This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Clarkmeister correct applied?

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB checks.

Flop: (5.50 SB) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 folds, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises</font>, Button folds, BB folds, Hero calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (6.75 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP3 folds.

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

i'm confused or missing something or just plain stupid....what EXACTLY do you have in this hand to bet that river for?

was this play based on a read?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

You should at least have some hand...this is just a stone cold bluff.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm confused or missing something or just plain stupid....what EXACTLY do you have in this hand to bet that river for?

was this play based on a read?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

While this hand isn't a good example of much it is a good reminder that there are times when the only way you can win is by betting.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While this hand isn't a good example of much it is a good reminder that there are times when the only way you can win is by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Krishan

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this hand isn't a good example of much it is a good reminder that there are times when the only way you can win is by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I edited out the part where I made it clearer that I only meant the river bet. I don't think people use that play often enough. Especially against multitabling rocks who are really vulnerable to it.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

First of all you shouldn't be playing this hand in early or middle positions.
The flop I would have check-called.
Clarkmiesters theorem is when you are HU and first to act and the fourth flush card falls on the river, then you bet. So with that in mind the answer to your question is, yes. This was a Clarkmiester. Did you play it well? No. But that wasn't your question.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Easy river bet.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

This preflop call would get you labeled as a fish.

I don't clerkmesiter without a hand that is or beats TPGK.

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.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister correct applied?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - this is just a river bluff.

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is right, as it would invalidate his theorem. Open-folding is 0 EV too. Should you do that every time a 4-flush hits on the river?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I would fold. But heads up with a four flush I think there is often value in a river bet.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is right, as it would invalidate his theorem. Open-folding is 0 EV too. Should you do that every time a 4-flush hits on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me why you're following a theorem you think tells you to take -EV action?

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

Since you asked [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I believe to calculate the odds an opponent has a club (since the two cards are not mutually exclusive) you need to determine the odds that your opponent does not have a club and subtract that from 100%.

1-36/45*35/44=.3636 or around 36.4%. Even if the opponent always calls with any club the river bluff will be successful nearly 2/3 of the time. Most opponents would call with more hands but still it doesn't have to be successful that often (and is easily folded to a raise).

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I believe to calculate the odds an opponent has a club (since the two cards are not mutually exclusive) you need to determine the odds that your opponent does not have a club and subtract that from 100%.

1-36/45*35/44=.3636 or around 36.4%. Even if the opponent always calls with any club the river bluff will be successful nearly 2/3 of the time. Most opponents would call with more hands but still it doesn't have to be successful that often (and is easily folded to a raise).

[/ QUOTE ]

You correctly calculated the chance that a random hand has a club, but the chance he has a club or any other hand he'll call with is drastically increased by the fact that he hasn't misseed a single bet postflop.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is right, as it would invalidate his theorem. Open-folding is 0 EV too. Should you do that every time a 4-flush hits on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me why you're following a theorem you think tells you to take -EV action?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand Clarkmeister's idea correctly, then no matter what you do, it will be -EV. Betting just happens to have an EV that is the least negative.

This all assumes that the 3 conditions for the theorem are met. Namely: 1. you're HU 2. You're in first position 3. a 4th flush card hits on the river.

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

So, if clarkmeister is correct, then check/folding must be -EV as well.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

folding always has an EV of 0.

Krishan

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is right, as it would invalidate his theorem. Open-folding is 0 EV too. Should you do that every time a 4-flush hits on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me why you're following a theorem you think tells you to take -EV action?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand Clarkmeister's idea correctly, then no matter what you do, it will be -EV. Betting just happens to have an EV that is the least negative.

This all assumes that the 3 conditions for the theorem are met. Namely: 1. you're HU 2. You're in first position 3. a 4th flush card hits on the river.

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

So, if clarkmeister is correct, then check/folding must be -EV as well.

[/ 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.

Re: This was a Clarkmeister, was it?
 

[ 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?

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.