Clarkmeisters Flush Theorem - KTs in SB...

[thirddan]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="666666">5 folds</font>, MP3 calls, CO calls, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, Hero completes, BB checks,

Flop: (4 SB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, MP3 calls, CO calls.

Turn: (3.50 BB) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP3 folds, CO calls.

River: (5.50 BB) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">CO raises</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 7.50 BB, won by CO.</font>
<font color="green">Pot 2: 1 BB, returned to CO.</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
CO doesn't show.
Outcome: CO wins 8.50 BB. </font>

Comments?

Am I misapplying Clark's concept?

[cold_cash]

I don't know what Clark's concept is, but I'll bet it has something to do with a similar hand I played earlier today.

I was in almost the same boat you were with this one, (holding two pair on a 4-flush board). When the 4th diamond hit on the river and my two opponents checked to me, I checked it through. One of them had 22, with the two of diamonds and took it down. I'm sure your situation was a lot different since you were heads up, but maybe the concept you're talking about is for similiar situations.

Afterwards I wasn't thinking too highly of myself. I don't know if he would have folded, but it would have been a tough call for me to make if I was in his shoes.

[MicroBob]

how about a link to this whole flush-theorem of which you speak.

[TRWIII]

I'll second that since I'm unfamiliar with it too. (Not to mention the fact that I always love new poker theorems /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

TRWIII

[thirddan]

Theorem (http://tinyurl.com/3gx4x )


Example (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=772653&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb =5&amp;o=)

[sfer]

Looks fine. The theorem is golden. The fold on the river is incredibly easy.

[Tosh]

It seems right to me.

[TRWIII]

Looks good to me now that I know that theorem.

P.S. Thank you so much for that link. Learning that theorem made my day.

Thanks again,
TRWIII

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Learning that theorem made my day.


[/ QUOTE ]


mine too. excellent stuff.

and your river play looks good to me.

[Bob T.]

No, I think you did fine, but I am pretty sure that CM would have raised preflop with that hand and position.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.

[Warik]

I disagree with the river play. (<font color="red">Warm up flamethrowers</font>)

You are up against the CO and are behind KQ, AK, a set, and any diamond.

1) AK/KQ: CO = LP. AK + KQ = Raise. CO didn't raise. CO doesn't have AK or KQ.

2) A set: He didn't raise the flop. He didn't raise the turn. He doesn't have a set.

3) A diamond: He's not going to fold to your bet - especially in Party 2/4. If he raises, you have to fold (which you did, correctly).

If I'm going to bet out on an ugly board headsup as a bluff that will not get a better hand to fold and fold to a raise, I'd rather check-call. It costs the same and I actually have a chance to win the pot.

If you are betting the river for value thinking he doesn't have a diamond, there's a good chance your check will induce a bluff on his end, thus resulting in the same final pot that you had hoped for when you planned to bet out.

Again, no 2/4 hold'em player is folding a diamond in this hand. I don't like the bet. I think you were worrying too much about winning 1 extra BB and overlooked the fact that there was 5+ sitting there already.

(<font color="red">Engage flamethrowers</font>)

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
The fold on the river is incredibly easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fold isn't the issue. The bet is.

-McGee

[sfer]

I understand that. But part of the genius of the play is you only lose 1 bet.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
But part of the genius of the play is you only lose 1 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not the important part. You can check and call and only lose one bet.

-McGee

[sfer]

I understand. I said "part of."

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But part of the genius of the play is you only lose 1 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not the important part. You can check and call and only lose one bet.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

The thinking (as I understand it) is that by betting you will occasionally extract a bet from a worse hand that would have checked behind you (Hooray! +1 BB!), and occasionally cause a very small flush to fold (Hooray! +However many BBs were in the pot!)

The only drawback to this play would be to do it against an opponent capable of raising the river here without a flush and with a hand worse than yours--a rare bird indeed.

In short, this play kicks much ass.

[Clarkmeister]

"Again, no 2/4 hold'em player is folding a diamond in this hand"

Who said the poster expected this?

Your range of calling hands (better two pair, set, flush)from his opponent is way way too narrow.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
The only drawback to this play would be to do it against an opponent capable of raising the river here without a flush and with a hand worse than yours--a rare bird indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you don't consider being called by someone with the 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif to be a drawback?

Weaker players won't fold their baby flush on this river. Stronger players playing against known strong players will call with a baby flush. If I were against you in the same situation, it would be +EV to call you ever time with the 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif because many times you won't have a flush.

Is there any data to back this up?

i.e. 10,000 identical rivers - remember: "I've been doing it and it's been working for me" shouldn't be good enough when we're trying to prove something.

[Clarkmeister]

"If I were against you in the same situation, it would be +EV to call you ever time with the 2 because many times you won't have a flush."

You are obsessed with this. But you should never fold a one-card flush headsup on the river anyways, so what's the big deal?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said the poster expected this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody. My point is.....

[ QUOTE ]
Your range of calling hands (better two pair, set, flush)from his opponent is way way too narrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

..... that you will be called by a flush or raised by a non-flush too often to justify risking this bet.

The point of this bet is to gain one more BB by being called by a worse hand, is that not right?

What are the possibilities:

1) You get called by a worse hand. +1 BB and a showdown win.
2) You get raised by a worse hand. -1 BB and no showdown.
3) You get called by a flush. -1 BB and a showdown loss.
4) You get raised by a flush. -1 BB and no showdown.
5) You make a flush fold (like I said - Party 2/4 - good luck!)
6) You make a worse hand fold. (+0 BB - you would have won anyway)
7) You get called by a better, non-flush hand. (-1 BB and showdown loss)
8) You get raised by a better, non-flush hand. (-1 BB and no showdown)

It all boils down to the investment. In any of these cases you are investing 1 BB to find out who wins this pot. If you're raised, you fold. If you're called, it's only 1 BB. If the opponent folds, you gain nothing. The problem is that you unnecessarily open yourself up to a counterbluff and you throw away this one BB because you have no choice but to fold.

I don't think a small pot where you are beaten in so many ways by players who are unlikely to fold is the best spot for a stone cold bluff. In fact, I think you extract more from opponents who will bet the river as a bluff when you slow down after the 4th diamond shows up.

I don't know. I could be wrong - any one of us could be wrong, but I don't see the value in this play quite yet. Do you have any math, perhaps, to back this up?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it you don't consider being called by someone with the 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif to be a drawback?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not against check-calling I don't. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
But you should never fold a one-card flush headsup on the river anyways, so what's the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big deal (for you) is that your river bluff when the board is 4-flushed is a donation to me.

[Tosh]

You're ignoring the fact that if you check and call you will hardly ever be calling a bet and winning. All the hands that pay you off check, all the hands that beat you bet.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
The big deal (for you) is that your river bluff when the board is 4-flushed is a donation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point has the player bluffed ?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you should never fold a one-card flush headsup on the river anyways, so what's the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big deal (for you) is that your river bluff when the board is 4-flushed is a donation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, according to your plan of checking and calling, you'd have lost the same amount anyways. We both make the same donation, when our opponent has a diamond. So which is more likely, that he called down with no pair, no diamond, and will bluff the river. Or that he had a pair somewhere along the way with no diamond, is thrilled that he doesn't have to call a river bet, and gladly takes a free showdown?

[PokerNoob]

I like this play with 54o, but with a hand with showdown value that you'll fold to a raise, I'm not so sure. The problem comes when your brainless 2/4 opponent doesn't believe you have a diamond (or KTo) because of your betting pattern. "Oh look, the blind paired the flop. Oh look, he's bluffing the turn. Hey, my QJ paired on the end and he's still betting. Raise!" I would prefer for me to call his non-flush bluff. "Hey, he quit betting on the 4th diamond. He doesn't have one. Even though I don't have one either, he'll fold to a bet, and I can fold to a checkraise just in case."

[Clarkmeister]

It's not just this thread, but in general there is this irrational fear of being bluff raised on these forums.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
All the hands that pay you off check, all the hands that beat you bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this is the entire key to the whole play. I must admit though, everytime I've used it I've been called by a flush. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But, I would hve check / called anyways so it's not that big of deal.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
At what point has the player bluffed ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 4 diamonds on the board. Your bet tells your opponent(s) that you can beat a small flush... or you're bluffing.

[MarkD]

He-Man would bet this river.

Sorry, I just love your avatar. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PokerNoob]

My hypothetical opponent really doesn't think he's bluffing though, he's value betting against what he thinks is your bottom pair, so does that qualify? Personally, I have a bad habit of paying off the river raise. I can count the bluffs I've caught doing that on one hand, and usually you can see them coming from the maniac or looney.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, according to your plan of checking and calling, you'd have lost the same amount anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - but I've guaranteed myself a showdown since my plan is not "bet and fold to a raise" - it's "check and call." If I bet and a worse hand raises as a bluff, I think I've lost more than 1 BB.

[ QUOTE ]
So which is more likely, that he called down with no pair, no diamond, and will bluff the river. Or that he had a pair somewhere along the way with no diamond, is thrilled that he doesn't have to call a river bet, and gladly takes a free showdown?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting the possibility of: "He limped with T/images/graemlins/heart.gif 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif because Terminator 2 is his favorite movie. He flops a pair, so he just HAS to call down and catches the babiest of baby flushes on the river."

I don't have an irrational fear of being bluff raised. My fear is of my value bet becoming valueless by getting a worse hand to fold.

This has happened to me dozens of times: I flop a set on a two-flush board from EP. I bet, some fold, some call. Turn puts the 3rd of the suit on board. I bet, all fold except one, who calls. River is the 4th of the suit.

Shucks.

I check, he bets, I call.

He has top pair, he has middle pair, he has two pair, he has a overcards - whatever. My check induced a bluff and he donated 1 BB. If I had bet, he would have surely folded - I gain nothing. If he checks it through, I still win and gain nothing extra. If he bets as a bluff, I win and gain 1 BB.

We often fall victim to overestimating the skill of our opponents on Party, but I think this is a case of underestimation. I cannot fathom how a player will call a river bet from a player who has been aggressive the whole hand when there is a 4-flush on the board with a worse hand than said bettor enough times to make this play profitable.

This is far different from situations where there is a 4-straight on board or trips on the board. At least now you can think "he needs an X or a Y" - two cards - and you can determine the likelihood of the opponent having them. In this case all he needs is one diamond, and there are plenty of them out there that he would not be out of line to have at this time. Jeez - he could have ATo with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif for all we know.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just this thread, but in general there is this irrational fear of being bluff raised on these forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call way too much on the river because of this. the funny thing is that I've barely ever bluff raised the river, yet I fear a weaker player will do it to me.

it seems like betting with the intention of folding to a raise (assuming you can safely fold to a raise), rather than check-calling, is one of the most useful tactics for these games. not just the river, but in general.

one of my favorite parts about posting here regularly is learning all these sophisticated plays. the most useful thing I've learned here is to call agressive players down with position and a good holding. like AK on a ATT board. it's so simple yet I wouldn't have thought of it on my own.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
He-Man would bet this river.

Sorry, I just love your avatar. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because fabulous secret hand reading powers were revealed to him the day he held aloft his magic sword and... well... you get the picture.

Thanks /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Tosh]

I think you're too obsessed with seeing a showdown. It doesn't matter that much, the information you gain by seeing how he played his cards is all you gain from a showdown.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
We often fall victim to overestimating the skill of our opponents on Party, but I think this is a case of underestimation. I cannot fathom how a player will call a river bet from a player who has been aggressive the whole hand when there is a 4-flush on the board with a worse hand than said bettor enough times to make this play profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me, they call. I would estimate that Clarkmeister has made me an extra 15-20BB a month from this concept alone.

[sublime]

I call way too much on the river because of this. the funny thing is that I've barely ever bluff raised the river, yet I fear a weaker player will do it to me.

Sounds like me /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[MarkD]

I'd estimate you are overestimating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't think this situation comes up that often.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd estimate you are overestimating. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't think this situation comes up that often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a little bit but playing online all these situations come up so much more frequently.

[Ponks]

Either that or it means you think your opponent doesnt have the flush and that you infact think you have the best hand.

Ponks

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, they call. I would estimate that Clarkmeister has made me an extra 15-20BB a month from this concept alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure some people call sometimes. Hey, maybe a lot of people call a lot of times.

HOWEVER, I think that people will bluff the river with a weaker hand more often than they will call a river bet on a 4-flush board with no flush. There is more to be made that way than this way.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, I think that people will bluff the river with a weaker hand more often than they will call a river bet on a 4-flush board with no flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually believe that the opposite is true.

[Tosh]

Induce a bluff from what? The opponent seems certain to have some kind of pair. Perhaps he had a pocket pair and has now fallen into a flush or perhaps he never had a diamond. Either way he's extremely likely to only bet if he has a diamond.

If you're going to call a bet, just bet, it makes a lot more sense.