Sandbagging, Part of the Game

Like Lowball and wild cards, sandbagging is one of those things that comes up every now and again as a subject of dispute between home poker players. While it is readily accepted by most, some tables have adopted the convention of banning it from their game in the name of keeping things friendly. My hope is that a review of the strategic value of sandbagging will encourage its presence in more home games.

In essence, poker is a game of keeping one's cards a secret. The fundamentals of decision-making in most poker games come up in the betting rounds. With the exception of draws in Draw Poker, the betting round is where all decisions are made. It's each player's chance to disguise their hand or loss in revealing their hand. Considered this way, every play in a betting round has a legitimate signal and a deceptive signal.

When a player bets or raises, the legitimate signal is that the player is holding a strong hand. The deceptive signal is that the player is bluffing a weak hand. When a player calls, the legitimate signal is that the player is holding a weak or mediocre hand. The deceptive signal is that the player is slowplaying a strong hand.

This balance of signals between legitimate and deceptive is key to the play of poker. If a bet only meant a strong hand, then it would be a very simple decision whether or not to stay in the game against him. Because of the dual signals, a bet no longer means a player with a weak hand should necessarily fold from the pot. If every move in a betting round had only one signal, then poker would be a very dull game, more of a crapshoot.

When a player checks, the legitimate signal is that the player is again holding a weak or mediocre hand. The deceptive signal is that the player may be slowplaying, but more so, that the player may be check-raising. To ban check-raising from your game means to ban a deceptive signal that balances a legitimate one. In effect, when a player checks where check-raising is banned, that player is not just representing a weak hand, that player is likely kissing the betting round goodbye. Even if it does come back at him, he can't raise. If you wanted to raise but were worried about other raisers, you could officially count the callers out from further raising.

This removes an element of the game as follows.

Check-Raising Banned:

The player to your right checks. Your options are simple. If your hand is strong, bet with it. One player has already indicated weakness, and even if that player is slowplaying, he will not be able to raise your bet. You're safe to make a bet with a strong hand.

Check-Raising Allowed:

The player to your right checks. As should be the case in any game of strategy, you must now forecast this player's next move. If you bet now, you risk the player check-raising, at which point you'd be taking on his raise as extra money in the pot. In other words, that player's check doesn't make your next move as easy as it was before. You now have to put more serious thought into your next move.

Again, it comes down to signal-counter signal. Every move that a player makes in a betting round should allow for at least two possible reasons: one legitimate, the other deceptive. True, a check can still mean slowplaying, but poker is about money in the pot. A slowplay is a waste of a play where check-raising is not allowed. Players are kept on the ropes by this move, as they should be by every possible move that can be made in a betting round. To disrupt that balance is to remove skill from the game.

This still brings to mind the argument that although check-raising is a strategic move, it is one that counters a friendly, social game. However, to make such an assumption is to undermine the intelligence of your opponents. What you are in effect saying is that check-raising is so deceitful that it is too sneaky for your home game crowd. While cheating is clearly banned in home games, checking and raising are legitimate aspects of a betting round, so why can't they be used in sequence in a single round?

The last argument against check-raising was unfortunately the only one that I could come up with. Both Squeege and myself made honest attempts to find out why certain tables would ban check-raising, but with no luck. The only responses we got were that check-raising is banned at some tables, and that's that. Solid reasoning behind this has evaded us, except for the argument that to check-raise is to attempt to fleece your friends. But, if check-raising is dishonest, then slowplaying would be dishonest and 'sneaky'. What's more, bluffing would be dishonest and 'sneaky'.

The search continues. I would love to hear from anybody who bans check-raising. I'm open to new opinions. Nobody should be belittled for this. The beauty of home poker is its variances from table to table. We'd just like to hear how a strategic move comparable to other poker tactics got such a bad rap.