3/6 T5o - Clarkmeister Theorem?

mannika · #1 04-26-2005, 07:29 PM

This the right time for CMT?

Villain is 57/3/0.4 over 37 hands

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (8 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
3 folds, MP2 calls, 3 folds, Hero checks.

Flop: (2.33 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 calls.

Turn: (2.16 BB) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 calls.

River: (4.16 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 7.16 BB

ErrantNight · #2 04-26-2005, 07:34 PM

while on the whole, i like clarkmeister's theorem... i kinda want to show this down if i'm investing one more. river bluffs aren't common, so i'm fine with the fold, but when he just calls the turn bet, what does he have? i'm not sure a worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

but since you bet, easy fold

Redeye · #3 04-26-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with check-call is that you're probably beat 140% of the time when this guy bets into you on the river and hero's hand is good enough to showdown. I just don't think your getting raised on the river w/o a really good flush or maybe even a boat.

brazilio · #4 04-26-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
worse hand calls this river. it's close between check/call and check/fold with this passive bastard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with check-call is that you're probably beat 140% of the time when this guy bets into you on the river and hero's hand is good enough to showdown. I just don't think your getting raised on the river w/o a really good flush or maybe even a boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You're saying that there's a -40% chance of a bluff if you check to him? That's ridiculous.

ErrantNight · #5 04-26-2005, 08:02 PM

i edited my post enough times that i ultimately was a bit misleading. check/calling is alright only if this opponent will bluff/bet the river a fair portion of the time. sort of an inverse clark theorem. even passive opponents have fun little quirks like this... basically, my perception is that people who are watching the action and their hand and the board, only, go "i was calling unless a fourth flush card fell, oh no! there it fell! i'm fol... wait a second, it was checked to me! he's afraid, bet!"

of course, some of those fish just go "thank god, i can show down for free!" or "every time i get checked to and bet, i get check/raised!" and another great big portion of the time... he's got the friggin' flush.

so i still lean check/fold, but i don't like bet/fold here. if you're putting in another bet, i'd rather attempt to induce a bluff. i don't think you fold better hands with a bet, and i don't think you get called by any worse hands, either.

Entity · #6 04-27-2005, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
and i don't think you get called by any worse hands, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get called by so many worse hands on boards like this, in general, that it isn't funny. When I review my hand histories I'm amazed by the number of times I get called with A2o.

Rob

rmarotti · #7 04-26-2005, 08:10 PM

I'd just like to point out that Clarkmeister's theorem calls for a bet here 100% of the time. Asking "is this a good time to apply Clarkmeister's Theorem" when all three conditions are met means the answer is yes, or you think the theorem is crap.

ErrantNight · #8 04-26-2005, 08:10 PM

you don't think the top pair on a low, raggedy board, pairing on the turn, alters things at all?

rmarotti · #9 04-26-2005, 08:17 PM

No, and I don't think Clarkmeister does either. I'm looking for the OP because IIRC it's pretty clear.

rmarotti · #10 04-26-2005, 08:26 PM

Here's the earliest record I can find. Straight from the horse's mouth