Deep with KK: I check behind flop

Katatonic is a 28/7 semi-loose passive postflop, AF 2. I have a good TAGG image.

My reasoning:
1. I have a one pair hand that most likely won't improve, and that i don't want to play for stacks with (since i am deep)
2. I'm only going to value from two streets (hands i'm beating probably won't call three barrels)
3. The flop has barely any draws.

someone explain to me if this reasoning is wrong or right...

This is weird play, i admit it. I have KK, most likely the best hand, and
PokerStars Game #9033214288: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2007/03/22 - 15:10:28 (ET)
Table 'Guangdong' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: NutMucka ($124.40 in chips)
Seat 2: IMSUPERCREAL ($207.10 in chips)
Seat 3: katatonic1 ($189.10 in chips)
Seat 4: creat!ve ($98.50 in chips)
Seat 5: Aydan902 ($26.95 in chips)
katatonic1: posts small blind $0.50
creat!ve: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to IMSUPERCREAL [Kc Ks]
Aydan902: calls $1
NutMucka: folds
IMSUPERCREAL: raises $4 to $5
katatonic1: calls $4.50
creat!ve: folds
Aydan902: folds
*** FLOP *** [Jh 8c 6d]
katatonic1: checks
IMSUPERCREAL: checks

I think you need to bet here because opp is probably calling with a large range that you are beating. And also the fact that if opp is passive you can safely fold to most of his raises.

This is pretty standard for me vs a non-donk.

Originally Posted by Genitruc

This is pretty standard for me vs a non-donk.

Really?

I don't mind checking flops with kings in RE-raised pots, because we can often safely narrow our opponents range down to hands like AK or pocket pairs, which would only have 2-3 outs after the flop.

But in this case, all we know is that villain called a raise. He _could_ only have a pocket, but he could have one pair here, or 910 for a straight draw. He definitely could have more than 3 outs here.

I guess the question is, at what number of outs (that we put villain on) do we stop wanting to give villain free cards, simply to induce more action on later streets? Would you bet if you knew villain had 2 outs?...5...8?

I bet this always against a loose passive. Like ISF said, you can feel good folding to his aggression if he plays back at you hard.

And like Genitruc said, it's good against more solid players. Gets some money out of semi-strong PPs as it disguises your hand a little.

If you're playing really intelligent players and you like c-betting then you have to c-bet for metagame (so they respect your c-bets since it'd be exploitable to only bet 2pr+ and air).

But checking here being my standard line evolved while playing a ridiculous laggy game (something like 40/25)where I would raise any 2 in position and check behind a ton then bet turn/river.

So it was more important for me to protect my turn/river bets than my c-bets since I c-bet so infrequently. The reason behind this frequent flop-checking was the knowledge that I usually had the worst hand preflop and wanted another card so I could suck out on villain's holdings.

So yeah, I suppose my advice is irrelevant for someone playing taggy with lots of c-betting. OP mentioned that villain was semi-loose passive but not a total donk.

Even a semi-loose passive will rarely call off 3 bullets with worse whereas after you check the flop they'll often call turn and river with worse.

you can check here to mix it up, but this is definitely a bet.

and fwiw, IMO the stack depth should be a 0% influence on your decision of whether to bet or check.

i dont think there is anything wrong with this line in a raised pot. I dont like it in a reraised pot though.

I think how you play the turn card here and how you might play it with AK is interesting.

Originally Posted by Genitruc

So it was more important for me to protect my turn/river bets than my c-bets since I c-bet so infrequently. The reason behind this frequent flop-checking was the knowledge that I usually had the worst hand preflop and wanted another card so I could suck out on villain's holdings.

So you raise a lot PF, check the flop and fold the turn unimproved if someone bets into you?

I'm curious, what was your "bet %" after a raise, on the flop?

Do a lot of people do this? Checking the majority of their flops after raising PF?

r u on crazy pills?... maybe 10% of the time if that

I played a kind of counterstrategy that allowed me to see a ton of hands vs fish and be tough to pin on a hand vs regs.

It's not a style that would do well vs good players. I would typically just leave tables where ppl started 3-betting and making big calls.

But when I found the right loose-weak-passive tables with ppl who tilted easily I would usually be betting the flop with draws, air and 2pr+.

Exploitable as it may be the bad players just got crushed by it and would always pay off my TPTK with any pair on board after i checked the flop.

Kind of irrelevant though for ppl playing the American sites.

Sometimes you should check the flop after being the original preflop raiser. Especially against regulars. But no more than 20% of the time I think.

I don't think metagame matters here, regs at 100nl aren't going to be paying attention enough and it's not always going to SD.
That being said I'm folding to any raise by Katatonic most likely so im not worried about pot control. And I feel like the most value is either bet/check/bet or bet/bet/bet or check.

the amount of value u lose againt most players not betting this flop is astronomical imo

Yeah i really dont understand this at all. I mean the onyl value it has is for metagame and there is barely any at 100nl.

Originally Posted by Renton

and fwiw, IMO the stack depth should be a 0% influence on your decision of whether to bet or check.

uhhhh i agree that I'd almost always bet here, but this is silly.

yeah.. i dont get that one renton. Pot stays exponentially smaller, this is good a lot of times?


Further, I find myself checking through here a lot against the predictable but any-two-playing nutcampers at my levels. Theyre either folding if theyve got nada, or theyre going to make me pay out the butt when they hit hard.

By checking through the flop, i've pretty much a guaranteed I wont go all-in behind because theres no forseeable way for the betting to get that big. If villain b/3bets ai on the turn I've got a pretty easy fold because my hand might as well be face up.

Edit: I'm still betting here like 80% of the time.

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by Renton

and fwiw, IMO the stack depth should be a 0% influence on your decision of whether to bet or check.

uhhhh i agree that I'd almost always bet here, but this is silly.

why? Whether the stacks are 100bb or 500bb, the pot is still relatively small in relation. I guess if he were less than 50bb you'd me more inclined to check sometimes for value.