Am I playing right with this set on a one suit board?

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
looking at this hand again, i would really doubt he has a flush or on a flush draw. if he had the flush, he wouldn't eliminate players like he did on the flop. if he was on the draw, he wouldn't eliminate MP like he did on the turn would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point I had not considered, but I think a non-nut flush might raise here to make it expensive for high hearts to continue drawing.

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
looking at this hand again, i would really doubt he has a flush or on a flush draw. if he had the flush, he wouldn't eliminate players like he did on the flop. if he was on the draw, he wouldn't eliminate MP like he did on the turn would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point I had not considered, but I think a non-nut flush might raise here to make it expensive for high hearts to continue drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

see, maybe a read on him would help, but can you really make it "expensive for high hearts to continue to draw"? i would think this is helping.

[Dave G.]

First, I don't believe he has a flush (or straight for that matter) just yet. I'm skeptical about flopped flushes and they occur so rarely that I think it's more profitable in the long run not to worry about them. Secondly, if he DOES have a flush or a straight, we have a very strong draw to beat him. The combination of possibly still being ahead and with a big draw to beat him means I think 3-betting the turn has good value.

A read would help. If he's very passive then I'll just call the turn and hope the river gods save me. Against an unknown or an aggressive player, I 3-bet this turn.

I don't like betting this river. I'm check/calling. I don't see the allure of a bet/fold here. I want to show this hand down.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
see, maybe a read on him would help, but can you really make it "expensive for high hearts to continue to draw"? i would think this is helping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think with only 3 players left in the pot, forcing a possible ace/king [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to call 2 cold is making them put in money when their equity is low - only about a 16% chance (since at least 6 hearts are accounted for) to hit their hand and they are putting in 33% of the money. Granted it is still correct for them to call but you need to take their money when you have the best of it here I think - as they are going to bail on the river if they don't hit their hand.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
This river is definitely an instance of Clarkmeister's theorem. Bet the river, and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are probably right here, although the thing is he cold called a preflop raise here and most of the low hearts are on the table. The only hands I could imagine that would fold are 22/33/45 (another suit) and I beat two of these. Other hearts could include 74/75/79 but I think T9 and up are more likely - and I think a ten high flush at least calls a bet here.

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
see, maybe a read on him would help, but can you really make it "expensive for high hearts to continue to draw"? i would think this is helping.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think with only 3 players left in the pot, forcing a possible ace/king [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to call 2 cold is making them put in money when their equity is low - only about a 16% chance (since at least 6 hearts are accounted for) to hit their hand and they are putting in 33% of the money. Granted it is still correct for them to call but you need to take their money when you have the best of it here I think - as they are going to bail on the river if they don't hit their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

this all may be true, but i think it only further strengthens my thought that Button is not on a flush draw. i'm not saying YOUR raise was bad, but that his further shows he does NOT have a heart...least that's why think.

[UncleSalty]

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img](In the dark)

PF: I think the CC is fine here w/ the 3 callers ahead of you. (I'm assuming standard LAP's at a party $.50/$1 table)

Flop: Good cap. If the flush isn't out already you have about 65% equity here against a single heart so you want to max out this street. You also have 10 outs to quads or a boat by the river if there is already a flush, so your equity is still good for a cap even if you're beat right now.

Turn: Good lead, good call of the raise HU. I agree with you that button flopped a flush pretty often here.

River: This is how I play it, but I'm wondering if a Clarkmeister bet/fold line is recommended? Any vets want to comment?

[aK13]

Turn bet is good. Free card is bad. If you're already behind a made flush, you've got a huge number of outs to a boat. I don't think I'd try Clarkmeister's on the river just based on the action from previous streets.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
This river is definitely an instance of Clarkmeister's theorem. Bet the river, and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think "fold to a raise" is part of Clarkmeister's theorem. Deciding whether to call or fold depends on the aggressiveness of your opponent. But you should ALWAYS bet the river in this situation.

(Not that I disagree with "fold to a raise" here because the board and the action don't offer very many two pair hands that might take a stab at the pot.)

[NAU_Player]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really like this idea. The villain has shown way to much strength. Even if he has a baby flush I do not think he is folding often enouhg to make this profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest reading up on Clarkmeister's Theorem.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to bet the river, why didn´t you want to 3bet the turn then ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do want him to 3-bet the turn, but given the way he played it he still needs to bet the river.