I honestly don't see the point of letting your opponent know that you're checking in the dark even in stud because that implies that the draw can beat your hand. I mean, you can look at your last card and just check, but then you're not giving your opponent any information. i think when you let your opponent know that you're checking in the dark at that point then you're giving away something that you don't have to.
There's a reason for this. Suppose you have a hand like two-pair, and your opponent has a flush draw. You act first. What do you do? Option one: Bet, unimproved. This is silly, because he'll raise everytime he wins, and fold everytime he loses. You lose 2 bets when he makes a hand, and gain zero when he doesn't.Option two: Check, unimproved. See above. He may bet behind you, but you can call and only lose a single bet, which is significantly better than losing two bets. And every time he bluffs the river, you win a bet. Yay, dad!So, obviously, if you don't improve to a hand that can beat a draw, checking is the better option. It's the ONLY option. Everybody knows this, including your opponent. It's pretty intuitive.Now, option three: Bet, improved. If your opponent misses his draw, he's paying you zero bets. If he makes his draw, he's going to KNOW you improved, since you would have HAD to have checked here unless you made a house. So he'll pay you off, but he won't raise. One bet. Option four: Check, improved. If he makes his draw, he'll be it, and you can check raise him for a second river bet. If he misses, he would have folded to your bet anyway. In both cases, improvement or not, checking is CLEARLY the better option. So you check in the dark.Ice