|
|
#22
06-05-2005, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
is the general consensus that the clarkmeister theorem is a good idea or a bad idea? [/ QUOTE ] It's a good idea against players who call with more hands than they will bet, which is virtually everyone. 
|
|
#23
06-05-2005, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
No offense, but what exactly is the CM Theorem? (Especially since there is some confusion on when to apply it in this thread.)
|
|
#24
06-05-2005, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but what exactly is the CM Theorem? (Especially since there is some confusion on when to apply it in this thread.) [/ QUOTE ] Always bet the river when ALL of the following conditions are met: 1. You are headsup. 2. You are out of position. 3. The 4th flush card hit on the river. That's it.
|
|
#25
06-05-2005, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
For more on this concept, consult Theory of Poker, pg. 211 for a more detailed explanation on why this is a good idea. In short, it is often (usually?) a -EV bet, but checking is more -EV, since your opponent will call with many hands you beat but check behind with when you check.
|
|
#26
06-05-2005, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
For more on this concept, consult Theory of Poker, pg. 211 for a more detailed explanation on why this is a good idea. In short, it is often (usually?) a -EV bet, but checking is more -EV, since your opponent will call with many hands you beat but check behind with when you check. [/ QUOTE ] In this case depending on your hand it also can win as a bluff and prevent you from being bluffed when you couldn't really call a bet but your hand is unexpectedly good.
|
|
#27
06-06-2005, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
Always bet the river when ALL of the following conditions are met: 1. You are headsup. 2. You are out of position. 3. The 4th flush card hit on the river. That's it. [/ QUOTE ] I doesn't apply when dealing with a maniac who won't slow down on the river [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#28
06-06-2005, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
Always bet the river when ALL of the following conditions are met: 1. You are headsup. 2. You are out of position. 3. The 4th flush card hit on the river. That's it. [/ QUOTE ] Dynasty had the following to say: [ QUOTE ] This thing you're calling the Clarkmeister principle is better used when you've got a relatively weak hand (one pair) and there's little chance you'll be folding the winner. [/ QUOTE ] Any further comment?
|
|
#29
06-06-2005, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you can call a cap without the K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I don't like the river play here by CP. [/ QUOTE ] 13:1 vs an unknown the second nut isn't good enough? Even to look me up? Then again, I did mention Clarkmeister... [/ QUOTE ] Are you sure you understand the difference between the words "with" and "without"? You had the K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] so his statement isn't saying that you should fold.
|
|
#30
06-06-2005, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Chrome, Clarkmeister and inducing a 3-bet (lc)
[ QUOTE ]
Villian is a donk. The 3-bet is awful as is his calling of the cap. If you are bluffing the 4-flush, he should just call the raise. If you have the nuts he just loses more by 3-betting. Terrible reraise in that spot. Nice hand. [/ QUOTE ] If I were in Fnord's position, I'd be value-raising the J, T, 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], and possibly even lower, so I think Villain's 3-bet is fine. I'd probably fold to a 3-bet, but most TAGs on Party aren't 2+2'ers, and many who are would still call a 3-bet.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
