TT OOP...bet until he gives me reason to stop?

[cassady]

I would have check-called the river. Why would he have called all the day down without either a flush draw or a K?

[QTip]

No need to apologize for newbie questions...we all would have asked them when starting out in these forums.

1. Donk has been accepted here as a player with no clue...a fish.

2. Run a search on "Clarkmeister's Therom" - This is a great tool to add to your river play arsenal.

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have check-called the river. Why would he have called all the day down without either a flush draw or a K?

[/ QUOTE ]

He might even fold a King here.

-d

[stevew]

Found it via search and include it here to save other newbies some time...

[ QUOTE ]

The heart of the oft-talked about theorem is your lack of position. Even when betting is -EV, it's less -EV than checking, since your opponent has complete control over whether you have to spend another bet to see a showdown. Sometimes you make money by losing less.

For those who don't know, the idea is that you should bet HU out of position when the 4-flush hits on the river. If you check, your opponent will usually check through most of the hands that you beat, but bet most of the hands that beat you. It means you've created a situation in which you're almost always putting chips into the pot with the worst of it.

Betting, on the other hand, puts him in a difficult spot. He's rarely raising less than a near-nut flush card, so you can safely fold to a raise most of the time. If he's a very LAGgy, you should plan to call. Along similar lines, some knowledgable TAGs might try to exploit the situation, so you need to decide whether to call or fold on a case by case basis. Against average opponents, it's an easy bet/fold.

In brief: You spend the same when you're behind (since you're prepared to fold to a raise), but don't miss bets when you're ahead. Villain also might fold a hand that beats you -- I remember a guy dumping a set to my pair of aces, telling me that he just couldn't call, and asking me which flush card I had. He might have been full of it, but he seemed proud of his big laydown.

When you're in position, it becomes a straight-forward value bet % + bluff equity calculation.


[/ QUOTE ]

[cassady]

True, but what are the odds of:
a). Him having a K in his hand
b). Him folding a K here
c). Him having a diamond in his hand

Because I highly doubt that a x b > c.

If I'm right, the EV of the check-call is higher than the bet.

[QTip]

Nice of you...

[QTip]

I think you're underestimating the bluff equity of this play. Put yourself on the other side of things and see if you'd call without the diamond...it's hard to do. I have tremendous results using this idea....just not this particular case [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[cassady]

I think if you search this forum you might find a reference for the Clarkmeister Theorem: If you are heads up, and a four flush hits the board, bet out no matter what you have. This definitely supports your instinct here. I haven't figgured out if i buy into it or not............