Clarkmeister definition?

[onthebutton]

I'm kind of new here, have heard this term thrown around. Can anyone enlighten me?

[droolie]

When you are OOP HU on the river and the fourth flush card hits bet out no matter wou have.

[jrz1972]

You're heads-up, out of position on the river. The river card puts four to a flush on the board, but you don't have the flush. According to the Clarkmeister Theorem, you should bet and fold to a raise.

[kapw7]

Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river and he bets OOP raise him with nothing.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
but you don't have the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt part of it.

You bet regardless of whether or not you have a flush.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You're heads-up, out of position on the river. The river card puts four to a flush on the board, but you don't have the flush. According to the Clarkmeister Theorem, you should bet and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's part of it. Everyone keeps saying it, but nobody has ever been able to show me where Clark says that.

And it was already pointed out that "have the flush" isn't part of the play, either.

[onthebutton]

Nice...thanks. I knew how to do it, I just didn't know the name for it. I'll have to look into this Clarkmeister's Theorem.

[JordanIB]

Why?

[A_C_Slater]

Why does it have to be the river? Can't it be used HU OOP on the turn when a 4th flush card hits? The intent behind this therom I believe is that if the pot has say 5 BB's in it and you bet the opponent almost can't call without a flush at that point. He might call, but will he not have a flush more than 1 in 5 times? Most likely he will not. Of course, the bigger the pot, the greater the EV+ of this play.

[A_C_Slater]

I would like to add that I always use this play when presented the opportunity and the fold ratio is amazing, beyond my expectation.

[A_C_Slater]

More on this theorem I believe you are not supposed to bet if you have a small one card flush. Say the board is A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, you should not bet, but check/call.

What better hand is going to fold? You will only cause a worse hand to fold by betting. And if you had a hand like A /images/graemlins/club.gif 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif then you should bet in order to fold out hands like A /images/graemlins/heart.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
More on this theorem I believe you are not supposed to bet if you have a small one card flush. Say the board is A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, you should not bet, but check/call.
What better hand is going to fold? You will only cause a worse hand to fold by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?/images/graemlins/confused.gif You have a draw to a straight flush.

[xenthebrain]

[ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river and he bets OOP raise him with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river bet OOP and if he raises (probably with nothing) reraise him. Do you have the guts?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More on this theorem I believe you are not supposed to bet if you have a small one card flush. Say the board is A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, you should not bet, but check/call.
What better hand is going to fold? You will only cause a worse hand to fold by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?/images/graemlins/confused.gif You have a draw to a straight flush.

[/ QUOTE ]


This scenario occurs on the river. Notice the 5 board cards.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river and he bets OOP raise him with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river bet OOP and if he raises (probably with nothing) reraise him. Do you have the guts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then... from now on whenever I'm playing a 2+2 er and he beats OOP on the river 4flush I'm to going to raise and then cap a 3bet!

That'll show em.

[xenthebrain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river and he bets OOP raise him with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or better, when you play against a 2+2er and there is a 4th flush falling on the river bet OOP and if he raises (probably with nothing) reraise him. Do you have the guts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then... from now on whenever I'm playing a 2+2 er and he beats OOP on the river 4flush I'm to going to raise and then cap a 3bet!

That'll show em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll call and win with ace high.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


This scenario occurs on the river. Notice the 5 board cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry alcohol and good cards have fuelled my sarcasm. Damn, I prepared a better reply but your post was too decent and cool to use it.

[xenthebrain]

But seriously, shouldn't one have at least a hand with showdown value for Clarkmeister's Theorem?

I think it's purpose was not only getting the other one to fold, but to not allow your opponent to value-bet the holding he beats you with and checking the hand which doesn't.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to add that I always use this play when presented the opportunity and the fold ratio is amazing, beyond my expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just keep in mind that the play is actually a value bet with what may be the best, but a marginal, hand, such as TPTK. The theory is that only a big flush (A, K, maybe Q) will ever raise. Most made flushes will simply call. But many 2nd best, non-flush hands will also call your bet. These 2nd best hands would in most cases have checked through the river in a heartbeat and you miss a bet. If Villain doesn't have a flush, there's a chance he folds a hand that beats you; but there's also a chance he folds a hand you had beat anyway.

[El Cuchara]

this doesn't make sense to me slater, why would you bet/fold if you don't have the flush, but then check/call if you do have the flush?? If only a hand that beats you would call, then why would you bet in the first place?

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it. The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask Clark. I'm just a parrot.

Serioulsy though there are a couple of exceptions I can think of when betting is not correct (usually read based that villian will bet more hands he'll call with and you have a good but not great hand) but as a rule of thumb it's a pretty good one. You can bet with a nut flush or low flush. You can bet with bupkiss. It will be very tough for villian to raise without a flush or better. It will be even tougher for villian to call without a flush giving you a great chance to get a better hand to fold. If you have a good read on the player it will guide your thought process on whether to bet/call or bet/fold. Auto-folding to a raise is potentially a HUGE mistake. The key is that if you always bet you are very difficult to read in these spots, yes even against a 2+2er.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it . The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only me then. Cheers! Hick!
Good fold but if you still wonder then you should probably call.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't make sense to me slater, why would you bet/fold if you don't have the flush, but then check/call if you do have the flush?? If only a hand that beats you would call, then why would you bet in the first place?

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it. The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet is intended to make them fold, not call. And this is in no way applicable to NL where any size bet can be made. It applies to limit only, where you are usually risking 1 bet to win 6 or 7 banking on the fact that villian won't have a flush 1 in X amount of times and forcing them to make a tough a call with a better hand than yours because you are representing a flush. But if you do have a flush then you have a hand with showdown value and you don't want to be raised off the best hand (by someone who may know of this theory, but against a donk you might bet.)

It no limit you will rarely get such good fold equity for a OOP bet in this situation.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
Auto-folding to a raise is potentially a HUGE mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Auto-folding as anything eslse auto- (calling, betting etc) is always a bad play. But folding is what makes this (Clarkmeister) play worthwhile.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2562275&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2562275&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sending this. Or maybe not? So I can't raise the average 2+2er anymore with nothing when he bets OOP with a 4-flush on the river?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2562275&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're not talking about my example hand. I know that example may very well be a value bet. But what about a situation like you have 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif on a A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif flop and the turn brings a 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you bet OOP, then there is a wide range of better hands that may fold.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2562275&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're not talking about my example hand. I know that example may very well be a value bet. But what about a situation like you have 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif on a A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif flop and the turn brings a 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif and you bet OOP, then there is a wide range of better hands that may fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 things:

(1) That's not an application of Clarkmeister's Theorem. The requirements are: (i) HU; (ii) OOP; (iii) 4th flush card falls on the river.

(2) The underlying function of the Clarkmeister is to make a value bet -- you think you have the best hand at showdown unless Villain hit a one-card flush on the the river. We bet because the many hands that we beat are far, far more likely to check through when the 4th flush card hits, and many hands we lose to (including the one-card flush) will not raise our bet (if they do, depending on the opponent, we might call the raise or fold to it). The post I linked to makes this clear (I think) -- many, many more people that we are beating are calling our bet than are betting when checked to. By failing to bet the river, we are missing a bet; if we think we probably have the best non-flush hand, we are risking the same 1 BB we would risk by check-calling, and the likelihood of being raised is both somewhat small and/or depending on our read pretty easy to deal with.

My point is that the Theorem is about betting our hand for value - it is not about bluffing to make a better hand fold. In the hand you describe, do you really think your 88 is better than opponent's hand with AJxx four-flush? If not, you're bluffing, hoping he folds. May be a fine play, but not an application of the Theorem.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody has ever been able to show me where clark says that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never did.

If you get raised, it's generally a good idea to fold, but far from always. Sometimes, one just needs to play some poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Getting a better hand to fold is definitely a consideration in the Theorem. It only needs to happen rarely to add tremendous value. It's a combination "value-bluff".