Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Am I the only one here who has heard of clarkmeister's theorem? I guess so

Well applied

For those of you who are unfamiliar with it. clarkmeister's theorem is a situational theorem where there is 4 of a suit on the board, you are HU and, OOP.

What clarkeister suggests is, despite the fact is -EV any way you play it, betting out is less -EV then just check-calling because you have some fold equity.

Once again, nice hand

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Flop on is perfect. I bet this river almost every time (unless I know for sure that my opponent is incapable of folding).

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is horrible. Just because betting is the only way you can win doesn't mean you should bet.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Don't you think your opponent folds here often enough at .50/1.00 with no [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] to make this +EV?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one here who has heard of clarkmeister's theorem? I guess so

Well applied

For those of you who are unfamiliar with it. clarkmeister's theorem is a situational theorem where there is 4 of a suit on the board, you are HU and, OOP.

What clarkeister suggests is, despite the fact is -EV any way you play it, betting out is less -EV then just check-calling because you have some fold equity.

Once again, nice hand

[/ QUOTE ]

i've heard of the Theorem, but i thought you had to have some sort of hand to make this play? i didn't know it was to be applied to a pure bluff. and wouldn't a read be necessary whether he'd fold or not?

playing last night, i saw a number of players fold for a single bet, so maybe it would work enough times to be +EV. my luck they always call [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Clarkmeister's theorem was meant to be applied when you have a hand. It's primary purpose is to prevent your opponent from checking behind with a hand that you beat. If he folds a better hand, that's just gravy.

In this case, I don't think villain will fold often enough in this case to make a bet +EV. Hero lucked out.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
despite the fact is -EV any way you play it, betting out is less -EV then just check-calling because you have some fold equity.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously betting out is better than check-calling. But if they're both -EV, check/fold.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister's theorem was meant to be applied when you have a hand. It's primary purpose is to prevent your opponent from checking behind with a hand that you beat. If he folds a better hand, that's just gravy

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe my results are not typical but I find that at least 1 in 4 times or so most opponents will fold with a 4 flush on the board. In this case it would only need to be successful about 1 time in 7. You are obviously have no showdown value here and a bluff in this situation rarely needs to be successful for this to be profitable. Besides I don't want them to believe me when I do have the flush [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is horrible. Just because betting is the only way you can win doesn't mean you should bet.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Don't you think your opponent folds here often enough at .50/1.00 with no [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] to make this +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea whether the river bet is +EV. But you get the, "Can only win if you bet" justification for bluffs and it sucks. You judge a bluff based on the % time you get your opponent to fold and the pot size.

Say I'm sandwiched between 2 players with a nut flush draw. They cap the flop and turn. I miss. Should I bet the river because it's the only chance I have to pick up the pot.

Krishan

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Paradise Poker 1/2 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. CO posts a blind of $1.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">MP1 raises</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, CO (poster) calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, CO calls.

Flop: (14 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">MP1 raises</font>, CO folds, Hero calls.

Turn: (9 BB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP1 bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (11 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 folds.

Final Pot: 12 BB

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

With 9 clubs left in the deck and 45 total cards left, the chances that he was dealt a club are (9/45)+(9/44) ~ 40% (correct my math if I made a mistake). Even if he calls with a club in the top half of remaining clubs, he's still calling about 20% of the time. It would be a fantastically weak-tightie to only call with the top third or top quarter. In my experience, villains call with the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or even less in this spot.