Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

[ 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?

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

[ 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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

"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]"

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

[ 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.

Re: Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things
 

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