Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it is assumed that you actually have a hand worth showing down.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same thing as saying check/calling is +EV.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
folding always has an EV of 0.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

What about if you fold a pot that you would have won?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
folding always has an EV of 0.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

What about if you fold a pot that you would have won?

[/ QUOTE ]

0 EV. Because you gain 0 dollars. Obviously not folding a hand you would win is +EV because you gain positive dollars.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
folding always has an EV of 0.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

What about if you fold a pot that you would have won?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, expectation is 0. I'm pretty sure regardless of the outcome of the hand, if I fold I don't get any money. I'm not saying folding is always the best line. (Just in case that's what you thought I was saying)

Krishan

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


you are confusing -EV on a single street with a -EV play. given a non-zero pot on the river, a -EV for one street play can become +EV (as in calling one bet in a 20 BB pot with only a 10% chance to win).

check-folding is *always* zero EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright, so in clarkmeister's theorem, betting is -EV, but the whole street is +EV? Is that what youre saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

it varies too much to say. two pair could make money on a 4 flush river.

don't think about clark theorem.. just think about a "crying call" type of example.

a 20 BB pot and you've been betting the whole way with some one pair hand.

on the river, your opponent unexpectedly bets (its HU).

you think you are good 10% of the time.. so you call.

- on the river, you have 10% equity, but put in 50% of the money.. you *lost* money on that street.

- going forward however, you have enough equity to make that river call.. so it was an +EV decision.

==

in clark's theorem (or any OOP river HU decision), you should be more inclined to bet if your opponent will check behind hands that you beat, but bet hands that beat you. if you are so far behind that both check-call and bet are -EV, you should check-fold.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

I think I fold this turn.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

why are you calling it preflop?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not too thrilled about playing 57s UTG, nor about semibluffing an OESD into 4 .5/1 opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's not semibluffing, it's betting for value

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This preflop call would get you labeled as a fish.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, I knew replies like this will come.
But it was a really loose-passive table and I openend up a little from early position since it got like never raised preflop and many people to the flop. (This hand was a rare exception with only 5 to the flop)

I didn't thought about posting this information because I mainly was unsure about if this was a clarkmeister.

I didn't yet know that you need some showdown value for that.
In this case it was just a bluff, alright! Thanks guys.