Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

I'm not saying it's the best line here, but I check call the river even if I don't make the flush. I guess I'm just not a good enough poker player to fold my top set for one bet on the river.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he's calling/raising all better hands and folding almost all worse hands, probably isn't bluff raising worse hands but might bluff bet if you check, and the occasional times he does bluff raise it's disastrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Bet/fold would be better if you had a pair of tens or something but still not a good idea b/c of the straight possibility.

By check-calling you can get paid by hands like a pair of tens or nines or 2 pairs etc or a pure bluff.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]
The river eats nuts. He's never folding a straight for fear of a flush, and he's raising his flush. The only hands he's folding are one and two pair hands and turn bluffs, which you beat.

The definition of the clarkmeister has gotten skewed by a lot of people. It's a very specific situation in which you led the whole way with a set.. like jason said, once you lose the lead just check-call the river (or check-fold if you have some insanely good read).

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a pretty good read on the player. He was definitely a TAG, and almost certainly perceived me as one too, as we had played for a while and essentially stayed out of each other's way. Once that river was raised, I had absolutely no doubt he had a high flush, if not the nut flush. So as it played out, I don't think the river made much of a difference.

Now I believe that the key was the turn. Because the turn made the board so drawy - and I could not possibly protect the hand - I believe that the better line may have been c/c both turn and river.

I was interested to hear the Clarkmeister comments, though. I hadn't realized that he was only talking about a situation where a person has the lead on each prior street, or that it has less applicaton against a TAG. Truth is I bet the river here without thinking the line through, and merely because I saw "CLARKMEISTER" go off in red lights in my head.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]
By check-calling you can get paid by hands like a pair of tens or nines or 2 pairs etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain might call with those hands if you bet, but he's probably not betting them if you check to him. As I understand it, that's the main rationale for betting these sorts of rivers. The board is so scary that many villains will check behind with hands you beat but will make a crying call if you bet.

In other words, this is a spot where villain will call with more hands than he'll bet. Hence the river bet.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

From what I remember this play wouldnt fit to the original clarkmeister, because you Do have a flush here. I think it goes like that:

the 4th card of a suit just came
you dont have a flush
its heads up
you are first to act

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

Reread the post. All of those circumstances apply. I don't have a flush.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

Yes, he has a FOUR Flush. Check the board again.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

yes, my mistake

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

Not good without the flush. You forgot you were calling the turn because you wanted to fill up. Not because you thought your hand had any value. Check fold the river.

Krishan

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now I believe that the key was the turn. Because the turn made the board so drawy - and I could not possibly protect the hand - I believe that the better line may have been c/c both turn and river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aweful.

Krishan