Check or Push?

[UpTheMariners]

Hand from last night in the £200 F/O at Walsall. Around 35 players left, top 9 pays, I get As UTG+1. Blinds are 400-800, I have around 16k and make it 3k and get 1 caller (the chip leader).

This guy has been on the table around 2 and half orbits, and has been fairly loose. For example he called a raise with 85 suited on the button and flopped a flush. 2 hands before this he folds and shows 3d5d in the BB after being raised. The raiser says ‘oh I thought you like to call raises with those suited connectors?’

Ok back to the hand, the flop comes and I bet 3.5k. He thinks for a while then calls. The turn is . What do you do?

[boldie]

check...If you bet it for a decent amount you are pot commited. I will not get knocked out of a tourney when i don't even have top pair as I would be kicking myself.

Especially against people whose holdings you have no idea of this is tricky. (I quite like his pre-flop call with sooted connectors though..and depending on how many people were in the pot could simply be good play)

[temp0r]

if you have no physical read on such a player by now you shouldn't be playing at such a high limit imo. his call doesn't really tell you anything without physical information. if you check you're practically giving up the pot to any bet. i don't like this play but it looks like your only option here.
he may be on the flush draw if it's said he likes his sooted connectors. after all your bet on the flop prices him in very nicely. a push here does fall into the hands on a KQ slow play though.

you still have around 12 BB if check-fold. so it depends on what you want out the tournament as you have no real read. if you're there to win. push and hold your breath. if you just want another final table checking is the play. you might a small pot after all anyway.

[Royal Flush]

if you have no physical read on such a player by now you shouldn't be playing at such a high limit imo.

Best post for ages!


I am checking, but i ain't folding.

[UpTheMariners]

if you have no physical read on such a player by now you shouldn't be playing at such a high limit imo.

explain...

[UpTheMariners]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

[Royal Flush]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

[UpTheMariners]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

why would you check call rather than push?

[Royal Flush]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

why would you check call rather than push?

To pick off a bluff, if i push he doesnt play worse hands, i am just gifting him my stack with no other equity than what is in the pot. If you check then at least he will on occasion be putting some chips into the pot with the worst hand!

[dime]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

why would you check call rather than push?

To pick off a bluff, if i push he doesnt play worse hands, i am just gifting him my stack with no other equity than what is in the pot. If you check then at least he will on occasion be putting some chips into the pot with the worst hand!

My applogies if I have missunderstood the meaning of your post but are you suggesting it's more profitable to check-call than it would be to raise on the off chance he might be bluffing? Flies in the face of most convetional poker wisdom, is there any way this can be prooved mathematicaly? Most profitable moves go against the grain but calling down in this situation apears to be the quick fire path the rack and ruin to me.

[boldie]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

why would you check call rather than push?

To pick off a bluff, if i push he doesnt play worse hands, i am just gifting him my stack with no other equity than what is in the pot. If you check then at least he will on occasion be putting some chips into the pot with the worst hand!

My applogies if I have missunderstood the meaning of your post but are you suggesting it's more profitable to check-call than it would be to raise on the off chance he might be bluffing? Flies in the face of most convetional poker wisdom, is there any way this can be prooved mathematicaly? Most profitable moves go against the grain but calling down in this situation apears to be the quick fire path the rack and ruin to me.

Logic dictates that Flushy is right on this one. (Gold may help me for saying that) and I like his thinking here (OK, Now I really am going to hell for suggesting Flushy thought this through )

The check call will be more profitable then pushing is, if the player might bluff at it. Afteral, you will only get called by hands that are beating you BUT someone might bluf into the pot to pick it up with absolutely nothing.

If you have decided your chips will go in the middle here the check call isn't a bad idea...but only if you don't mind getting knocked out of a tourney with 2nd pair.

[Bazzaboy]

Pushing is horrible

[UpTheMariners]

but by pushing you are getting him to pass his j,10 and flush draw?

[Royal Flush]

but by pushing you are getting him to pass his j,10 and flush draw?

If he had one of those hands he would most likely have raised the flop.

[dime]

'i am checking, but i ain't folding.'


you check and he puts you all in. Does this mean you call then?

yup!

why would you check call rather than push?

To pick off a bluff, if i push he doesnt play worse hands, i am just gifting him my stack with no other equity than what is in the pot. If you check then at least he will on occasion be putting some chips into the pot with the worst hand!

My applogies if I have missunderstood the meaning of your post but are you suggesting it's more profitable to check-call than it would be to raise on the off chance he might be bluffing? Flies in the face of most convetional poker wisdom, is there any way this can be prooved mathematicaly? Most profitable moves go against the grain but calling down in this situation apears to be the quick fire path the rack and ruin to me.

Logic dictates that Flushy is right on this one. (Gold may help me for saying that) and I like his thinking here (OK, Now I really am going to hell for suggesting Flushy thought this through )

The check call will be more profitable then pushing is, if the player might bluff at it. Afteral, you will only get called by hands that are beating you BUT someone might bluf into the pot to pick it up with absolutely nothing.

If you have decided your chips will go in the middle here the check call isn't a bad idea...but only if you don't mind getting knocked out of a tourney with 2nd pair.

There is nothing in the first post to suggest he's an aggressive player just loose, the villian has won when he called with 85s so the two calls in this hand don't seem out of character for man who likes to pay to see if his draw will hit. He limps twice, couldn't he just be drawing to a hand, if he is why give him a free card by checking? If he had a hand bigger than you wouldn't he have raised at some point in the hand instead of just calling?

I've been caught out on hands like this in the past but I think it's my lack of observation at the table and so I make the wrong move, I'm still not convinced checking here is the right move when you have been taking the lead in this hand.