The Clark Master Theorem is much less a theorem as a specific guide to action. The writer of this statement, Clark Masters, those described as follows:

  • You have no position
  • You are heads-up
  • A fourth flush card comes on the river

If all three criteria are met, you should put in 100% of cases. The reasoning behind this is the following: you either have a good flush or transport a value bet or (this is much more frequently the case) there is no flush and bluff, with a bluff has an extremely high probability of success. Originally, this was true in Limit Holder, where a river bet only accounts for a small fraction of the pot and a bluff has to work according to very rarely. However, Clark Masters statement has in no limit still existed.

theorems of poker strategy

An Example:

We have Q ♥ J ♥ and call a pre-flop raise from the rather tight button in the big blind. On the A ♠ T ♥ 9 ♠ 7 ♠ board, we check-call two moderate bets on the flop and turn River: 3 ♠. When we arrive in this way at this river, we should bluff absolutely. We stand for extremely credible a good to very Flush (about we could AX Q ♠ or K ♠ T ♠ hold) and when our tight opponent does not even have a flush, he will almost certainly fold. His most likely hands are ace-king or ace-queen – the likelihood that he thus has a flush, is less than 30% a trick for two thirds of the pot would be long so definitely profitable.

This works best the Clark Masters statement against reasonably tight, not exceedingly creative opponents. Mass Multitalented Rags are an excellent destination. While it is probably rare that you arrive at all without position and without initiative on a 4-Flush-River, but if this happened once, you should always check that a bluff is not a very believable move and long term brings more than Check intimidated.

Aejones Thereom

This theorem sounds now only once a little absurd and this sentence Poker Theorem to name, the definition of the word theorem is also not fair, but at least metaphorically (and a few restrictions) this statement is correct and helpful.

However, what did not understand at that time most of the players and many today still not understand is that there is a fundamental dissimilarity between good and bad LAG game. Intelligent loose-aggressive play is anything other than bet-bet-bet and the vague hope that your opponent will fold at some point on the way to the river, when you push the buttons hard enough or the chips throws hard enough in the middle.

This is exactly what taps the Aejones Theorem. Another example: A player who on a J ♥ 5 ♠ 3 ♠ K ♦ 8 ♠ -Board fires three volleys wide, has very likely not what it represents. It represents anyway different hands: On the flop and turn a hand category top pair / overpaid, on the river a flush. Far more likely is that he has a hand like the one 7 ♥ 6 ♥ has, so a naked bluff. This is especially true if your challenger is aggressive and even more evident when it is a bad aggressive player.

The Aejones theorem is the exaggerated implication that in a loose-aggressive play around the relative strength of hands must be evaluated differently than in tight-conservative surroundings. To stay with the above example: Against a bad aggressive player T ♦ T ♥ (weaker than Second Pair) and T ♠ 9 ♠ (moderate Flush) almost equivalent. Thus, a player cannot get the idea to bring with top pair a thin worth bet, and he probably does not fall also to turn a hand like ace-jack into a bluff. No, if such a player three volleys fires here to the river, this is either a friend or hot air.

http://www.resipsapoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/theorems-of-poker-strategy.jpghttp://www.resipsapoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/theorems-of-poker-strategy-150x150.jpgSteven HuffmanUncategorizedtheorems of poker strategy
The Clark Master Theorem is much less a theorem as a specific guide to action. The writer of this statement, Clark Masters, those described as follows: You have no position You are heads-up A fourth flush card comes on the river If all three criteria are met, you should put in 100% of...