Test Yourself with Stuart Rutter
Test Yourself - Test 4
’Test Yourself’ returns to challenge your poker brains. Remember that in all of the problems, there is not necessarily a correct answer, but I will give my opinion of the best line, and try to justify it each time.
You’re in a good spot in a tournament with 20,000 in chips, and look down at 
on the button. An early position player raises to 500, and you make it 1,800 to go. He calls after some thought, and you are playing 18,200 in a pot of 3,900. The flop comes 
, and your opponent checks…
Do you a) Check, b) Bet 2,000 c) Bet the pot (3,900)?
The first thing to realise is that this is a pretty bad flop for aces in this position. When your opponent raises and is able to call a re-raise, any card between a ten and king is fairly bad news on the flop, as it could be the card which gives your opponent a set.
I feel that this is a really important spot in which to check. There are a number of spots in poker where a check, in order to slow the action down, is a good style. You probably do hold the best hand at the moment, but checking behind ensures that you will not lose a massive pot if you are behind.
The common feature in any hand where it may be right to slow the action down is that you are likely to be ahead, but will not enjoy to be re-raised.
If you had 
, you could bet here, as you would happily pass to a re-raise. With aces, a re-raise would be tricky and it would give you two chances to make a mistake. You could pass to a hand like 
or 
which you are beating, or could continue in the hand against any of the set hands that have you beat. If you were beat and were to call your opponent’s re-raise, this alone may be enough to have committed you to the hand for all of your 18,200 stack. We see that the risk-reward ratio of risking going bust for 18,200 in order to bet at a 3,900 pot is not favorable.
Another factor that needs to be right in order to for a check to be the right style is that you are not risking too much by giving a free card. It is reasonable for us to assume in this re-raised spot that our opponent is playing either a pocket pair, or a 
or 
type hand. There are none of these hands that are benefiting too much from getting one free card. The worst in fact is which you will allow a shot at four outs for the gutshot straight, but even this is balanced by the fact that there are four cards (three kings and the case ace) that the could hit on the turn to get into real trouble.
We have so far ignored the fact that we still probably have the best hand, and that our main aim in this hand will be getting good value from it. This brings us onto the final criteria which needs to be right to slow down the action like this- we do not lose much value from the hand.
Our check is ambiguous, but may indicate to our opponent that we do not like the flop, and maybe even that we were bluffing with our re-raise before the flop. This may have the effect of reeling our opponent in, and it will become very difficult for him to pass the hands like or , which we have well beat. Better still, our check on the flop may convince our opponent to bluff, which is obviously a possibility we deny ourselves if we bet on the flop.
To look back, one of the big factors which makes a check right here is our stack size relative to the pot. The issue of relative stack size is one that is immensely important in poker, and often overlooked. This area of thinking is so important, that the correct action can change completely in a hand depending on what the stacks are. Here, our relative stack size is just over 4 (we are playing 18,200 in a 3,900 pot). This is in the danger zone, which we saw on noting that our risk-reward ratio is not good.
The idea to check here is an interesting part of poker theory, as it goes against the advice that a beginner would receive. We all learn to bet our good hands, and to be careful not to give free cards. However, we see that in some situations, a check is a nice balanced option; it averts the danger for ourselves, and possibly creates danger for our opponent.
Stuart Rutter's Poker Strategy | Poker School
Previous Tests: Test 1, Test 2 or Test 3
