http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:uzcmNN...us&ct=clnk&cd=1
from 2+2 magazine

The main idea here is that specifically in heads-up and small pots, counterintuitively checking made hands can be the correct play, even if it means giving your opponent the universally dreaded "free" card.

interesting point.

Thnx for posting.

Good read, thanks!

The artical had some merit, but the 3rd example was a really bad place to check. HU and or 3 players, I'm betting every chance I get, You have much less knoweldge of where you are at against a lone player and checking a pair on turn is just asking for problems.

When your hand is this weak, you want to win this small pot and move on. Not hope your opponant will bluff at you after you give him a free card.

Passive play isn't long term +ev IMO

This statement is incorrect. Passive play is definitely +ev in certain situations. ie, against aggressive opponents.

Btw, that is stox who wrote that article. Sure, we should'nt take everything he says for granted, but we should really give some thought to what he wrote.

Mid pair is a hand which you would like to see a showdown with. An agressive opponent will c/r you with a flush draw, oesd, or worse ten probably about as often as he should as per game theory.
Checking the turn will make him pretty much always fire a bullet on the river, which effectively charges him a big bet to draw, lets you see a showdown, lets you not get bluffed out of the pot, AND lets you retain your < 5 outs to draw out if he has a better hand. Or, if you're planning on calling down if raised, then you don't lose 2 BB to a better hand.
I think it's a pretty easy check against an agressive opponent.

Most of these examples are kind of blah. Basically hes saying that if the pots small giving a free card to someone in order to induce a bluff is worthwhile if you have mediocre holdings.

The guy makes some good points but at the same time is overanalyzing a lot of the hands.

aggresive player hit rivers too

I am in no way saying the writer is all wrong, I just feel that being the aggressor is better than check calling one.

I like to go out swinging, and betting when I have the best hand is better than calling with a worse one.

I would bet turns, and then check to a river check. If you check the turn, he can bet the river and you are still stuck with a weak hand, which you are calling with anyway.

But I do se the merit of keeping the pots small when playing small tables and holding small pairs.

Of course knowing the flow of the game and your table image along with others makes all these points all moot. There is merit in checking and in betting.

I see the logic.
But I think he takes it too far on some of those examples.

If I hold KT on a flop of AK6, checking the turn certainly has some merit.

But if I hold T8 on a QT54 board, I am feeling very lucky to be holding 2nd pair, and will be betting this every time.
The risk of giving a free card on this example is too high.

--cm