misapplying clarkmeister theorem?

villain is like 50/0 over 10 hands and i have nothing but hud reads on him.

the turn bet didn't feel right in a 3-way pot, and the only reason i made the river bet was because of the clarkmeister theorem (if you are first to act HU on a 4-flushed board, you should bet it). my ranges basically had him on hands he's calling with here. thoughts on this hand and the theorem as a whole?

i'm assuming the short answer is that ranges trump all

Full Tilt Pot-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (UTG) ($11.29)
MP ($3.62)
CO ($7.70)
Button ($4.27)
SB ($11.10)
BB ($9.11)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with ,
Hero bets $0.35, MP calls $0.35, 3 folds, BB calls $0.25

Flop: ($1.10) , , (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, MP checks

Turn: ($1.10) (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.80, MP calls $0.80, 1 fold

River: ($2.70) (2 players)
Hero bets $2.70 (this put villain all in so i just decided to bet the max)

What the hell is the "Clarkmeister Theorem"?

Odds against it even being in the form of a theorem?

I hadn't heard of this theorem, and I can't find a proof anywhere (I suspect it's more like a rule of thumb), but the most precise formulation I can find is:

When a big scare card hits, b/f is better than c/c.

(2p2)

I think here c/f is also better than c/c, and clarkmeister doesn't tell you whether b/f is better than c/f - that does depend on how much of opp's range is scared of the card.

Hey I've got a great idea, let's pot it because you're always supposed to do that on a 4-flush board. Kind of like if you have AK and you raise preflop and miss the flop you should c-bet. Why? Because you're supposed to.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...eorems-183304/

not sure if it's in correct theorem form and i've only heard of it being proven mathematically for limit games, but i thought it was a pretty well respected theorem. i'm almost certain that i'm a drooler for following it in this exact instance for the exact reasons that i did it (as you so dryly illustrated), but i don't think that means that there's no possible intelligent discussion to be had regarding the theorem.

EDIT: fwiw the theorem's served me well, profit-wise (although i'm almost certain using that as an argument will tilt you)

3way pot with a draw completing. What kinds of hands do you think the other players would call your turn bet with? Are there more hands that beat you than hands that you beat?

What kinds of hands will call your river bet? I have trouble thinking of any that you beat. So why are you betting the river?

Oh 2+2.

I read that you should 3bet 66 IP for value against anyone unknown in FR while browsing their concept of the week threads.

There's a lesson in there somewhere...maybe

it's HU on the river. i beat like zero hands which makes a much more compelling argument for me betting as a bluff then if my hand had 1/2 his range beat. DUCY?

not defending my play at all but i think the only legitimate question you asked was the first one

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

I read that you should 3bet 66 IP for value against anyone unknown in FR while browsing their concept of the week threads.

lolwut

I always see people digging on 2+2. Is the forum really so bad? I found their archived digest/article posts to be pretty helpful when I was starting out, though FTR's have been much more so. I've never seen anything like this part I quoted, but then again I don't really read their forums much, so maybe that's it...

Give him a calling range on the turn - that is what he holds on the river.

Now figure out how often he will fold if you bet the river, then figure out how often you need him to fold for betting to be profitable, then compare the two to determine if bluffing is profitable.

Originally Posted by siltstrider

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

I read that you should 3bet 66 IP for value against anyone unknown in FR while browsing their concept of the week threads.

lolwut

I always see people digging on 2+2. Is the forum really so bad? I found their archived digest/article posts to be pretty helpful when I was starting out, though FTR's have been much more so. I've never seen anything like this part I quoted, but then again I don't really read their forums much, so maybe that's it...

It depends. There's lots of good content to read, but there's also alot of content that is somewhat controversial. Probably the same for any site/book/publication really.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Give him a calling range on the turn - that is what he holds on the river.

Now figure out how often he will fold if you bet the river, then figure out how often you need him to fold for betting to be profitable, then compare the two to determine if bluffing is profitable.

Originally Posted by surviva316

i'm assuming the short answer is that ranges trump all

i'm sorry i asked. i guess i was wrong in thinking that there's any intelligent discussion to be had on the subject.

i give permission to lock the thread

Every time you press a button at the poker table you'll need to think about villains' possible holdings.

Unless you have the stone cold nuts and are facing an all in, you'll probably have to think about what villain holds. If you don't then you're just pressing buttons and probably making alot of mistakes/missing out on value etc.

-What range of hands could he have called your turn bet with?
-From that range, which hands will likely fold on the river given the opponents tendencies?
-From the ranges you came up with, evaluate your expectation of betting, and if negative, consider your other options. (Hint: in many situations you will decide that a play is +EV, but another yields a higher overall expectation. When you're able to accurately estimate villains range and then estimate his likely action based on your action due to his tendencies, you can make alot of money)

Sorry if I'm missing something here in my advice...just wanted to point you in the right direction.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

What the hell is the "Clarkmeister Theorem"?

Odds against it even being in the form of a theorem?

it's a LHE theorem, not NL

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

What the hell is the "Clarkmeister Theorem"?

Odds against it even being in the form of a theorem?

it's a LHE theorem, not NL

That's what I thought too but wasn't going to say anything. The premise of this thread is comedic gold.

{Locked at OP's request}

Spenda... Do you have anything to contribute? Oh wait.. No you don't.. You can no longers post in locked threads... Feesh.