3/6 T5o - Clarkmeister Theorem?

[mannika]

This the right time for CMT?

Villain is 57/3/0.4 over 37 hands

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero checks.

Flop: (2.33 SB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 calls.

Turn: (2.16 BB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 calls.

River: (4.16 BB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 7.16 BB

[ErrantNight]

while on the whole, i like clarkmeister's theorem... i kinda want to show this down if i'm investing one more. river bluffs aren't common, so i'm fine with the fold, but when he just calls the turn bet, what does he have? i'm not sure a worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

but since you bet, easy fold

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with check-call is that you're probably beat 140% of the time when this guy bets into you on the river and hero's hand is good enough to showdown. I just don't think your getting raised on the river w/o a really good flush or maybe even a boat.

[brazilio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with check-call is that you're probably beat 140% of the time when this guy bets into you on the river and hero's hand is good enough to showdown. I just don't think your getting raised on the river w/o a really good flush or maybe even a boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You're saying that there's a -40% chance of a bluff if you check to him? That's ridiculous.

[ErrantNight]

i edited my post enough times that i ultimately was a bit misleading. check/calling is alright only if this opponent will bluff/bet the river a fair portion of the time. sort of an inverse clark theorem. even passive opponents have fun little quirks like this... basically, my perception is that people who are watching the action and their hand and the board, only, go "i was calling unless a fourth flush card fell, oh no! there it fell! i'm fol... wait a second, it was checked to me! he's afraid, bet!"

of course, some of those fish just go "thank god, i can show down for free!" or "every time i get checked to and bet, i get check/raised!" and another great big portion of the time... he's got the friggin' flush.

so i still lean check/fold, but i don't like bet/fold here. if you're putting in another bet, i'd rather attempt to induce a bluff. i don't think you fold better hands with a bet, and i don't think you get called by any worse hands, either.

[rmarotti]

I'd just like to point out that Clarkmeister's theorem calls for a bet here 100% of the time. Asking "is this a good time to apply Clarkmeister's Theorem" when all three conditions are met means the answer is yes, or you think the theorem is crap.

[ErrantNight]

you don't think the top pair on a low, raggedy board, pairing on the turn, alters things at all?

[rmarotti]

No, and I don't think Clarkmeister does either. I'm looking for the OP because IIRC it's pretty clear.

[rmarotti]

Here's the earliest record I can find. Straight from the horse's mouth (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=&amp;Number=1241345&amp;page=&amp;view =&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=#Post1241345)

[brazilio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just like to point out that Clarkmeister's theorem calls for a bet here 100% of the time. Asking "is this a good time to apply Clarkmeister's Theorem" when all three conditions are met means the answer is yes, or you think the theorem is crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarkmeister's Theorem might say that, but if you can't apply it to hand ranges that a villain might be on, along with the relative hand strength vs a non-flushed opponent, then you're just being obtuse.

[intensify1]

I am new to posting on this forum. so i dont want the readers to classify me as dumb, but could someone define for me the Clarkmeister Theorem?

[rmarotti]

I fail to see how hand ranges effect things terribly much here. The only information that would affect whether or no to use CT is if you know villain will check behind with every made flush, always bet without one, or always raise without one.

[mannika]

[ QUOTE ]
I am new to posting on this forum. so i dont want the readers to classify me as dumb, but could someone define for me the Clarkmeister Theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Click rmarotti's link above

[rmarotti]

That spot where i linked it a few responses up from here would be a good place to look.

[brazilio]

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how hand ranges effect things terribly much here. The only information that would affect whether or no to use CT is if you know villain will check behind with every made flush, always bet without one, or always raise without one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A major component of Clarkmeister's is to make a better non-flushed hand fold. I fail to see how you fail to see how that's important. Add in a non-flush made hand value betting (when you check to him).

[rmarotti]

There are few non-flush made hands value betting this river after we check that we don't lose to. Most will raise our river bet and we will make a correct fold. The chance of a worse hand bluff-raising on this river are slim to none. The chances of a better hand folding (specifically trip tens with a better kicker) are also slim. The slim chance of getting a better hand to fold outweighs the slim possibility that we get bluffed off the better hand, IMO.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
A major component of Clarkmeister's is to make a better non-flushed hand fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see where you got this idea. The main component of Clarkmeister's theorem is not as a bluff, but as a value bet. If you check on a river like this, a standard (non-aggressive) opponent will only bet better hands, and will check worse ones. However, if villain (again, loose-passive) will call with non-flushed hands that are worse than yours, you should bet.

This sort of villain qualifies for this type of bet-fold treatment.

I repeat, though: Clarkmeister's theorem is not largely based on the premise of making a better hand fold. It's a straightup value bet against loose and passive players, and it works wonders.

Rob

[rmarotti]

Entity,

I agree that making a better hand fold is not the principle aspect of the theorem, but I always assumed it was an ancilliary (if not explicit) aspect of the theorem. Does it really play NO part?

[brazilio]

If that were the case, then why is it generally agreed upon that a monster non-flush hand should be check/calling the river? I've never seen anybody advocating a Clarkmeister when I've got the nut straight on a 4-flush board. If what you're saying is true, then Clarkmeister should occur in every instance of every hand regardless, and it's simply a leak that we're unable to fold our non-flush hand (when it gets raised to our bet).

I agree with rmarotti with what he said for this case though, I wasn't paying much attention to the board and the hero's holding other than it being trips.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Entity,

I agree that making a better hand fold is not the principle aspect of the theorem, but I always assumed it was an ancilliary (if not explicit) aspect of the theorem. Does it really play NO part?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that against the opponents where I will apply this theorem (and I apply it quite often; at least the bet-folding part), it plays such a minimal role as to be almost negated.

Rob

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, then why is it generally agreed upon that a monster non-flush hand should be check/calling the river? I've never seen anybody advocating a Clarkmeister when I've got the nut straight on a 4-flush board. If what you're saying is true, then Clarkmeister should occur in every instance of every hand regardless, and it's simply a leak that we're unable to fold our non-flush hand (when it gets raised to our bet).


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is it generally agreed upon that monster non-flush hands (and on a 4-flushed board, most hands aren't monsters) should be check-called?

I've seen it argued that they should be bet-called, but that's opponent-dependent and potsize-depdendent. I've never seen someone argue for a check-call on a 4-flush against a passive opponent though.

Rob

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
and i don't think you get called by any worse hands, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get called by so many worse hands on boards like this, in general, that it isn't funny. When I review my hand histories I'm amazed by the number of times I get called with A2o.

Rob

[brazilio]

I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find me a link. I'd be interested, because I can't remember many threads where good posters (the qualification matters) advocate a check-call on this sort of board with any non-flushed hand.

Rob

[Entity]

Link to Clarkmeister's theorem. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=mediumholdem&amp;Number=489582 &amp;Forum=f4&amp;Words=Clark&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=500&amp;Main= 489582&amp;Search=true&amp;where=sub&amp;Name=&amp;daterange=1&amp;new erval=200&amp;newertype=w&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodypre v=#Post489582)

That's not the first time it was mentioned, but it was the first time I ever read about it.

[ QUOTE ]
A month or two ago Clarkmeister repeated something in a post that he's said before about betting when out of position and the fourth flush card (and you don't have any of those) hits on the river.

Since then I've been doing that a lot more. And every now and again someone who probably has a better hand than mine folds. That's always cool. But the part that has me really surprised is how often I'm getting called down by worse hands that would have almost certainly checked behind.

If you haven't taken this piece of advice to heart, you should.

Thanks, Clark!

[/ QUOTE ]

That post is from El Diablo, FWIW.

The bluff aspect comes up occasionally, I'll grant, but the main aspect of it is that people will call with worse hands much more often.

Rob

[brazilio]

I think the last time it was discussed where I was reading that was in the micros, so I think you can reserve judgement on their qualifications. All the threads I've found with that advice are located there. Search term +"Clarkmeister's Theorem" +"check/call" will pop up about ten or so I found. If that's true, then a lot of people are misapplying it.

edit: Didn't check anything other than SS and the micros.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the last time it was discussed where I was reading that was in the micros, so I think you can reserve judgement on their qualifications. All the threads I've found with that advice are located there. Search term +"Clarkmeister's Theorem" +"check/call" will pop up about ten or so I found. If that's true, then a lot of people are misapplying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point me to links where people advocate a check-call? It's a flat-out misapplication of the theory.

There are situations where a check-call is correct, and situations where a bet-call is correct. In general, though, a bet-fold is the best line on rivers like these, with the exception being when you can narrow your opponent's range of hands down to a flush draw.

Rob

[brazilio]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=2046562
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=2010996
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=1587578
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=1543307

You mentioned alternating a bet/fold and check/call in the last thread, but you explained that.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=2046562
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=2010996
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=1587578
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=micro&amp;Number=1543307

You mentioned alternating a bet/fold and check/call in the last thread, but you explained that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain is loose-aggressive in hand #1. The whole hand was played badly, but on the river, you do not bet into a player capable of bluff-raising (and loose-aggressive players are often capable of this) with a strong hand with the intention of folding. If villain is passive, this is another story.

In #2, villain played the hand like a flush draw that got there on the turn and got scared on the river. Checking with the intention of folding is much better than checking with the intention of calling in it. Bet-folding is a close second to check-folding. Check-calling this river is a pretty distant third to me.

Villain is a TAG in hand #3, and is not only capable of bluff-raising, but will not call often with a worse hand. The bet is bad. Check-calling to induce a bluff is ok, but not great, given a smallish pot.

In #4, several good posters advocated a bet-fold and liked the hand. Two didn't understand the point of a bet-fold, but never responded once the theory behind it was explained to them.

In each of these hands except #3, I think betting is correct. #3 is a tougher hand due to the range of hands a TAG could call with on this flop after coldcalling preflop, and the range of hands TAG could call on the turn.

Hope this analysis hopes some. We aren't just blindly betting into 4-flushes in this situation; it just seems like that. You have to weigh in the tendencies of your opponents, whether they're prone to bluff-raising you, and what their range of hands are. As a default, bet-folding these rivers against your standard, unknown opponent is generally a good line. When handreading and other circumstances make it less likely that your opponent is on a flush draw, then bet-calling is ok. When it seems very possible that your opponent will not call with worse hands but will bluff with them, then check-calling is ok.

Rob

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have said it about a million times in the micro forum, but all it really is form of value betting. Sometimes you will get a better hand to fold, but if you think that the villian will fold a flush you have to rethink your strategy. Sometimes a villian will fold a better pair for example, but in general you should bet good hands like top pair or better on the river for value in these spots. Only check/call when you strongly suspect that the villian has a flush (by this I mean when you think that the villian is holding a suited hand), when the villian is a frequent bluffer and sometimes when the pot is very very large.

Brad