Party 5/10, Clarkmeister Flush Theorem

[Bob T.]

Exactly right.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
checking opens you up to a bluff b/c it screams that you don't have a diamond. check/calling the river here is worse than bet/folding by far.

[/ QUOTE ]
A tight player has something by the river. There aren't any pure bluff hands he could be holding. Weak tight players are usually happy to get a free showdown on this sort of board, even with Ace high. So if you're happy with your read and you don't think you can get many worse hands to call then a check/fold seems to be right. If he can fold a better hand then that changes things.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree. No K or diamond is folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael,

Does that mean you think the bet is wrong? What do you do here?

[Michael Davis]

No I think the bet is right because you have to call if you check and worse hands will call. But there's no way I see better hands folding with any sort of frequency here.

I would almost always fold to a raise. If I weren't confident folding to a raise, I would sometimes check-call, it depends on my estimation of my opponent's bluffing frequency.

-Michael

[Michael Davis]

"There are plenty more who will fold a hand like TP if bet into on that board."

If this is one of the major points of the theorem, I think it is seriously flawed. Sure, there are times when your opponent will fold a better hand than what you hold, but not when you're holding top pair on the flop w/decent kicker.

FWIW, this is the type of hand that really stretches the theorem. Clearly you should bet if you can beat very few of your opponent's holdings, and clearly you should value bet if you have a set that will beat many of your opponent's calling hands. In both of those situations you're making money on your river bet. In this hand, your concern is losing the least, because you sure as hell aren't making money betting this hand here. You're just losing less than if you check-call.

-Michael

[private joker]

In a weak-tight game, I would consider this order:

1. check-fold
2. bet-fold
3. check-call

I consider a lot of my live games to be either weak-tight or loose-passive. If this was online, I'd be more inclined to bet-fold. Is it online? Given that it's 5/10, I assume it is.

But since it's weak-tight with calling stations, I default to my live game strategy. Players in a game like the Bike 6/12 would only bet the river when checked to if they have a diamond. Nobody with a diamond will fold. Therefore, check-folding is the way to go. Sometimes you'll get a free showdown and win a pot, but most of the time when you're losing you'll also get a free showdown. These are the games that are exceptions to the Theorem, I think. These are weak and passive players. They won't bet the river without a diamond. Neither weak-tighties nor calling stations will. Because they too know that their bet will get called, so they won't bluff.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In this hand, your concern is losing the least, because you sure as hell aren't making money betting this hand here. You're just losing less than if you check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Kind of like splitting 8's against a dealer's 10 in blackjack. By doing so, you decrease your expected loss.

[sthief09]

at first I saw it as a pure bluff. then I read some of MD's posts and agreed with him. so this is my take on it. I don't like any option here. first, there are two options, check or bet. if you check, you can raise, call, or fold. for obvious reasons, raising is not an option. once you check, calling is better than folding because you're getting odds to call. that means check-folding can't be the best option. check-calling is worse than betting because he's weak and won't value bet hands you beat, but will bet most hands that beat yours. if he's so weak that he'll only bet the nuts and 2nd nuts, and maybe 3rd nuts, then check-folding could be the best line.

if he won't fold anything, then betting is a pure value bet. since he's weak he won't raise without the nuts. so you're assuming there are lots of hands you beat that he'll call with. if he's actually tight, then he either had you beat already or he rivered a frush. if that's the case, betting serves no purpose. only check-folding does, unless you think you can bluff here.

so I think betting and check-folding depend a lot on the player. against a lot of weak-tight players, you're better off check-folding than betting. you'll rarely miss a bet and avoid losing a bet when behind.

if he was aggressive, then I'd like check calling

I don't think I've ever seen a situation that was so player-dependent before.

[QTip]

I'd like to learn more about the "Clarkmeister Flush Theorem". I did a google search but not much but a couple of posts from here showed up. Where can I learn about it or is a pretty quick explanation?

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to learn more about the "Clarkmeister Flush Theorem". I did a google search but not much but a couple of posts from here showed up. Where can I learn about it or is a pretty quick explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

When head's up and out of position, always bet when a 4th flush card comes on the river.

Better hands fold (often enough to be profitable), worse hands call. You win the most and lose the least whether you have the flush or not. The search for a counter-example continues (although this one has possibilities).