Always follow the Clarkmeister Theorem?

[Noodles]

[ QUOTE ]
The only time I bet this river is when I can fold to a raise. If opponent is sane, fold. Board is just as scary to him as to you.

If you feel like opponent is capable of raising without a flush or straight, then you should check the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

yep no-one can argue with this reasoning!

[poker-penguin]

I think check call the river - I want to see a showdown, because there are players who fall in love with 2 pair (or less) even on boards like this.

Your hand doesn't want to be raised though, because it is only top set, and there are a lot of very plausible hands that have you beat (and make sense with how villain played the hand).

[wheelz]

[ QUOTE ]
I dislike this kind of reasoning but agree with the suggested line in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that reasoning does usually suck, I shouldn't have worded it exactly like that... but at least we agree

[SA125]

I don't understand how betting rivers like this is profitable over the long run. It seems to me the only time to bet these rivers is when you're bluffing and will fold to a raise.

Check-calling seems like the best way to avoid losing 2 bets, possibly induce a bluff that you'll pick off and avoid a terrible fold that costs you the pot.

FWIW - I've won way more than I've lost calling when it looks like someone is making Clark's bet when the board flushes. I'm guessing it's become the worst kept secret.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Always follow the Clarkmeister Theorem?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

/mc

[ggbman]

I would say half the posts i make on this forum say this:

Taking the bet/fold line in huge pots is a bad idea when you can showdwon a decent hand for the same price. You'll induce more bluffs, more bad value bets, and never fold the winner. It's not even really close, and this is such a huge leak in some people games that it defintly doesn't behoove me to point this out every time, but there it is. CHECK CALL!

[bobbyi]

I don't like river bet. I can't see him folding anything that beats you (flush or straight). So I guess this was supposed to be a value bet? If you are calling the raise, you lose an extra bet by betting here more often than you pick up a bet from a worse hand that calls but would have checked if you check. If you are folding to the raise, you risk being blown off the best hand for the occassion where you pick up one bet. I don't understand your reasoning behind the bet.

[tizim]

The thing is, even if you HAVE to bet/call, the river bet is still profitable. The only diamond he could conceivably have here is the A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Since there's only one A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] left in the deck but TONS of hands that will call a bet, the river bet is quite profitable, even more so if you can fold to a raise.

Hero has to be good here 2/3rds of the time for a bet/call to break even. If you limit Villain's range to solely AK/AA, he's already getting overlay on the bet (if my crappy math's correct). Add in there the KQ, KJs, and AQ-type hands that may call a bet, even severely discounted, and the river bet is very profitable.

Bet/fold is by far the best line if you're against an opponent whose raise means you're beat. If you're not against such an opponent, bet/calling is still better than check/calling.