Home Poker

Sandbagging, Revisited
By Squeege

Brave me, I came out of the shadows and actually opened a discussion thread on RGP. And what was the topic? Why, sandbagging, of course. Check-raising. Initially checking on a betting round, waiting for somebody else to bet, seeing their bet, and then, bumping it with a bet of your own.

As kitchen table poker was still establishing itself, somebody somewhere at a home poker game came up with a popular concept. He said, "Wait a minute, we're not playing this game competitively. We're playing this for fun. It's just the boys sitting around playing the same game as they used to play in the Old West. The same game as the big-stakes high rollers play. But for us, it's a game of comraderie. So, let's cut out the cheap shots. No cheating and no check-raising."

As far as some people are concerned, it is incredible that this concept caught on so widely. But, catch on, it did. Nothing is worse than cheating. On that, we can all agree. But, the check-raising part has jammed a wedge between poker players since the idea was first born. One school of thought claims that it is a legitimate betting manoeuvre, strategic through and through as a slowplaying tactic. The other school of thought is that check-raising is too sinister to be used in a "friendly" and "social" game.

While I cannot estimate numbers, I'm going to go out on a limb in saying that the majority of people do not outlaw check-raising in their home games. In fact, a survey that once ran on www.homepoker.com found that support for check-raising was above 90 percent. And, if you came here for an unbiased piece on sandbagging, I hate to let you down. I'm here to condone and fully support check-raising.

Throughout the course of each betting round, and even in the way that you carry yourself when looking at your cards and between betting rounds, you are representing a certain hand. When you represent a hand that is greater than what you are really holding, you are bluffing. When you represent a hand that is much worse than what you are really holding, you are slowplaying. A strategy within slowplaying is to initially check on a betting round, but then raise on it after somebody else has opened. This is check-raising. It is a legitimate part of the game. It is a move allowed to you. When no bet has been made to you, you may check. When a bet has been made to you, you may raise.

How on Earth somebody suddenly said that if you check first, you can't raise later in a betting round is beyond me. Like I describe above, it must have been long enough ago that the rules of kitchen table poker were still being finalized, and some sap got taken by a check-raise. He would've barked something like "You can't do that here. This is a friendly game." and the outlawed check-raise was born.

In his book, Stewart Wolpin comes down on sandbagging. He says that he plays poker for a good time, not to fleece his friends out of money. On this point, I have to disagree with the kitchen table guru. Check-raising is a part of the game. It is one more arrow to pull out of your quiver in your goal to not just have fun, but to win money. Sure, I'm not trying to win loads of money from my friends...I'm just trying to win as much as they're willing to risk, which is not alot since it's a friendly, social game.

Is check-raising too sinister to be used in the home game? Not as far as I'm concerned. In representing a weak hand first and a strong hand later, you keep your opponents on the ropes and utilize a perfectly legitimate betting round move. RGP ended up being a funny place for me to go. I asked there, as well as on our own forum for home players that outlaw check-raising to speak up and explain yourselves. I'm not trying to single out anybody, I would just be interested to hear the logic explained to me. Who knows? It might even change my mind.

Adapted from HomePoker.com