Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: qq w/a fourflush by the river
FCP Poker Forum > Poker Strategy Forum > General Strategy
KDawgCometh
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q:club:, Q:heart:.
1 fold, BB calls.

Flop: (8.33 SB) 8:club:, 5:diamond:, 4:diamond: (4 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, MP1 calls, Button calls.

Turn: (8.66 BB) 3:diamond: (3 players)
Hero bets, MP1 folds, Button calls.

River: (10.66 BB) A:diamond: (2 players)
Hero bets, Button calls.

Final Pot: 12.66 BB

Button was a full out donk. Is this a good place for a clarkmeister?
allinbluff35
i think it's a good spot for the clarkmeister theorem
Vade
Um...yes
wrto4556
QUOTE (Vade)
Um...yes
Petoria
QUOTE (allinbluff35)
i think it's a good spot for the clarkmeister theorem



Why dont you explain the clarkmeister theorem for many of the newer players, not me of course. 8) .
Devilkin
Clarkmeister's Theorem.

Conditions:
1) you are out of position
2) the river is the 4th flush card

What to do:
bet with the intention of folding to a raise

Reasons:
- the 4th flush card will slow anyone down
- if they raise, they beat you. no one would bluff raise this.
- if you check, they will bluff and you must call.
- if you bet, they might make the incorrect fold.

Sounds like an ideal place to throw out a bet and see where you stand.

Dev
Whatever
If this isn't a good place for a clarkmeister then what is?
cdddc75
QUOTE (Whatever)
If this isn't a good place for a clarkmeister then what is?
akishore
QUOTE (Devilkin)
Clarkmeister's Theorem.

Conditions:
1) you are out of position
2) the river is the 4th flush card

What to do:
bet with the intention of folding to a raise

Reasons:
- the 4th flush card will slow anyone down
- if they raise, they beat you. no one would bluff raise this.
- if you check, they will bluff and you must call.
- if you bet, they might make the incorrect fold.

Sounds like an ideal place to throw out a bet and see where you stand.

Dev


i disagree with the bolded part. i've seen donks do the donkiest things online.

i don't completely think it's a correct theorem against aggressive players, but against passive players, i think it's 110% correct. it goes hand-in-hand with the idea of value betting hard against passive players.

against a passive opponent who will check without the flush (if you check), you're losing a bet. against a passive opponent who will bet or raise with the flush, you're losing nothing since you're folding to a raise.

but against an aggressive opponent, it's way wrong to fold to a raise in this gigantic of a pot. i really would never do this against an aggressive opponent. i'd check-call because it's likely that my aggressive opponent might even bluff, and so i'm still getting in a bet when i have the best hand, and i'm still losing just one bet when i'm beat.

if your opponent was passive, it's correct. but if he was aggressive, i don't like the bet-fold line one bit on the river. to fold in this big of a pot getting 13-to-1 against an aggressive opponent (that's key: aggressive opponent) is wrong, i think.

aseem
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.