Clarkmeister theorem checkup, among other things

Wouldnt the thereom be not applicable when your hand likely beats all non-flush hands?

Furthermore, if someone made a non-nut flush on the turn, and the pot gets big, they almost never seem to fold it to a river donk. However, on the otherside of things, if they stumbled upon a weak flush on the river, there is a chance they will fold it, albeit a small one.

[TMFS9]

yeah, I think you must bet/fold the river, and I think 3 betting the turn might be close depending.

[josh1122]

I think this is an easy turn 3bet, your ahead here most of the time and have odds to catch up if not.

Given the way you played it, I think I like check/call the river given that he is rather LAG (But I have never been really comfortable with the Clarkmeister so Im not so sure about this line).

[colgin]

If you assume that neither a baby flush nor a straight ever folds here (which I would) I think that check-calling is preferable.

Pros of betting:

1. Get a crying call from a hand like JT, but probably not many others (i.e., others that he villain can reasonablyhave here).

Cons of betting:

1. Could get bluff raised out of pot by loose-aggressiveish player.
2. Could pay off extra bet when beat because of uncertainty of 1. above.
3. Could fold a worse hand that might have bluffed.
4. Charge yourself a bet to see a showdown froma hand like a straight or baby flush that might have checked through here. (I will note that this is inconsistent with 1. above so maybe these two are either/ors.)

If you think you have some fold equity, and can safely fold to a raise, then betting looks better. However, with the information you gave us here I would check-call.

[Lmn55d]

Clarkmeister theorem usually should not be used against a 48/20/1.8. Especially when the pot is this big. Against aggressive players like this, check/call is way better.