Clarkmeister definition?

[El Cuchara]

this doesn't make sense to me slater, why would you bet/fold if you don't have the flush, but then check/call if you do have the flush?? If only a hand that beats you would call, then why would you bet in the first place?

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it. The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it . The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only me then. Cheers! Hick!
Good fold but if you still wonder then you should probably call.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't make sense to me slater, why would you bet/fold if you don't have the flush, but then check/call if you do have the flush?? If only a hand that beats you would call, then why would you bet in the first place?

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it. The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet is intended to make them fold, not call. And this is in no way applicable to NL where any size bet can be made. It applies to limit only, where you are usually risking 1 bet to win 6 or 7 banking on the fact that villian won't have a flush 1 in X amount of times and forcing them to make a tough a call with a better hand than yours because you are representing a flush. But if you do have a flush then you have a hand with showdown value and you don't want to be raised off the best hand (by someone who may know of this theory, but against a donk you might bet.)

It no limit you will rarely get such good fold equity for a OOP bet in this situation.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sending this. Or maybe not? So I can't raise the average 2+2er anymore with nothing when he bets OOP with a 4-flush on the river?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're not talking about my example hand. I know that example may very well be a value bet. But what about a situation like you have 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] flop and the turn brings a 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and you bet OOP, then there is a wide range of better hands that may fold.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bet is intended to make them fold, not call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is a value bet you make with what you believe to be the best non-flush hand. Folding hands that beat you is a nice additional benefit.

See, for example, this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're not talking about my example hand. I know that example may very well be a value bet. But what about a situation like you have 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] flop and the turn brings a 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and you bet OOP, then there is a wide range of better hands that may fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 things:

(1) That's not an application of Clarkmeister's Theorem. The requirements are: (i) HU; (ii) OOP; (iii) 4th flush card falls on the river.

(2) The underlying function of the Clarkmeister is to make a value bet -- you think you have the best hand at showdown unless Villain hit a one-card flush on the the river. We bet because the many hands that we beat are far, far more likely to check through when the 4th flush card hits, and many hands we lose to (including the one-card flush) will not raise our bet (if they do, depending on the opponent, we might call the raise or fold to it). The post I linked to makes this clear (I think) -- many, many more people that we are beating are calling our bet than are betting when checked to. By failing to bet the river, we are missing a bet; if we think we probably have the best non-flush hand, we are risking the same 1 BB we would risk by check-calling, and the likelihood of being raised is both somewhat small and/or depending on our read pretty easy to deal with.

My point is that the Theorem is about betting our hand for value - it is not about bluffing to make a better hand fold. In the hand you describe, do you really think your 88 is better than opponent's hand with AJxx four-flush? If not, you're bluffing, hoping he folds. May be a fine play, but not an application of the Theorem.

[Clarkmeister]

Getting a better hand to fold is definitely a consideration in the Theorem. It only needs to happen rarely to add tremendous value. It's a combination "value-bluff".