Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things

[Rubeskies]

Villain is 48/20/1.8
UTG is unknown

My question is two-fold.

1.) Looking back now I think I probably should have 3-bet the turn right?
2.) The way I played it, should I Clarkmeister this river?


Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, MP calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (4 SB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, MP calls, SB folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, UTG calls, MP calls.

Turn: (6.50 BB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, MP folds, Hero calls.

River: (10.50 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero?

[kiddo]

With those stats u probably should 3bet turn.

What is a clarkmeister? If it is calling a bet, u should do it, specially since u didnt 3bet/got capped on turn.

If it is bet, hope he folds, u shouldnt (of course, it cant be that I guess).

[TMFS9]

yeah, I think you must bet/fold the river, and I think 3 betting the turn might be close depending.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]

What is a clarkmeister?

If it is bet, hope he folds, u shouldnt (of course, it cant be that I guess).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Clarkmeister is betting when out of position on the river when the fourth flush card hits if you are planning on calling a river bet anyway.

[TMFS9]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is bet, hope he folds, u shouldnt (of course, it cant be that I guess).


[/ QUOTE ]

It's bet/fold the river because most worst hands will check behind but might call a bet, while better hands will bet. Therefore in this situation IMO check/calling is the worst of your options.

[josh1122]

I think this is an easy turn 3bet, your ahead here most of the time and have odds to catch up if not.

Given the way you played it, I think I like check/call the river given that he is rather LAG (But I have never been really comfortable with the Clarkmeister so Im not so sure about this line).

[josh1122]

EDIT: [censored] my bad, I read villian is 48/20/1.8 and assume that UTG is the villian.

Why did you refer to someone else as villian when UTG is the only one with action in the hand?

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
It's bet/fold the river because most worst hands will check behind but might call a bet, while better hands will bet. Therefore in this situation IMO check/calling is the worst of your options.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also thought villain had 40/20/2, against such a player I dont like betting this river and folding if he raises. If he is really aggressive he could raise 2pair on river, hoping we fold small flush.

But ok, lets say he is unknown:

A set is a really strong hand, u are saying check-call river is worst option. But isnt not seeing showdown against unknown player with a set headsup worst option?

If we had a read on this player as predictable, ok, I can see a bet-fold. But against unknown?

Isnt clarkmeisters theorem about when we bet all way and river puts 4flush on board? Not when we are raised on turn by a possible flush (but maybe something else)? Im asking, I dont know. (but it seems to make more sense)

[Rubeskies]

Oops, my mistake.

UTG is the one with the stats, MP is the unknown. Sorry for the confusion.

It is my understanding that the Clarkmeister theorem is betting when the fourth flush card comes regardless of the action, even if you've been raised as long as you were going to call a bet anyway. There are exceptions to the theorem vs. various players and I was wondering if this is one of them.

[ArturiusX]

Unless I'm up against a habitual bluffer here I play it the same.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I'm up against a habitual bluffer here I play it the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play it the same, what is your river action?

[kiddo]

Okay, with a 40/20/2 I want a showdown. (But I also 3bet turn I think, but not necesarilly, depends on other reads then pure stats)

Havent really thought a lot about this clarkmeisterbet, but will do it now.

[jba]

my understanding of the clarkmeister thing is that you have initiative. after the initiative is taken from you I don't think it makes very much sense, because non flush hands are much more likely to fold if you steal the initiative back.

I think I 3bet the turn though.

[colgin]

If you assume that neither a baby flush nor a straight ever folds here (which I would) I think that check-calling is preferable.

Pros of betting:

1. Get a crying call from a hand like JT, but probably not many others (i.e., others that he villain can reasonablyhave here).

Cons of betting:

1. Could get bluff raised out of pot by loose-aggressiveish player.
2. Could pay off extra bet when beat because of uncertainty of 1. above.
3. Could fold a worse hand that might have bluffed.
4. Charge yourself a bet to see a showdown froma hand like a straight or baby flush that might have checked through here. (I will note that this is inconsistent with 1. above so maybe these two are either/ors.)

If you think you have some fold equity, and can safely fold to a raise, then betting looks better. However, with the information you gave us here I would check-call.

[Lmn55d]

Clarkmeister theorem usually should not be used against a 48/20/1.8. Especially when the pot is this big. Against aggressive players like this, check/call is way better.

[TMFS9]

[ QUOTE ]
A set is a really strong hand, u are saying check-call river is worst option. But isnt not seeing showdown against unknown player with a set headsup worst option?

[/ QUOTE ]

I take back saying check/calling is the worst option, but I still don't like it. I just think that most people overestimate the number of times that someone will raise this river with a worse hand. Will they do it yes, but not very often in my experience.

Wouldnt the thereom be not applicable when your hand likely beats all non-flush hands?

Furthermore, if someone made a non-nut flush on the turn, and the pot gets big, they almost never seem to fold it to a river donk. However, on the otherside of things, if they stumbled upon a weak flush on the river, there is a chance they will fold it, albeit a small one.

"Furthermore, if someone made a non-nut flush on the turn, and the pot gets big, they almost never seem to fold it to a river donk [when another suit of theirs comes in, putting 4 suits on board]"

[TMFS9]

[ QUOTE ]
"Furthermore, if someone made a non-nut flush on the turn, and the pot gets big, they almost never seem to fold it to a river donk [when another suit of theirs comes in, putting 4 suits on board]"

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not trying to fold better hands by betting.

If you bet the 4-of-a-suit river regardless of your holdings, what are you trying to do then sometimes?

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet the 4-of-a-suit river regardless of your holdings, what are you trying to do then sometimes?


[/ QUOTE ]

Making them call with a hand they would have checked behind with. If u are going to checkcall anyway, its same price when they are ahead and +1BB when they would have checked a worse hand.

Suppose you have ten high (no flush), then it wouldnt apply would it?

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you have ten high (no flush), then it wouldnt apply would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It only applies when you are planning on calling a bet anyway.