The more I look at this hand the more I think that if PL adjusts his play v PA he can turn him into a mini ATM in the short term and turn this hero call -EV Posted by TommyD
why would you raise the flop and bet the turn big?
To win the pot
Am i turning my hand into a bluff?, yes quite possibly, but if PL doesnt have have AA or KK could you call here, after i have raised with the 88 on the flop and then bet the turn a reasonable size?
Again, this is a play to win the pot, possibly crazy unorthadox play, but i thought the idea of poker was to confuse opponants, not to all play the same way...
why would you raise the flop and bet the turn big? To win the pot Am i turning my hand into a bluff?, yes quite possibly, but if PL doesnt have have AA or KK could you call here, after i have raised with the 88 on the flop and then bet the turn a reasonable size? Again, this is a play to win the pot, possibly crazy unorthadox play, but i thought the idea of poker was to confuse opponants, not to all play the same way... Posted by GREGHOGG
you're just going to win the least and lose the most like that, hence why it's not advisable.
In Response to Re: Line Check: Patrik Antonius vs Phil Laak : you're just going to win the least and lose the most like that, hence why it's not advisable. Posted by beaneh
In Response to Re: Line Check: Patrik Antonius vs Phil Laak : Ok, maybe this is why i should stick to mtts:) but its still a fun way of playing Posted by GREGHOGG
you'd have more reason to try and win 'the pot' in a tourny because of the limited chips. but in a cash game you want to make the best play possible on every street it is better for him to make a decision now and a tougher one on the next street than try and take it down now in a wa/wb spot.
In Response to Re: Line Check: Patrik Antonius vs Phil Laak : I'll be honest and say I have no respect for your opinion IF You think Laak is better than Antonius! Posted by beaneh
lol I never said that. I respectfully disagreed your assertion that PL couldn't adjust his game against PA in the short term to make money out of him in similar situations. I emphasize again 'the short term.'
In Response to Re: Line Check: Patrik Antonius vs Phil Laak : lol I never said that. I respectfully disagreed your assertion that PL couldn't adjust his game against PA in the short term to make money out of him in similar situations. I emphasize again 'the short term.' Posted by TommyD
he couldn't though.
if he could he'd have outplayed someone on tv rather than just playing horrifically tight, never going for value and doing rando bluffs
Good bump, BrownnDog! Been a bit hectic in the office this last week so apologies for not getting back to you all sooner.
OK, around a year ago I was part of a workshop which involved a hand analysis of the above. A group of around 30 discussed the hand, breaking down the logic of each play and how we felt about the respective plays. The conclusion of the group as a whole was that Laak had played the hand a little inconsistently and that the bet size and speed on the river gave his hand away a little considering this is Phil Laak making the play. We concluded he wasn't capable of value betting one pair type hands in this spot too often (and certainly not against a hand reader of Antonius' quality), and so that was that.
Except it wasn't. A booming voice came from the back of the room.
"Pizza. Who ordered pizza?!"
Phil Laak walked in.
His verdict on the hand? "I played like hand like a ****" was his exact response. The part of the hand he critiqued most wasn't his river play but actually his preflop play. What was Phil Laak doing raising from the effective UTG with AJo? It's different doing this at his usual limits, but this table included Antonius, Negreanu and Dwan. This is a table where thin calls and hand reading is going to be top notch.
Preflop he's playing his hand, albeit badly. Post flop he said he was repping AA/KK or perhaps Ah-Kh. The bet on the turn is too small - 37k into 52k doesn't look like a Laak style bet typically, although he's unlucky PA picks up a flush draw to go with his second pair. He said that he put him on some kind of pair and draw combo, so something like 53o. The turn is a bad card for him to barrel on, too. If he's repping AA or KK on the flop, the K makes one half of those two so much less likely. Now PA can narrow him to something like Ah-Kh, AA or air. Sets don't really come much into the reckoning as PL didn't feel PA would reckon him capable of opening from UTG with 44-22.
The river bet wasn't good, either. PL normally won't value bet one pair here, so it's making his hand look even more like a bluff. PA knows how PL plays, and PL would check behind on the river with AK here a very high percentage of the time; the $127k in the pot is more than enough for PL, thinks PA, so PL will only be betting bluffs.
Interestingly, PL didn't chastise HL's play too much. He said that his line until the turn reasonably looked like a bigger pair, and that PL is generally a pretty tight player who won't be messing around with AJo in this spot too often.
It was interesting stuff and a hand that genuinely split our opinions. The overriding factor though was the perceived images of the two main players. Antonius knows Laak to be a reasonably nitty player, so betting the river would only be possible with a set in Antonius' mind. I found it really useful understanding how one of the best known players in poker reasoned through the hand, and while he does get a lot of stick for being tight etc, not all players can be an Antonius or Dwan. Fair play to Laak for trying and setting light to perfectly good money, in my opinion.
Comments
To win the pot
Am i turning my hand into a bluff?, yes quite possibly, but if PL doesnt have have AA or KK could you call here, after i have raised with the 88 on the flop and then bet the turn a reasonable size?
Again, this is a play to win the pot, possibly crazy unorthadox play, but i thought the idea of poker was to confuse opponants, not to all play the same way...
but its still a fun way of playing
OK, around a year ago I was part of a workshop which involved a hand analysis of the above. A group of around 30 discussed the hand, breaking down the logic of each play and how we felt about the respective plays. The conclusion of the group as a whole was that Laak had played the hand a little inconsistently and that the bet size and speed on the river gave his hand away a little considering this is Phil Laak making the play. We concluded he wasn't capable of value betting one pair type hands in this spot too often (and certainly not against a hand reader of Antonius' quality), and so that was that.
Except it wasn't. A booming voice came from the back of the room.
"Pizza. Who ordered pizza?!"
Phil Laak walked in.
His verdict on the hand? "I played like hand like a ****" was his exact response. The part of the hand he critiqued most wasn't his river play but actually his preflop play. What was Phil Laak doing raising from the effective UTG with AJo? It's different doing this at his usual limits, but this table included Antonius, Negreanu and Dwan. This is a table where thin calls and hand reading is going to be top notch.
Preflop he's playing his hand, albeit badly. Post flop he said he was repping AA/KK or perhaps Ah-Kh. The bet on the turn is too small - 37k into 52k doesn't look like a Laak style bet typically, although he's unlucky PA picks up a flush draw to go with his second pair. He said that he put him on some kind of pair and draw combo, so something like 53o. The turn is a bad card for him to barrel on, too. If he's repping AA or KK on the flop, the K makes one half of those two so much less likely. Now PA can narrow him to something like Ah-Kh, AA or air. Sets don't really come much into the reckoning as PL didn't feel PA would reckon him capable of opening from UTG with 44-22.
The river bet wasn't good, either. PL normally won't value bet one pair here, so it's making his hand look even more like a bluff. PA knows how PL plays, and PL would check behind on the river with AK here a very high percentage of the time; the $127k in the pot is more than enough for PL, thinks PA, so PL will only be betting bluffs.
Interestingly, PL didn't chastise HL's play too much. He said that his line until the turn reasonably looked like a bigger pair, and that PL is generally a pretty tight player who won't be messing around with AJo in this spot too often.
It was interesting stuff and a hand that genuinely split our opinions. The overriding factor though was the perceived images of the two main players. Antonius knows Laak to be a reasonably nitty player, so betting the river would only be possible with a set in Antonius' mind. I found it really useful understanding how one of the best known players in poker reasoned through the hand, and while he does get a lot of stick for being tight etc, not all players can be an Antonius or Dwan. Fair play to Laak for trying and setting light to perfectly good money, in my opinion.