3/6 T5o - Clarkmeister Theorem?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, then why is it generally agreed upon that a monster non-flush hand should be check/calling the river? I've never seen anybody advocating a Clarkmeister when I've got the nut straight on a 4-flush board. If what you're saying is true, then Clarkmeister should occur in every instance of every hand regardless, and it's simply a leak that we're unable to fold our non-flush hand (when it gets raised to our bet).


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is it generally agreed upon that monster non-flush hands (and on a 4-flushed board, most hands aren't monsters) should be check-called?

I've seen it argued that they should be bet-called, but that's opponent-dependent and potsize-depdendent. I've never seen someone argue for a check-call on a 4-flush against a passive opponent though.

Rob

[Entity]

[ 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

[brazilio]

I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find me a link. I'd be interested, because I can't remember many threads where good posters (the qualification matters) advocate a check-call on this sort of board with any non-flushed hand.

Rob

[Entity]

Link to Clarkmeister's theorem.

That's not the first time it was mentioned, but it was the first time I ever read about it.

[ QUOTE ]
A month or two ago Clarkmeister repeated something in a post that he's said before about betting when out of position and the fourth flush card (and you don't have any of those) hits on the river.

Since then I've been doing that a lot more. And every now and again someone who probably has a better hand than mine folds. That's always cool. But the part that has me really surprised is how often I'm getting called down by worse hands that would have almost certainly checked behind.

If you haven't taken this piece of advice to heart, you should.

Thanks, Clark!

[/ QUOTE ]

That post is from El Diablo, FWIW.

The bluff aspect comes up occasionally, I'll grant, but the main aspect of it is that people will call with worse hands much more often.

Rob

[brazilio]

I think the last time it was discussed where I was reading that was in the micros, so I think you can reserve judgement on their qualifications. All the threads I've found with that advice are located there. Search term +"Clarkmeister's Theorem" +"check/call" will pop up about ten or so I found. If that's true, then a lot of people are misapplying it.

edit: Didn't check anything other than SS and the micros.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the last time it was discussed where I was reading that was in the micros, so I think you can reserve judgement on their qualifications. All the threads I've found with that advice are located there. Search term +"Clarkmeister's Theorem" +"check/call" will pop up about ten or so I found. If that's true, then a lot of people are misapplying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point me to links where people advocate a check-call? It's a flat-out misapplication of the theory.

There are situations where a check-call is correct, and situations where a bet-call is correct. In general, though, a bet-fold is the best line on rivers like these, with the exception being when you can narrow your opponent's range of hands down to a flush draw.

Rob

[brazilio]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=2046562
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=2010996
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=1587578
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=1543307

You mentioned alternating a bet/fold and check/call in the last thread, but you explained that.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=2046562
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=2010996
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=1587578
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=1543307

You mentioned alternating a bet/fold and check/call in the last thread, but you explained that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain is loose-aggressive in hand #1. The whole hand was played badly, but on the river, you do not bet into a player capable of bluff-raising (and loose-aggressive players are often capable of this) with a strong hand with the intention of folding. If villain is passive, this is another story.

In #2, villain played the hand like a flush draw that got there on the turn and got scared on the river. Checking with the intention of folding is much better than checking with the intention of calling in it. Bet-folding is a close second to check-folding. Check-calling this river is a pretty distant third to me.

Villain is a TAG in hand #3, and is not only capable of bluff-raising, but will not call often with a worse hand. The bet is bad. Check-calling to induce a bluff is ok, but not great, given a smallish pot.

In #4, several good posters advocated a bet-fold and liked the hand. Two didn't understand the point of a bet-fold, but never responded once the theory behind it was explained to them.

In each of these hands except #3, I think betting is correct. #3 is a tougher hand due to the range of hands a TAG could call with on this flop after coldcalling preflop, and the range of hands TAG could call on the turn.

Hope this analysis hopes some. We aren't just blindly betting into 4-flushes in this situation; it just seems like that. You have to weigh in the tendencies of your opponents, whether they're prone to bluff-raising you, and what their range of hands are. As a default, bet-folding these rivers against your standard, unknown opponent is generally a good line. When handreading and other circumstances make it less likely that your opponent is on a flush draw, then bet-calling is ok. When it seems very possible that your opponent will not call with worse hands but will bluff with them, then check-calling is ok.

Rob

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have to search up a link, but every time I've seen a set or higher type hand on a 4-flush board, the majority of posters were advocating a check/call over a bet/call or bet/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have said it about a million times in the micro forum, but all it really is form of value betting. Sometimes you will get a better hand to fold, but if you think that the villian will fold a flush you have to rethink your strategy. Sometimes a villian will fold a better pair for example, but in general you should bet good hands like top pair or better on the river for value in these spots. Only check/call when you strongly suspect that the villian has a flush (by this I mean when you think that the villian is holding a suited hand), when the villian is a frequent bluffer and sometimes when the pot is very very large.

Brad