Edit: Welcome Reddit! I am crymeariver2p2 on Reddit.




In the uNL chat today, I mentioned a couple theorems that originate on 2+2 and a bunch of people were, "Huh? Wat?"

So here is a list of 2+2 theorems. If I've forgotten any, I'm sure someone will mention it.



Zeebo's Theorem - Nobody ever folded a full house.

Reasoning: Nobody is good enough to fold a monster. Most players aren't even good enough to fold a hand that looks like a monster but really isn't.

Application: There are two basic applications to this theory. The first is that if you put your opponent on a full house and you can beat them, don't be afraid to overbet/push the river. This is particularly true when there is three of a kind on the board. Players will call with an incredible range of full houses in that spot. It is true that some villain may fold 22 on a board with three aces. However, you have no way of knowing if they have 22 or TT so go ahead and felt them. You are losing value if you don't. And sometimes they'll call with 22 anyway.

The second thing to realize is to never try to bluff anyone off a full house. If you have 22 on a board with three Aces, don't expect to be able to push 66 off his hand.

This theorem also generally applies to any monster over monster situation, from straight flush over quads/FH/nut flush down to set over set.

Reliability: This is the most reliable theorem. Nearly 100%. Somebody will post and argue that it is actually 100%.

Reference: http://captzeebo.supok.net/2006-02-12.html



Clarkmeister's Theorem - When you are OOP HU on the river and a 4-flush comes always bet.

Reasoning: Simply put, a 4-flush is an ideal bluffing situation.

Application: Bet a lot of 4-flushes, particularly HU, OOP on the river. You will get a ton of folds. Most everyone is folding non-flush hands (that beat you) and small flushes.

Reliability: Yes, sometimes villain has the nut flush or calls with the K-high flush. Nothing you can do there. But over the long haul this is a VERY profitable spot to bluff.

Keep in mind though, you ARE turning your hand into a bluff. If you have a hand you don't want to turn into a bluff (very villain dependent) like top set or the K-high flush then check/calling can be fine.

Reference: http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/show...an=&page=&vc=1



BelugaWhale Theorem - When you are the preflop raiser and your turn bet is raised or check/raised, it is time to re-evaluate one pair hands.

Reasoning: In raised pots, most players will just call down with one pair (be it pocket pair or top pair) type hands as well as draws. The turn is where most players who flopped a monster stop slowplaying and try to build pot. Or, they raise if they hit their draw.

Application: A raise on the turn is a signal to re-evaluate where you are at. It is not and automatic fold but you need to consider if villain has a monster or just hit his draw.

Reliability: Against fish and bad players in general, with the exception sometimes of LAGs and maniacs, this is a VERY reliably theorem. However, it is also an extremely popular and well known theorem, perhaps the best known. A lot of good players, particularly 2+2 players can try to exploit this theorem, especially by floating. So depending on the player (a decent player who is ALSO capable of making a play) you may need to discount this theorem considerably.

Reference: http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...t=1&PHPSESSID=



Yeti Theorem - A flop three bet on a dry (preferably paired) board is always a bluff.

Reasoning On a paired (or otherwise very dry flop) a player with an overpair is unlikely to want to stack off because usually the only hand he gets action from is a monster that crushes him. For this reason, someone who DOES have a monster usually will usually slowplay here. Since neither strong hands like top pair and overpairs don't 3bet here and monsters don't 3bet here the only hands left that 3bet are bluffs.

Application: If someone 3bets you in this situation, 4bet/push.

Reliability: These days this is mostly considered a joke theorem or a sarcastic excuse for spew. This is because Internet games between regulars are so much more aggressive than pre-Internet (ie live) games. For many players, "fast play is the new slow play" so players will stack off in these spots both with overpairs AND with monsters. Aggression is often used to conceal hand strength as much or more as slowplaying is used.

Against some players (ABC TAG) this theorem does still hold merit however.

Reference: http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...t=1&PHPSESSID=

I have my own, but they're aren't really tossed around 2p2 like the Baluga theorem.

very handy quick read i think i might just print this off... u r such a star cmar

niiiiiiice post, very handy

I was only aware of the BelugaWhale Theorem.

Thanks CMaR!

I have one; I don't think it matters if you play drunk just as long you can still do math, contrary to popular belief.

I have one: playoffs theory is wrong.

I play drunk all the time and I really have no problems other than my drinking habits. I don't care what people say, im sure the average person is terrible when they're drunk but obviously I am still very capable of thinking in situations imo.

You have to define what drunk is and how one reacts to it. If getting drunk means that your VPIP is going up, that's bad. If drunk means you aren't able to bet size properly, that's bad. If drunk means you start speeding up your decisions, that's bad. If drunk means you start calling and bluffing more, that's costly.

However, poker isn't like driving a car. If it takes twice as long to come up with a decision, it doesn't matter.

For most individuals, being drunk means getting off their "A" game, as with the above examples. There are always exceptions.

lol that sounds like the 16 year old who says "I'm mature for my age."

I think I can play limit poker almost as well drunk as sober, like 98% as well or better.

No limit probably not so much only because I get too curious and want to see showdown a bit more than I should. FWIW I'm still able to easily beat uNL games if I've been drinking or if I have some beers while I'm playing.

I've played drunk many times and its really not such a big deal, unless you get totally smashed that is. At that point it can be very, VERY bad.

while at the venetian i knew it was time to get up when I had trouble seeing my cards

Thanks cmar,

Now I don't have to go searching for all these when I missremember them.

Which in reality means "I havent hit puberty yet"

Damn this forum is full of alkys!

This one is very, very true. I lost my stack a few minuts ago while holding a FH vs quads. And I knew it. Every braincell was screaming 'quads, you idiot. He has quads!'. And I still called

never heard of clarkmeisters until now nor did i know he posted strat tbh...its pretty reliable but really opponent specific

yeah, I would not do this against a 70/10

The was a time many years ago that Clarkmeister was considered a top strat poster on this site.

Yeah Clarkmeister's is pretty good and reliable. I actually was thinking about that same spot yesterday because I got into it several times and it got me wondering.

Also, lol @ PLAYOFFS.. you're not even good sober, I won't even think about you playing drunk. (bla bla bla OH SNAP bla)

To be fair, Clarkmeister's theorum refers specifically to limit hold em IIRC.

I remember reading all his posts when I first joined this site and don't recall him ever even playing NL, not even sure if he does now.

I think it still hold up for NL as well though, it may even be better since people fold the river a hell of a lot more in NL, but by the same token you get paid off much more in limit by less than a flush so you're not turning your hand into a bluff in limit like you would be in NL. In limit, and I think this is part of Clark's point, you'll get paid off by TPTK when you bet your set, or low flush, but if you check they won't bet it.

Those were some good posts. I also remember reading all his posts as well.

Thanks CMAR for putting this together. Mabye would be nice to add it into the FAQ list.

If you bluff a 4-flush on the river (9 cards out there) couldn't you also bluff an OESD (8 cards) that hits on the river?

Landlord Theorum

Reasoning: On a 3 flushed or very drawy board, a huge over-donk bet that is designed to shut out all draws is always a strong made hand but not the nuts.

Reliability: I'd say about 75% reliable

I think that 4-flush has much more impact on players than a str8 because you see four flush cards and your brain receives it better because it has a very clear pattern- more psychological effect. It is harder to notice a str8 (the pattern is not that easy to see as with the flush) therefore bluffing is not a good idea against usual players IMO. I would go even further with this and bluff more when there is a diamond or a heart flush. I think that players subconcious comes into play and red colour is more of a threat than black and threrefore they tend to fold a bit more in that case. I have no data on this but it would be interesting if somebody made a little research on this.