I know I'm leaving value on the table in many (most?) cases but my fear of having to make a decision for all my chips over-rules my better judgement.

Would love some help on how to get out of this bad habit.

[Gonso]

I probably bet the river too much... FWIW I still find that huge check-raises on river bets are the exception. If you're betting the river semi-consistently, you'll get people doing this with a wider variety of hands. If you're checking too much, you're missing value.

Mixing up river play in NLHE, at least to me, is one of the most worthwhile things you can do - especially with position. Guys hit a draw & check to you, expecting a bet, only to have you check behind half the time... other times they'll try and C/R river bluff when you've a real hand. At least it will have the added benefit of confusing your opponents, who might tend to play the river in a more straightforward manner against you.

If they have a big hand, they know checking to you OOP may get them nothing, so they'll define more often. If they're weak, they may be less inclined to run a bluff when they have position and you check. The net result is you can potentially gain a little information.

[jipster]

"I'm starting to think this may be the biggest single leak in my own game. If my opponent has shown any interest in the hand and checks the river, I almost always check behind out of fear of the check-raise push. I know I'm leaving value on the table in many (most?) cases but my fear of having to make a decision for all my chips over-rules my better judgement."

Judgement is it all.... i mean for example when you are running bad your afraid to bet your straight when the rivers brought a flush or paired the board; yet when you are running well you can happily value bet middle pair!

It is without a doubt the hardest and most complex street to play imho; esp texas (i play mostly omaha online; where hands are far more defined)

As the previous poster states; the check raise is the exception.... and of course if someone does it you note it down and move on (or you check your stats to see if its something they do often....or often enough to flag it [>20%???])

Anyways; just look at previous situations where you failed to value bet and could or should have; and bring it into your future game....

I think the most positive thing is you have identified it as a big leak and are willing to look into plugging the hole.

Nice hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

cheers, hope this helps

[redCashion]

I think missing value bets on the river is a very common leak, and it's one of mine. I would worry that you are justifiying the practice by telling yourself you will gain information, when you will get called more often than you think (especially to a smallish half pot size bet) and have the info and their mobnies.

[AaronBrown]

Even without reading the details of the question, I don't like it. "Checking for information" could be a definition of passive play. You are making it easy for the other player, your goal should be to give him a hard choice on every decision. It also shows curiousity, a deadly sin in poker.

I also don't like that you give two opposing reasons for the play. Two contradictory half-reasons don't add up to a good whole reason. If you're sure you won't get called, it can't hurt to bet. Seeing his hand isn't worth anything if you know he's going to fold it. Nothing or a royal flush is the same for a folded hand. If you're afraid of a monster hand, then you might consider checking, but even then a small bet can be a good idea in no-limit. It doesn't cost much if you get a big reraise and fold, and it gains a lot if it causes a fold, or if it allows you to reraise on another hand when you have the monster.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Checking for information is generally a bad play. In most instances the only thing you really have learned is that A) They have a hand worth a bet or B) they have a hand that sucks, and in light of your passive play, is now worth a shot at the pot. Bet for information. Check to give up or check raise. Doing this often, IMHO, is -EV Big. You have to put opponents to difficult choices. Of course the River is slightly different, but the song remains the same. Passive = bad ju ju.