Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Beginners Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:43 PM
ackid ackid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Heads up, at the Trop..
Posts: 87
Default Clarkmeister?

In the hand posts I always hear the term "clarkmeister" used alot. As In "should I clarkmeister the turn here?"

What does this mean?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2005, 12:26 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

This is for limit Hold'em, when you are out of position, were the last to show strength, and the river puts 4 to a flush on the board when you don't have any of that suit. The move is to bet out and fold to a raise.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2005, 02:16 AM
Pov Pov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 145
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

[ QUOTE ]
This is for limit Hold'em, when you are out of position, were the last to show strength, and the river puts 4 to a flush on the board when you don't have any of that suit. The move is to bet out and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll nitpick - the Clarkmeister Theorem doesn't require you have none of the suit nor that you fold to a raise - simply that you bet out when the 4-flush hits and if you're raised you can decide whether to fold, call or re-raise depending upon your actual holding.

I believe the basis for the profitability of this move is that:
a) few hands can raise you
b) some hands that are worse will call you, but wouldn't bet if you checked
c) some hands that are better will fold

Not sure of the OP's question about the turn . . . in any event, Clarkmeister is a highly respected poster on 2+2 and what he writes is often worth reading and thinking about.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:50 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

[ QUOTE ]
the Clarkmeister Theorem doesn't require you have none of the suit nor that you fold to a raise

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say "Clarkmeister theorem" (which is misnamed anyway). I was referring to the discussion in the archives by Clarkmeister, Ulysses/El Diablo, and others. The question is not how to play if you have the nuts. The common problem is how to deal with a good hand like flopped TPTK when the river puts 4 to a flush on the board. When someone talks about whether to Clarkmeister, they almost always mean to bet/fold.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the basis for the profitability of this move is that:
a) few hands can raise you
b) some hands that are worse will call you, but wouldn't bet if you checked
c) some hands that are better will fold

[/ QUOTE ]
Usually, the point is not to get better hands to fold. You are trying to get value from weaker hands that will call if you bet but would check behind. On the other hand, if you check, many better hands will bet and you would call anyway. Against most opponents, you get enough information from a raise that you can safely fold if you don't have a card of that suit.

In position, you need to win most of the time when you are called in order to make a river value bet (ignoring raises). This is not true when you are out of position if checking will allow stronger hands to bet for value. It can be right to make a bet for value even if you are an underdog when you are called because the alternative of checking is so bad. Clarkmeister pointed out that this situation is almost always an example.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:22 PM
ZenMusician ZenMusician is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Are the Queens called Quoons?
Posts: 77
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

Your posting in this forum, sir, is a
highly valuable asset. I hope it is
appreciated by newer players as such.

Merry Christmas!

-ZEN
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:14 PM
Pov Pov is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 145
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

I guess I must have offended you somehow, but I'm not sure - your response doesn't seem to actually disagree but manages to sound like it. Anyway, posts here are for Beginners to read and ponder so I feel I/we should further clarify.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is not how to play if you have the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't really matter if you have the nuts or not. The play is almost always to bet (clearly there are a few exceptions in some circumstances such as the habitual bluffer). How you would respond to a raise is very different however. Stating that we don't have the nuts only complicates the conditions when we're going to take the same action anyway.

The real point here is that if we're ahead whether by flush or by TPTK there is almost no way our opponent can bet - if we want to collect value when we're ahead then we must do the betting. And when we're behind there's still a great chance we won't be raised because our opponent will be scared of getting 3-bet with 4 to a flush on the board unless he has a very strong hand himself.

[ QUOTE ]
The common problem is how to deal with a good hand like flopped TPTK when the river puts 4 to a flush on the board. When someone talks about whether to Clarkmeister, they almost always mean to bet/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree they almost always mean to bet. But in the discussions I've read and been involved in here and elsewhere it stops there. I mean, whether to fold when raised is really a separate decision in my mind. I seriously doubt you would always fold for one more bet without a flush depending upon the opponent and the size of the pot so why not leave our options open. But yes, we'll usually be folding our TPTK type hand if raised.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the basis for the profitability of this move is that:
a) few hands can raise you
b) some hands that are worse will call you, but wouldn't bet if you checked
c) some hands that are better will fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, the point is not to get better hands to fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

A better hand folding once pays for a better hand calling many times. Successful value bets earn us 1 bet. A better hand folding earns us the pot. The odds of it may be small so perhaps it isn't sufficient as the sole reason for betting, but it is certainly not to be ignored so it makes a good item C.

[ QUOTE ]


You are trying to get value from weaker hands that will call if you bet but would check behind. On the other hand, if you check, many better hands will bet and you would call anyway. Against most opponents, you get enough information from a raise that you can safely fold if you don't have a card of that suit.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this has been in dispute - so you'd put B before A? The "you would call anyway" part is a good clarification to A - if we're beaten, we're paying one bet whether we bet or whether we check and call. A raise will be especially meaningful but as long as we fold it won't have cost us any more than if we had checked and called. But the river bluff raise does happen though it is quite rare and I have done it myself many times over the course of many thousands of hands.

[ QUOTE ]


In position, you need to win most of the time when you are called in order to make a river value bet (ignoring raises). This is not true when you are out of position if checking will allow stronger hands to bet for value. It can be right to make a bet for value even if you are an underdog when you are called because the alternative of checking is so bad. Clarkmeister pointed out that this situation is almost always an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your additional mention of what happens when you are in position instead of out of position is very good. With position and having been checked to, we are now free to bet our probably winners and check through our weaker hands. It's really a very different situation now despite the one difference and a (nearly) automatic bet is no longer warranted.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-23-2005, 11:14 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Clarkmeister?

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I must have offended you somehow, but I'm not sure - your response doesn't seem to actually disagree but manages to sound like it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't offend me, but your supposed correction was off target. The OP asked what it means to Clarkmeister, e.g., in the question "Should I Clarkmeister the turn?" I responded correctly that it means to take the line of betting out then folding to a raise. You responded that this isn't Clarkmeister's theorem, which is fine, but does not answer the OP's question.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.