My biggest problem - not knowing when MHIG OOP.

[ihardlyknowher]

Villain is slightly loose and aggressive.

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP2 <font color="#A500AF">(Villain)</font> calls, MP3 calls, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>.

Flop: (7.50 SB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Villain calls, MP3 folds.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Villain calls.

River: (6.75 BB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Villain bets</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

[mr pink]

bet ze riva.

[BiffMan]

With no particular read on your opponent in a situation like this, would you call a raise to your river bet, or fold?

[btspider]

bet-fold river

[mr pink]

[ QUOTE ]
With no particular read on your opponent in a situation like this, would you call a raise to your river bet, or fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

easy fold. the good thing about betting here is that it might get him off a weak ace that is scared of the flush. w/ 4 to a suit out there, usually only a hand that has you crushed will raise... so you can dump it. but if you check, you're implying that you're scared of the flush and your opponent will often take a shot at you.

[stoxtrader]

check/call vs an aggressive villain. bet/fold to a raise vs a passive opponent.

without a read, check/call.

[droolie]

You can't check fold this river. It's akin to waving the white flag or bending over in a prison shower to pick up the soap. You might as well open fold.

Clarkmeister's Theorom tells you to bet/ fold. If you must see his hand check call.

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
check/call vs an aggressive villain. bet/fold to a raise vs a passive opponent.

without a read, check/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word!

[chris_a]

Can someone please state Clarkmeister's theorem in full gory detail?

[chris_a]

BUMP -- Specifically, what criteria do you use to apply it?
I assumed that the opponent has to be passive or have a tight image of you, is this so?

[droolie]

It's really quite simple.

When you are HU, out of position, and the fourth suited card hits the river, bet no matter what.

I think you need to have a read on whether to call or fold to a raise.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really quite simple.

When you are HU, out of position, and the fourth suited card hits the river, bet no matter what.

I think you need to have a read on whether to call or fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

its usually nice to have some showdown value(excluding flushes) ... since a decent amount of its effect comes from ppl that call with weak made hands to make sure you aren't stealing

[chris_a]

Ok, more specific than I thought. Does it assume you have a pair at least? Does it assume that you have been betting all along?

Can you explain the reason behind ("prove") the theorem?

[chris_a]

Ok, so he has some showdown value here. I get it.

[bottomset]

alright at least to my understanding the Theorem serves to get value out of weak hands that intend on checking behind you on the river, but will call to look you up .. in that if you were to attempt a check/call many of the hands you'd beat won't bet and only the stronger hands bet out

at least most of the examples of the theorem I've seen, the Hero has a pretty strong hand like 2pair, or a set .. that got weakened by the board 4flushing .. but figures to beat a good chunk of the nonflush hands villian has .. in that you lose the same 1bet if you are behind(compared to the check/call) but gain 1bet on occasion when they call with a weak hand fearing your bluff

I might be offbase, and I don't think 2pair is the minimum required, since you might fold a better hand, but that wasn't the driving force behind the theorem(if my understanding of it is right)

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, more specific than I thought. Does it assume you have a pair at least? Does it assume that you have been betting all along?

Can you explain the reason behind ("prove") the theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Clark's Theorem" is just a fancy way of saying "value bet scary river cards".

For example (this is just to prove a point). Say you have 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif in the SB and complete after everyone else folds. BB raises and you call.

Flop: K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif - Check/Bet/call
Turn: 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif - Check/Bet/call
River: 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif - You should bet FOR VALUE

He will call you with a lot of different hands in hopes that you are bluffing the scary river card. So if he has AK he will call. If he has JJ he will call. He might even call with AQ here. He is going to call (or raise) with any flush, so don't expect him to pitch a better hand. The beauty of it is that since your bet comes from nowhere, he really can't raise us unless he has the nuts (or as a bluff-raise). Since we might be bluffing ourselves, it does him little good to raise since we aren't going to call. And if we do in fact have a good flush, he loses more by raising.

Say you have 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif in the SB. All fold to you and you complete. BB raises and you call.

Flop: A /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif - Check/bet/call
Turn: T /images/graemlins/club.gif - Check/bet call
River 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif - Again you should bet

When the final board has a 4-flush, eveyone will slow way down. If you check to him, he will probably check behind you without a flush. So if you check (and plan to call) you will be in bad shape because he will check a hand like AJ behind but will bet better hands for value. However when you bet, he will call you with all of these hands that he would normally just check behind. So something like AJ will pay you off.

Brad

[cnfuzzd]

Not applicable to this situation, but you sometimes also get a better hand, such as a medium flush card, to fold.

As for this hand, i bet fold the river.

peace

john nickle

[bottomset]

Shillx thanks for the examples, its like I thought, but in one you have the babiest flush .. but that beats the good pair, 2pair and set hands that call .. and in the second example you have 2pair .. which beats the good pair hands

is this still a valuable play when you have 2ndPGK? is the range of worse hands that will call still large enough?

[droolie]

My understanding of the theorem is that you should bet no matter what (barring a solid read that it will not work), even if you don't have showdown value. On a four flush board you will get all holdings that can't beat a flush to fold enough to make betting out profitable. If you have no showdown value you just fold 100% of the time to a raise.

[Sykes]

Why not just check/call the river? He only has to be bluffing 14% of the time to make this call profitable.

[SlantNGo]

What about when you're ahead and he'll check behind if you check? Check/call may be profitable but bet/fold is MORE profitable.