Party 5/10, Clarkmeister Flush Theorem

[SinCityGuy]

Decent 5/10 game with a mix of weak-tight players and a few calling stations.

Folded to me in LMP, I raise with Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif T/images/graemlins/spade.gif. Weak/tight CO calls, weak/tight BB calls.

Three to the flop for 6 SB's.

Flop: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif

BB checks, I bet, both call.

Three to the turn for 6 BB's.

Turn: 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Check, bet, call, fold.

Heads up on the river for 8 BB's.

River: K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet.

Comments?

[ErrantNight]

sure

[mr pink]

nice.

[me454555]

What hands do you expect him to call with that you beat? What hands do you expect to fold that are better than yours?

If your hand was something like 2 pair or trips, I'd say this bet is fine. The 7d completes the flush draw and the Kd completes a strait draw and gives overcard a pair.

This is a situation where I'd check just b/c I dont think I'll get a call from any hand I beat.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a situation where I'd check just b/c I dont think I'll get a call from any hand I beat.

[/ QUOTE ]


Alot of hands that beat hero are folding here.

[mr pink]

checking opens you up to a bluff b/c it screams that you don't have a diamond. check/calling the river here is worse than bet/folding by far.

[rmarotti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a situation where I'd check just b/c I dont think I'll get a call from any hand I beat.

[/ QUOTE ]


Alot of hands that beat hero are folding here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah. Isn't that a big point of the theorem anyway?

[winky51]

I disagree about Bet folding.

Why bet only to fold to a better hand if raised. What if hes bluffing? Only a better hand is calling here including 2 pair, set, and so forth.

So check and hope he bluffs. You lose the same bet. And BTW there is about 50/50 chance he has that suit. With a low card he checks anyways. bet into a 4 flush with no suit. Thats just dumb, your asking to get raised.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree about Bet folding.

Why bet only to fold to a better hand if raised. What if hes bluffing? Only a better hand is calling here including 2 pair, set, and so forth.

So check and hope he bluffs. You lose the same bet. And BTW there is about 50/50 chance he has that suit. With a low card he checks anyways. bet into a 4 flush with no suit. Thats just dumb, your asking to get raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

His read on his opponent is weak/tight. A weak/tight player is not going to bluff raise this river. He's not going to raise with 2 pair or a set, either. He will raise with a set (or with KK) plenty earlier in the hand if that's what he has, and he will not cold-call 2 preflop with KT. He will, however, fold a hand like AT (no diamond), JJ, or an underpair without a diamond. He may also fold a small made flush.

The whole point of the theorem is that there are very few players who will raise a 4-flush board without a flush. There are plenty more who will fold a hand like TP if bet into on that board. If you get raised, you can be pretty certain that your opponent has a high, made flush.

[Michael Davis]

I strongly disagree. No K or diamond is folding.

-Michael

[Bob T.]

Exactly right.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
checking opens you up to a bluff b/c it screams that you don't have a diamond. check/calling the river here is worse than bet/folding by far.

[/ QUOTE ]
A tight player has something by the river. There aren't any pure bluff hands he could be holding. Weak tight players are usually happy to get a free showdown on this sort of board, even with Ace high. So if you're happy with your read and you don't think you can get many worse hands to call then a check/fold seems to be right. If he can fold a better hand then that changes things.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree. No K or diamond is folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael,

Does that mean you think the bet is wrong? What do you do here?

[Michael Davis]

No I think the bet is right because you have to call if you check and worse hands will call. But there's no way I see better hands folding with any sort of frequency here.

I would almost always fold to a raise. If I weren't confident folding to a raise, I would sometimes check-call, it depends on my estimation of my opponent's bluffing frequency.

-Michael

[Michael Davis]

"There are plenty more who will fold a hand like TP if bet into on that board."

If this is one of the major points of the theorem, I think it is seriously flawed. Sure, there are times when your opponent will fold a better hand than what you hold, but not when you're holding top pair on the flop w/decent kicker.

FWIW, this is the type of hand that really stretches the theorem. Clearly you should bet if you can beat very few of your opponent's holdings, and clearly you should value bet if you have a set that will beat many of your opponent's calling hands. In both of those situations you're making money on your river bet. In this hand, your concern is losing the least, because you sure as hell aren't making money betting this hand here. You're just losing less than if you check-call.

-Michael

[private joker]

In a weak-tight game, I would consider this order:

1. check-fold
2. bet-fold
3. check-call

I consider a lot of my live games to be either weak-tight or loose-passive. If this was online, I'd be more inclined to bet-fold. Is it online? Given that it's 5/10, I assume it is.

But since it's weak-tight with calling stations, I default to my live game strategy. Players in a game like the Bike 6/12 would only bet the river when checked to if they have a diamond. Nobody with a diamond will fold. Therefore, check-folding is the way to go. Sometimes you'll get a free showdown and win a pot, but most of the time when you're losing you'll also get a free showdown. These are the games that are exceptions to the Theorem, I think. These are weak and passive players. They won't bet the river without a diamond. Neither weak-tighties nor calling stations will. Because they too know that their bet will get called, so they won't bluff.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In this hand, your concern is losing the least, because you sure as hell aren't making money betting this hand here. You're just losing less than if you check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Kind of like splitting 8's against a dealer's 10 in blackjack. By doing so, you decrease your expected loss.

[sthief09]

at first I saw it as a pure bluff. then I read some of MD's posts and agreed with him. so this is my take on it. I don't like any option here. first, there are two options, check or bet. if you check, you can raise, call, or fold. for obvious reasons, raising is not an option. once you check, calling is better than folding because you're getting odds to call. that means check-folding can't be the best option. check-calling is worse than betting because he's weak and won't value bet hands you beat, but will bet most hands that beat yours. if he's so weak that he'll only bet the nuts and 2nd nuts, and maybe 3rd nuts, then check-folding could be the best line.

if he won't fold anything, then betting is a pure value bet. since he's weak he won't raise without the nuts. so you're assuming there are lots of hands you beat that he'll call with. if he's actually tight, then he either had you beat already or he rivered a frush. if that's the case, betting serves no purpose. only check-folding does, unless you think you can bluff here.

so I think betting and check-folding depend a lot on the player. against a lot of weak-tight players, you're better off check-folding than betting. you'll rarely miss a bet and avoid losing a bet when behind.

if he was aggressive, then I'd like check calling

I don't think I've ever seen a situation that was so player-dependent before.

[QTip]

I'd like to learn more about the "Clarkmeister Flush Theorem". I did a google search but not much but a couple of posts from here showed up. Where can I learn about it or is a pretty quick explanation?

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to learn more about the "Clarkmeister Flush Theorem". I did a google search but not much but a couple of posts from here showed up. Where can I learn about it or is a pretty quick explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

When head's up and out of position, always bet when a 4th flush card comes on the river.

Better hands fold (often enough to be profitable), worse hands call. You win the most and lose the least whether you have the flush or not. The search for a counter-example continues (although this one has possibilities).

[MaxPower]

Michael Davis is right. There are exceptions of course. Against a real maniac I might check and call.

The reason you make this play is that if you are going to see a showdown you are a bigger underdog when you check and call then when you bet and are called. So you lose less by betting.

No offense to Clarkmeister, but I have no idea why he gets credit for this idea since it is straight out of Theory of Poker.

[QTip]

Interesting...thanks. What book (if any) does this come from?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
What book (if any) does this come from?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just read MaxPower's post about TOP...I haven't go to that section yet...

[Octopus]

By the way, an important thing to remember when thinking about this theorem is that you actually made it to the river with a 3-flush on board. This sort of limits the range of hands that you and your opponent have. The 4-flush also makes it unlikely that your opponent will raise without a strong flush. A weak flush will fear you have some random card like the flush ten, and bluffs are fairly unlikely to work, unless ...

What I have not worked out is how play works when the in-position player knows that the out of position player will bet with any holding. What will he play back with?

[MaxPower]

I actually don't know if lose less is the right way to describe it because any time you lose less you actually win more. It would be correct to call a river bet against most players based on the pot odds, but you are going to win more bets by betting.

Basically you should bet if your opponent will call with more hands than he would bet. This describes most players.

If your opponent will bet more hands that he will call with the you should check and call. This describes maniacs and the rare players who will not value bet their decent hands but will bluff.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What book (if any) does this come from?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just read MaxPower's post about TOP...I haven't go to that section yet...

[/ QUOTE ]

Its in the section on Heads Up on the End, which is one of the toughest chapters to put into practice for most people.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Heads Up on the End, which is one of the toughest chapters to put into practice for most people.

[/ QUOTE ] That's the section I'm on right now actually, but I quit reading it for a couple days as I'm reviewing some SSHE chapters. I got a couple of pages into it and realized that it's going to take some pretty heavy focus.

[me454555]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason you make this play is that if you are going to see a showdown you are a bigger underdog when you check and call then when you bet and are called

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this is necessarily a true statement. I think that in this situation, we are a bigger dog if bet and get called than if we check and call.

If we bet and call, only a better hand will.

If we check one of 2 things will happen

1) He value bets his hand - I believe this bet most likely represents a smaller range of hands than the ones he will call with b/c I do not think he will bet a K, 2 pair, or a better T.

2) He bluffs - This is good for you

I can't think of one hand where I bet and he calls where I'm ahead or an example where I be and he folds where I would have lost if he called. I think checking and calling is better here and if he's extremly weak tight, checking and folding might even be the way to go.

[aas]

I beleive there's 6.25 BB in the pot on the river before the action starts.

I bet (for reasons already stated) and fold to a raise. If there were more money I might bet and call.

[MaxPower]

I wasn't really addressing this particular hand in my post, just the general idea of this play.

I said you make that play if you are going to see showdown. If you are sure you are beat when he bets, by all means check and fold.

And if you think he will check-behind everything but the absolute nuts, then by all means check and save a bet. At the lower limit games there are tons of these guys. In the mid-limit game the are far fewer players who would miss a value bet here.

[Sarge85]

In regards to the river working in conjunction with Clark Theorm.

With position you check it through
Out of position you'd bet.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[slogger]

[ QUOTE ]
And BTW there is about 50/50 chance he has that suit...

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no.

There is an approximately 37% chance that his opponent has a diamond, which means 2/3 of the time, opponent will think he's beat when facing the river bet.

[SinCityGuy]

He raised me on the river, and I folded.

With the weak/tight opponent, I could possibly get him to fold a worse hand, and I don't have to worry about getting bluff-raised.

Check/folding isn't terrible here. But that's no fun. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif