Weird, normal hand

[rory]

Button open raises, so far he seems to be very aggressive preflop and passive postflop, though I do not have much of a line on his play, not having seen many showdowns yet (hand #5 at the table). I 3 bet with ATo.

Flop is K42, two hearts. I bet, button calls. Turn is a T of hearts. I bet, button calls. River is a 3 of hearts. I bet, having heart with no heart.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
Flop is K42, two hearts. I bet, button calls. Turn is a T of hearts. I bet, button calls. River is a 3 of hearts. I bet, having heart with no heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfecto!

___1___

[anatta]

Mostly I would bet here simply because most opponents will bet the king anyways, but you will also get called from smaller pairs and God knows what else.

You do occasionally run into opponents who will not bet this river with a king. I think they see the flush and wonder if you got scared with your AA or AK and didn't bet it, or, if they are really fishy, fear that YOU have a flush somehow (I am just guessing as to why they don't bet here with a king).

Lets face it, flop K rag rag, once he calls the turn, its a good bet he has a king vs. you the preflop three-better, and he is just letting you hang yourself...isn't this how you usually play it?

So its close, but against an unknown, I just bet it out like you did, reasoning like you say, at least I have heart.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet, having heart with no heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

How cute.

NH.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

Flop is K42, two hearts. I bet, button calls. Turn is a T of hearts. I bet, button calls. River is a 3 of hearts. I bet, having heart with no heart.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this something called "Clarkmeister's Theorem"? Four flush comes, you're out of position, you should bet...

I've seen talk of it in various forums around here but never found Clark's thoughts.

Guy.

[rory]

I am pretty sure Clarkmeister's theorm was something to be applied to a specific game, the weak-tight Vegas regulars at the Mirage or something.

[rory]

I am still not sure about this play, because the guy is so passive. I was betting because I figured I would have to call a bet if I checked, so I might as well bet since the guy was passive and would probably call with more hands that I beat if I bet than bet with if I checked.

But since he seemed passive so far, I might be able to check and fold that river, or check and he might check behind with a K and no heart. The entire chapter in Theory of Poker about being out of position on the end with a marginal hand was bouncing around my head. I still do not know what situation applied.

[krishanleong]

Clarkmeisters Theorum

The basics are if you are OOP and have a decent non-flush hand, you should bet-fold because people will check through worse hands and (generally) only raise better ones. The idea is on a 4 flush board, noone bluff raises. Clark's Theorum doesn't have anything to do with folding out a better hand.

In practice, a lot of these bets will be called by low hearts that would have bet. Some will be called by single pairs or worse that would have checked. And some will be raised by big flushes that just came in. Against these combinations, bet-fold is clearly the correct play.

Most of the time, I only apply Clark when I have TPTK or better. In the posted hand I check because better hands will check through. I don't think a K folds here.

The texture of shorthand is a lot more bluff heavy and for this reason, you need to take this play with a grain of salt since it is predicated on a near 0% bluff raise.

Krishan

[krishanleong]

The answer to this hand is will he call with a worse hand more often than he will call with a better hand, value with a better hand (if you check) and check behind with a better hand

(call w/worse + check with better) - (call with better + value bet better)

I'm assuming if you bet you can fold to a raise.

If the first is > than the second bet. Otherwise check-call (or check fold).

I can't see how the first is > than the second.

Krishan

[cjx]

Wasn't it you who said you were going to tighten up for your first few or more orbits once you sat at a new table instead of mixing it up in marginal spots right away?

Isn't 3-betting a relative unknown with ATo out of position marginal? Despite being heads-up vs a likely steal (if he is in fact aggressive preflop)... I dunno, just meandering thoughts...

Given the preflop play I like the postflop play although I probably wouldn't have thought to bet the river, but I think it's probably the best play. Since he called I think you're losing, but I gotta believe it's better to bet/fold here than check/call or have it checked through.

cjx

[Jeff W]

ATo is a monster against a button raise.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
....it is predicated on a near 0% bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am clueless, but I think it is a great spot for a bluff-raise. If I don't have a heart, I always raise in Rory's opponent's spot. It seems to me like most players check in Rory's spot if they have a small heart. That leaves him with either no heart or a big heart. I don't think he can call my raise with a no-heart Ace high (except maybe AK), which I think is a pretty likely holding for him here. By the way, should Rory have bet if he had a small heart? If so, do you call the raise?

Cartman

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....it is predicated on a near 0% bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am clueless, but I think it is a great spot for a bluff-raise. If I don't have a heart, I always raise in Rory's opponent's spot. It seems to me like most players check in Rory's spot if they have a small heart. That leaves him with either no heart or a big heart. I don't think he can call my raise with a no-heart Ace high (except maybe AK), which I think is a pretty likely holding for him here. By the way, should Rory have bet if he had a small heart? If so, do you call the raise?

Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the main problem with Clarks theorum in shorthand, the bluff % goes way up especially on tricky boards like this.

I can say that Clarks theorum works very very well at lower limits. I've called a ton of raises to be shown high flushes and I've had a ton of calls by really crappy hands and low hearts.

Krishan

[rory]

Yeah, this is another problem with betting. I might get bluff raised off of the best hand.

I wouldn't bet here against an aggressive opponent, but so far in the 5 hands I had seen so far, this guy was relatively passive postflop. Not a great read but that is all the information I had.

Against an aggressive opponent, check-call is clearly the superior line.

But against a passive opponent, check-fold might be right. Is this either a check-fold or a bet situation, if up against a passive opponent? It is strange that both could be right.

[MAxx]

I wouldnt be too worried about the bluff raise against passives.

[ QUOTE ]
Against an aggressive opponent, check-call is clearly the superior line.

But against a passive opponent, check-fold might be right. Is this either a check-fold or a bet situation, if up against a passive opponent? It is strange that both could be right.



[/ QUOTE ]

Check-calling aggressives... I agree that this is easy.

I think that bet/folding to the average to somewhat less than average passive (but all very straightforward or non-tricky) is definitly correct as well.

I think against the very very passive, you should probably check-fold here.

Edit: You may give up a small amount of value betting 2nd pair on a 4flush... in exchange for the almost guaranteed knowlege that you save a bet when beat. Very timid opponent checks down many stronger hands here.

[rory]

Yeah, some timid opponents will check a king or even check a baby flush here. Against those types, a bet is wrong with such a weak hand, but a bet would be right with a small flush card.

Against an aggressive opponent, a check might be right even with a small flush card, to induce a bluff and to avoid having to call a raise.

What a strangely complicated river.