Q&A #64: A Daring No-Limit Checkraise
Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.
I’ve noticed something interesting (to me at least) about hold ‘em. In limit hold ‘em, I think multiway pots tend to be easier to play than heads-up ones. In multiway pots, the high pot odds often cushion your plays so that it’s fairly clear how you should play even if you don’t have a great idea what your opponents have. In heads-up pots, you need to predict your opponents and read hands better to play well.
In no-limit, though, I think it’s backwards. I think heads-up pots are generally easier to play, at least that’s often the case. There are more variables in a multiway pot, and you don’t get the pot odds to cushion your decisions that you do in limit. Furthermore, if you’re playing three opponents, you could be dealing with three very different stack sizes that could cause a major headache for you.
A couple weeks ago Jeroen posted an thought-provoking hand in Questions Thread #13 that generated a nice discussion (worth checking out). I figured I’d offer my thoughts.
Hi Ed, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about the following hand, and we’d really appreciate comments on it. Unfortunately, we don’t have a hand history, but I will try to describe it as accurate as possible.
Hero is in middle position with a stack of 220bb. Hero has been dealt pocket 6’s and it is folded to him. He raises to 3xbb. It is then folded around to the Villain on the CO, who calls and has a stack of 160bb. Button folds and the small and big blinds also call, they have both been tight and have stacks of 100 and 200 bb respectively.
The flop comes 35J rainbow, and it is checked to Hero.
My friend described the villain as a maniac. This prompted me to say that he should have gone for the check raise on the flop, if he was sure that Villain would bet. My reasoning was that the blinds would be more likely to call his bet then Heros, and Hero could then put in a big size raise, after which everyone would fold.
If Villain would not bet, then it would depend on the turn if you would continue with the hand or not, there’s a good chance you’ll be outdrawn, but with this play you would win more bets in the long run.However, my friend disagrees with the check raise play and says that it is better to bet out. There are too many people in the pot, and even if the blinds call the Villains bet, you could be beat already.
What do you think is the best play in this situation?
It’s an interesting decision, and I think it could go different ways depending on your opponents.
The remainder of this article is insider content available to premium members only. Log in to your account or become a premium member and get instant access.
Tags: loose-aggressive, maniacs, no-limit-holdem, poker
I don’t think I’m willing to raise with 66 into a maniac in this spot in the first place. You’re only about even money against any two OCs. If the maniac raises, you are likely going to have to lay it down. If he calls, you’ll get calls behind and you’re a dog to win. I’d have just limped. If the maniac raises and folds out the rest of the table, you can make a decision how to play it then.
As played, I like your line, Ed. I check and plan to call down and keep the pot small. Leading invites a position raise from the maniac. He’s no more likely to have you beat than if you just check and call, but you are looking at putting a lot of money in to find out whether he’s FOS, particularly because the turn and river bets will likely grow in proportion.