damn you, clarkmeister

[kidcolin]

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).

[jt1]

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.

[Wynton]

[ 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.

[rafct]

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

[Wynton]

Reread the post. All of those circumstances apply. I don't have a flush.

[Homer315]

Yes, he has a FOUR Flush. Check the board again.

[rafct]

yes, my mistake

[krishanleong]

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

[deception5]

[ 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?

[krishanleong]

[ 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