From the Vault: Clarkmeister's Theorem Examined

c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
So since Black Friday, I've played poker a total of once (in Atlantic City). However, back when I was playing everyday, I would regularly start writing articles about various topics I found interesting. Some of them I posted, but others I just saved in a word document to work on later.

This article is one of the ones I saved and forgot about. But since the topic of Clarkmeister's Theorem has come up again, I thought I'd go ahead and post this article that's been rotting in my documents folder since March 2011.

=====================Clarkmeister's Theorem Examined=====================

Okay, so recently we've had a bunch of threads where the hero finds himself in a "Clarkmeister" type situation, where you only need 1 card (or one of many cards) to make a near-nuts hand. Lots of people have been saying "Clarkmeister theorem, bet!" without really knowing why (myself included).

So quick background:

Originally posted by Clarkmeister here
If you are -
1. Out of Position
2. Headsup
3. The 4th flush card comes *on the river*

You should bet out 100% of the time.

All 3 qualifications must be met.
Notice, this theorem does not apply to the turn. Now many reasons for this exist, but most of them stem from the fact that we're 2 betting rounds away from showdown rather than one. If we bet the turn, the nuts can flat our bet & slowplay, sets can call in order to fill up, and we may want to check for pot control with our small flushes. There are many reasons not to auto-bet on the turn.

So anyways, why does this theorem work on the river, and why does this work with any two cards?

As a Bluff

First, lets think of the bet as a bluff. In order for a bluff to be profitable, we need our opponent to fold a certain percentage of the time. For example, if we bet $1 into a $5 pot, we're risking 1 to win 5.

EV = 5*F - 1*(1-F), solve for F = 0.17 or 17% folds for a bet of $1 into a $5 pot to break even.

So on a 4 flush board (or a 4-straight board like 2KTJQ), we can usually get enough folds for that bet to be profitable. So obviously, betting our complete air on a Clarkmeister board is profitable.

In conclusion: We have fold equity on a 4-flush or 4-straight board.

As a Value Bet

Now, in order for a value bet to be +EV, we have to be ahead of the range that calls us. Clarkmeister's theorem asserts that if you were going to check and call a river bet, that you are better off bet/folding yourself for the following reasons:

1) If raised, you can safely fold knowing you're beat. This is because it is very easy for us to have a near-nut hand and our opponent is afraid of this fact.
2) More made hands call the river than bet the river themselves. Because your opponent is in position, he will very often take a free showdown with many hands he feel he cannot get value with on this board.

So imagine this scenario, where your opponent has the nut flush, or a set on a 4-flush board (just those two hands). If we have a 2nd nut flush, obviously bet/folding will show a larger profit than check/calling if our opponent bets all his nuts and checks all his sets.

And this is how opponents typically play. When they are one street away from showdown, and they have a decent hand, they typically will check and see a showdown. But since they're only 1 bet from showdown, they'll often call one bet with some of those hands because they get to see a showdown. Being close to the end of the hand and getting to see your cards often affects people's decisions on the river, and you should exploit their desire to see a showdown.

So obviously, if we have a near nut hand like a big flush on a 4-flush board, we should bet.

In conclusion: When you are 1 betting round away from showdown, your opponent will call with more hands than he will bet himself for value.

The In Between Range

A lot of the controversy on what this theorem implies comes from hands that are "in between". And by "in between" hands, I mean hands that can beat many hands that weren't completed by the scary river card. If we have 66♣ on a 6J♠T♠2♠K♠ board, what's the best line?

Well the theorem implies that the margin for error in betting is smaller than that for checking. If we bet, irregardless of cards, we know that it will be +EV as a bluff alone. So we KNOW this line is +EV. Don't get caught up in "what worse calls, what better folds", if we bet $X on the river and get X% folds, we always profit, and that X% is almost always obtainable given the board texture.

Also, our opponent could call with KJ, or fold AQ. Both of these results would add to our expectation over checking (since villain likely checks back both of those hands).

Now yes, check/calling could possibly be more profitable with these in between hands. Our opponent could bluff X% of the time, and given the pot odds we get, we could pick off those bluffs and profit more than betting ourselves. However, the problem with a Clarkmeister board is that villain very rarely has pure air. Since just about every draw got there on a Clarkmeister board, your opponent does not typically have many hands he can turn into a bluff. For a player to bluff on a Clarkmeister board, he'll typically have to turn hands like top pair or two pair into a bluff.

Therefore, we know bet/folding is profitable, and we know our opponent does not have the typical hands (like broken draws) that he will turn into a bluff. Lastly, even if we did know our opponent had some broken draws, we're not certain that he will bluff them more often than bluff catching with his hands that have showdown value. In order for check/calling to be more profitable than bet/folding, we have to be very accurate on those 2 assumptions. And there's a lot of margin for error there. Thus, bet/folding is typically the line we choose since its reliably profitable.

The Annoying Caveat

Now, if you click the link to that evil forum the mods don't like me linking to, you'll notice the Clarkmeister post was originally created in the limit hold'em forum. So what does this mean?

Well playing limit hold'em, you see showdown far more often. Calling the river for 1 bet with any hand that has some showdown value is standard, since the pot is usually large compared to the size of the bet. Also, our opponents are generally less likely to bluff playing LHE than NLHE, because you don't have very much fold equity (because of that tiny bet size).

So therefore, Clarkmeister's assertion that many non-flush hands call a bet on the river is probably true for limit hold'em, but may not be true for NLHE where the bet size is a ton larger and our opponents are used to folding a lot more. Additionally, NLHE allows for a lot more bluffing since its easier to get people to fold when you bet out for the pot size rather than 20% of the pot. Therefore, its my opinion that this theorem shouldn't be applied to 100% of rivers playing NLHE. So you should consider the following as reasons to *not* apply the Clarkmeister theorem:

1) Against overly aggressive opponents.
2) In pots where its possible for our opponent to have many "air type" hands in his range.
3) Our hand is on the weaker end of the "in between" range.

For example:

-------------------------------
Hero: $25.00
MP: $34.82 - Fish with a high AFq

Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is OOP with J 8
Hero raises to $0.75, MP calls $0.75, 4 folds

Flop: ($1.85) 7 8 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $1.25, MP calls $1.25

Turn: ($4.35) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP checks

River: ($4.35) 4 (2 players)
Hero ??
-------------------------------

In this hand, our opponent likely has a lot of air in his range (Tx, Jx, 6x, random overs & ace highs). In this scenario, I would check/call the river. We don't really benefit from non-flush hands calling us because those hands likely still have us beat (9x, 8x with a better kicker, TT). And while betting this board is likely +EV, I would say that picking off a bluff is likely more +EV in this specific situation.

So what have we learned? I'm not sure I've learned anything other than the fact that "it depends" is still the answer to every question. The more I research Clarkmeister's theorem, the more I start to believe it isn't universally applicable to NLHE. The three key points of Clarkmeister's theorem are still universally true though:

1) We have a lot of fold equity on scary boards like 4-flush/4-straight boards.
2) Its hard for most of our opponents to raise many hands other than the nuts on these boards.
3) Typically your average player is more likely to convince themselves that you're bluffing, and call with hands that are usually strong (top pair, two pair, sets, straights) than they are to turn showdown value into a bluff when they're just one check away from a showdown.

If you want to read more on the Clarkmeister's Theorem, I could link a billion threads, but this post really contains everything:
Clarkmeister Theorem: a Review And Discussion
 
acky100

acky100

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Total posts
3,523
Chips
0
Thanks for this c9, clear and logical as always.

Poker is easy when you can just assess situations logically, nice one!
 
Reptar7

Reptar7

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Total posts
783
Chips
0
Nice post. I have heard this before, but never explained so far in depth, or at least not in this way.

Isn't there a different name for this on 2p2? I looked it up, and Clarkmeister's theorem is on 2p2, but I thought there was another, different name for it? Or is it just something similar? I can't find it. Maybe I just forgot it was called Clarkmeister's theorem. The name isn't that important after all, it's the idea that's important.
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
Yeah, idk. I wasn't really a fan of this post when I originally wrote it because I thought it was a really long winded way to say "When the board is scary, being the first person to bet it is a profitable situation".

And it was hard to convey that whether we want our opponent to fold, or if we want him to put money in the pot with hands we beat, the best way to accomplish both goals is to bet. So I'm not super happy about how this article turned out, but I figured, meht, its 95% done, just post it.
 
jbbb

jbbb

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Total posts
1,384
Chips
0
CC Gold archive I think. Great article, what this forum needs. Just because something seems logical, a long-winded explanation to prove it is never a bad thing IMO. Good job.
 
N

NoOneYouKnow

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Total posts
172
Chips
0
Fantastic. Now I have someone to blame when I call down light on 4card flush boards!
 
duggs

duggs

Killing me softly
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Total posts
9,512
Awards
2
Chips
0
great post, dig out some more of the unposted ones please
 
Jurn8

Jurn8

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Total posts
5,348
Chips
0
I should probably do some maths of poker, I've literally never done any EV calculations at all.

bet size - "odds" - % to be profitable
50% - 50/150 - 33%
60% - 60/160 - 37,5%
70% - 70/170 - 41%
80% - 80/180 - 44,4%
90% - 90/190 - 47,4%
100% - 100/200 - 50%

this is right for the betsize calc and % needed to work right?
 
Last edited:
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
I should probably do some maths of poker, I've literally never done any EV calculations at all.

bet size - "odds" - % to be profitable
50% - 50/150 - 33%
60% - 60/160 - 37,5%
70% - 70/170 - 41%
80% - 80/180 - 44,4%
90% - 90/190 - 47,4%
100% - 100/200 - 50%

this is right for the betsize calc and % needed to work right?
This is right for bluff bets but remember to have a value bet you need at least 1/2 of his worse hands to call regardless of your bet size.
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
This is right for bluff bets but remember to have a value bet you need at least 1/2 of his worse hands to call regardless of your bet size.

Eh? Could you elaborate on that?
 
A

Aldito

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 28, 2010
Total posts
1,246
Chips
0
I should probably do some maths of poker, I've literally never done any EV calculations at all.

bet size - "odds" - % to be profitable
50% - 50/150 - 33%
60% - 60/160 - 37,5%
70% - 70/170 - 41%
80% - 80/180 - 44,4%
90% - 90/190 - 47,4%
100% - 100/200 - 50%

this is right for the betsize calc and % needed to work right?

Nice one Jurn, I always know roughly but I've never done this either ha.
 
Deco

Deco

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 7, 2009
Total posts
2,544
Chips
0
I don't like this theorem at all. Any generalizations which completely ignore villains range should never be used as rules to use 100% of the time.

Say we hold a weak flush, do we bet if:
Villains range is polarized to non-flushes (bluffing hands) and strong flushes?
Villains range is entirely stronger flushes?
 
A

Aldito

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 28, 2010
Total posts
1,246
Chips
0
I don't like this theorem at all. Any generalizations which completely ignore villains range should never be used as rules to use 100% of the time.

Say we hold a weak flush, do we bet if:
Villains range is polarized to non-flushes (bluffing hands) and strong flushes?
Villains range is entirely stronger flushes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this theorem only apply when we don't have the flush?
 
JOEBOB69

JOEBOB69

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Total posts
4,681
Chips
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this theorem only apply when we don't have the flush?
You can bet a flush to get value from a villain that doesn't have a flush.He will check back on river if checked to but will call the river bet.
 
alaskabill

alaskabill

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Total posts
1,012
Chips
0
Golden archives for this one I think.
 
acky100

acky100

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Total posts
3,523
Chips
0
This is right for bluff bets but remember to have a value bet you need at least 1/2 of his worse hands to call regardless of your bet size.

Im confused, if we bet like 1/4 pot dont we only need him to call with worse much less than half the time to make it good? Maybe im thinking about this wrong...
 
Deco

Deco

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 7, 2009
Total posts
2,544
Chips
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this theorem only apply when we don't have the flush?

Clarkmeister said:
Originally posted by Clarkmeister here
If you are -
1. Out of Position
2. Headsup
3. The 4th flush card comes *on the river*

You should bet out 100% of the time.

Even if it did only account for bluffs we would not like to bluff into a range entirely made up of flushes against a player with no intention to fold them.
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
Eh? Could you elaborate on that?

Sorry should have specified a bit more. We're HU on the river. Unless we expect to beat more than 1/2 our opponent's calling range we don't have a profitable value bet.
Example:

We're in position on the river, pot is $100, we have 2nd pair and think that if we bet our opponent will call with his entire range which we have 40% equity against. He will never raise our river bet, only call. We decide to bet $10 (small to illustrate point). The EV of just the river bet is -$2 ($Bet(%called)(winning%-losing%) or (($10*1)(.4-.6)). Our overall EV of betting $10 here is $38 (.4*120-10). The true EV of checking is better at $40 (100*.4).
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
if we bet our opponent will call with his entire range which we have 40% equity against
This EV calculation will always be -EV as long as our equity is less than 50%.... I don't see how it has much to do with the statement that villain has to call with his entire range.

@Deco: Generally its hard for villains to have such specific ranges on the river, especially given how much the river will change the value of villain's hand. Your "bluff into flushes" example, would typically require villain to let us know in some way that he had a strong flush before the river. And its hard to get there with a bluff, if you *know* he's got a flush.
 
Deco

Deco

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 7, 2009
Total posts
2,544
Chips
0
@Deco: Generally its hard for villains to have such specific ranges on the river, especially given how much the river will change the value of villain's hand. Your "bluff into flushes" example, would typically require villain to let us know in some way that he had a strong flush before the river. And its hard to get there with a bluff, if you *know* he's got a flush.

Making turn bets large enough to knock out draws on relatively uncoordinated monotone boards can narrow villains range to flushes if there aren't many sets lurking around.

The other scenario I mentioned is very common. Where villains range is polarized to non-flushes or flushes and our flush is weak. A check/call is almost always unknown vs non herocalling or fishy villains.
 
c9h13no3

c9h13no3

Is drawing with AK
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Total posts
8,819
Chips
0
The other scenario I mentioned is very common. Where villains range is polarized to non-flushes or flushes and our flush is weak. A check/call is almost always unknown vs non herocalling or fishy villains.
Throw out a scenario, because I can't say I agree. I find it pretty hard to conjure up a scenario where an opponent would have air and a nutted range when we're OOP.
 
Top