damn you, clarkmeister
 

Villain is a TAG.

I get 2 red 10s in the bb.

MP calls. CO raises. Folded to me. I reraise.
MP folds, and CO calls.

Flop 10c9s8c. I bet, co calls.

Turn is 7c. I bet? Villain raises. Groan. I call.

River is 2c. I bet. CO raises, I fold.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

I play it the same.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

I'd bet the turn. I don't understand the river bet, someone needs to link to the clarkmeister thread, I'm not sure if I've ever read it properly.

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.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

Clarkmeister is least applicable when HU agaisnt TAGs. There is no reason to bet this river besides that Clark sais to. He will not fold anything that beats you ever. c/c this river.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

After you lost the lead on the turn, check/call the river.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

I havn't read the other responses yet, but i think you played that very well. I like every line of that. I will be interested to see other's thoughts.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

check call the river, what do u put him on that beats you tho. JT, maybe KJ or AJ, cant think of anything else. but i would have expected some action on the flop with an OESD from a TAG I would almost tend to lean that he was a smaller set or two pair?

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

ok, the only reason i don't worry about the river line is that at lower stakes i find almost no TAG opponents will raise that river without beating your hand. And many will bet on a steal so you will have to call. The question is, do more weaker hands call your bet that would have checked than weaker hands that would have bet the river for you to call.
If you can give your opponent credit for the river raise witha bluff then you have a whole new discussion, here, i did not.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

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).

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

every one seems to think that you're trying to push villian off a hand. you're trying to prevent him from checking it through. That said, I don't see it as a being significant +ev move (even assuming you never get pushed off the best hand) and could lead to great self doubt, arguments with girlfriends, binge drinking, etc.

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

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't there some value in check/calling the river when we're against a worse set, 77-99? Or are all of these raising the flop or checking behind on the river?

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

If you feel you have to call the river bet then betting out is clearly better. However you might be able to find a c/f here given your read. It's disturbing that so many in this thread feel you are trying to push this guy off a hand rather than stop a check through (one consequence of the split?).

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel you have to call the river bet then betting out is clearly better. However you might be able to find a c/f here given your read. It's disturbing that so many in this thread feel you are trying to push this guy off a hand rather than stop a check through (one consequence of the split?).

[/ QUOTE ]

you say absolutely nothing in this post to support your claim that betting is "clearly" better. How about at least a hand range, or some logic behind your reasoning? I would like you to mention a couple of hands in his range that could possibly call our value bet --- this is what you mean when you say you want to stop a check-through, right? your condescension is worse for this forum than people discussing pushing weak hands to fold, IMHO, though I agree with you that isn't happening here at least they give some reasoning.

Here's my reasoning for liking a check/call. We 3bet preflop, and then called a raise on a four straight turn. I think our turn call tightens up our range quite a bit from villains perspective and he's going to think we're on some kind of a draw (boat or flush) or a J-hi straight. the only boat draw we can reasonably have is TT. In other words as soon as that last club hits we have the worst possible hand that villain could put us on. another way to word this is that villain fears us much more than he would if could see our hand.

the point of the clarkmeister bet is usually to get value from hands that we beat that are going to cowardly check behind. However in some circumstances there may be more hands that beat us that check behind than hands we beat that check behind, and in those cases we can often save a bet.

if villain has a J-hi straight here, the only hand he can get value from if he bets is TT

I think if villain is smart he's checking behind straights and Q/J high flushes. This is a lot of bets we save by check/call. The tradeoff is we might miss bets from worse hands that will call our bet but check behind. do such hands exist though??? I submit there are many less like that than there are Jx hands that are going to check behind for us.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

The clarkmeister is for when you reach the river with the initiative and your opponent's hand range is wide. You bet to maximize value from his worst hands instead of checking and letting him play nearly correctly by checking behind almost everything you are ahead of.

I think you have a pretty safe c/f vs a TAG on this river.

Surf

edit: and you HAVE to bet the turn.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

This discussion makes much more sense to me when I go back and see that 1 of the cards is a spade.

For some reason I thought all 5 cards were clubs and I spent the rest of the thread trying to figure out what the hell everyone in this thread was smoking.

Re: damn you, clarkmeister
 

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

TAGs bet more hands than they call with.
I agree that its unlikely to bluff bet this but it's also unlikely to call with a pair.
If you want to invest 1 bet on this river then I prefer to c/c than b/f
TAGs are probably aware of the Clark play and they might try a bluff raise here (I will definitely try it against a 2p2er not this board tho).

EDIT: I missed that we were raised on the turn here. The only likely hand that we beat is a pair or a smaller set if they haven't made a flush.