Clarkmeister's Theorem or not, you decide.

[vulturesrow]

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

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, BB checks.

Flop: (2.50 SB) 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero checks.

Turn: (1.25 BB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: (1.25 BB) T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds.

Final Pot: 2.25 BB

PS No comments on how this hand was played, I was dealing with a crying baby at the time.

[Entity]

You're in position, so no. I probably would have bet the turn anyway.

Rob

[Marquis]

I don't really like that preflop call.

Somebody please remind me what the theorem states. Something about a 4-flush being on the board and you being able to check-call the river with a good but non-flush hand?

[JKetzer]

I'm pretty sure it states that when you're out of position and heads-up on a 4-flush board, you should bet out whether you have the flush or not. If it's raised back at you and you don't have it, then you fold.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
PS No comments on how this hand was played, I was dealing with a crying baby at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably would have bet the turn anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad Entity, bad!

But I agree with both your statements. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I wanted to post this since its sort of looks like what Clark was talking about, and there have been a lot of question lately from some of the newbies 'bout this.

[Marquis]

[ QUOTE ]
PS No comments on how this hand was played, I was dealing with a crying baby at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed that, can relate (and them some), and do apologize.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really like that preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, what exactly do you find objectionable about limping with this hand at party 1/2?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really like that preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, what exactly do you find objectionable about limping with this hand at party 1/2?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the openlimp in MP1 that is objectionable.

Rob

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the openlimp in MP1 that is objectionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eeeww. I just realized that it was an open limp if you can believe that. Babies are very distracting heh. Just for the sake of argument, do you think limping with a speculative hand is really that much worse than raising here?

[Marquis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really like that preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of hijacking my own thread, what exactly do you find objectionable about limping with this hand at party 1/2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play 1/2, but I based what I said on the fact that it was 1/2 and not .50/1. You're essentially UTG in a 7-handed game here, or maybe this is slightly worse than that, maybe it's as if it were 6.5 handed, you wouldn't limp in a 6-handed game with this, I dunno, I folded this exact same hand in the exact same position at a tight .5/1 Paradise game tonight, whatever, I'm drunk and nitpicking. Damn Creighton game is still pissing me off.

[detruncate]

The heart of the oft-talked about theorem is your lack of position. Even when betting is -EV, it's less -EV than checking, since your opponent has complete control over whether you have to spend another bet to see a showdown. Sometimes you make money by losing less.

For those who don't know, the idea is that you should bet HU out of position when the 4-flush hits on the river. If you check, your opponent will usually check through most of the hands that you beat, but bet most of the hands that beat you. It means you've created a situation in which you're almost always putting chips into the pot with the worst of it.

Betting, on the other hand, puts him in a difficult spot. He's rarely raising less than a near-nut flush card, so you can safely fold to a raise most of the time. If he's a very LAGgy, you should plan to call. Along similar lines, some knowledgable TAGs might try to exploit the situation, so you need to decide whether to call or fold on a case by case basis. Against average opponents, it's an easy bet/fold.

In brief: You spend the same when you're behind (since you're prepared to fold to a raise), but don't miss bets when you're ahead. Villain also might fold a hand that beats you -- I remember a guy dumping a set to my pair of aces, telling me that he just couldn't call, and asking me which flush card I had. He might have been full of it, but he seemed proud of his big laydown.

When you're in position, it becomes a straight-forward value bet % + bluff equity calculation.

[elbuddha]

The corollary to Clark's theorem is that if you are in position heads-up on the river, the fourth flush cards comes and your opponent bets, you must call even if you do not have one of the flush suit.

Edit: Or at least I swear I remember reading that, but I can't find it with search, so maybe that's wrong.

[Thigh]

Not sure if I answered this correctly. Were you looking for if it's the theorum from your point of view, or from the other player's? /images/graemlins/confused.gif