You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Line Check: Patrik Antonius vs Phil Laak
Folks,
I thought I'd start off a new series of threads every now and then where we dissect the play of some of the pros and see how we feel about their lines. Our first hand up for examination is one from High Stakes Poker which involves Phil Laak UTG, Patrik Antonius defending his straddle and Howard Lederer caught somewhere in the middle with a medium pocket pair.
Phil Laak vs Patrik Antonius: High Stakes Poker (YouTube link)
Questions we're going to try and tackle are:
1) Pre-flop play: What do you think of Laak, Lederer and Antonius' respective pre-flop action? If you disagree with any of them, how do you think it changes the actions of the other players? Does PA defend his straddle if HL folds, for instance?
2) Flop play: Is PA right to check/call the flop? What do you think of the bet sizing from Laak? What hands do you think Laak is trying to represent?
3) Turn play: How do you think this card alters the hand ranges Laak is representing? Do you think there's an argument for PA leading or check-raising the turn here?
4) River play: PA's call is pretty incredible. Which hands do you think he put Laak on to make this call? What part of Laak's play do you think gave away his hand strength? Do you agree with Gabe Kaplan's verdict that it was PL's bet speed rather than size that gave him away?
Feel free to raise other questions as and when they come to you: our aim is to break the hand down and try and factor in things such as perceived table image - we all know Antonius is loose-aggressive, Laak is a bit nitty and Lederer hasn't played a hand to the river since 2006, so this should be factored into the discussions where possible
As an added bonus, I've actually managed to interview Phil Laak about this hand in the past and he gave me some analysis on what he thought was going on during the hand, which I'll add to the end of this thread as a kind of summary from one half of the story.
Have fun!
Sky Dave
I thought I'd start off a new series of threads every now and then where we dissect the play of some of the pros and see how we feel about their lines. Our first hand up for examination is one from High Stakes Poker which involves Phil Laak UTG, Patrik Antonius defending his straddle and Howard Lederer caught somewhere in the middle with a medium pocket pair.
Phil Laak vs Patrik Antonius: High Stakes Poker (YouTube link)
Questions we're going to try and tackle are:
1) Pre-flop play: What do you think of Laak, Lederer and Antonius' respective pre-flop action? If you disagree with any of them, how do you think it changes the actions of the other players? Does PA defend his straddle if HL folds, for instance?
2) Flop play: Is PA right to check/call the flop? What do you think of the bet sizing from Laak? What hands do you think Laak is trying to represent?
3) Turn play: How do you think this card alters the hand ranges Laak is representing? Do you think there's an argument for PA leading or check-raising the turn here?
4) River play: PA's call is pretty incredible. Which hands do you think he put Laak on to make this call? What part of Laak's play do you think gave away his hand strength? Do you agree with Gabe Kaplan's verdict that it was PL's bet speed rather than size that gave him away?
Feel free to raise other questions as and when they come to you: our aim is to break the hand down and try and factor in things such as perceived table image - we all know Antonius is loose-aggressive, Laak is a bit nitty and Lederer hasn't played a hand to the river since 2006, so this should be factored into the discussions where possible
As an added bonus, I've actually managed to interview Phil Laak about this hand in the past and he gave me some analysis on what he thought was going on during the hand, which I'll add to the end of this thread as a kind of summary from one half of the story.
Have fun!
Sky Dave
Comments
Lederer if m in his shoes i re-raise the flop.
After that the Laak Antonious battle i dont see much that id do differnent. Although if in Patrick i make the wrong fold on the river.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thl33IbbqyU
lol loving beanies posts in this thread + 1
Think i seen that, agree Howard Lederer is a nit should have stuck to chess(there is a background to that)
Phil laak sucks
Antonious is a beast!
As for play, pre standard.
Flop Phil Laak was pre-flop aggressor and has overs so c betting to represent big pair or AK, Antonious has probably put him on overs so has called knowing he's ahead
Turn dangerous card for antonious, the fact PL is potting(i think) each time or roundabouts seems like he could be bluffing here but could easily have AK here, Antonious has called probably to either check it down, or re-assess on the river
River another card which could have hit Phil Laaks range, AK< AQ, AJ, JJ,10,10 etc, only one possible hand of his range which antonious beats and through his reads he has got it correct.
Most the time this play would be spewy, but against Phil Laak who is a bit of a nit so easier to narrow his range here. Still great call and hand reading all the way through, something Tom dwan & Phil Ivey does well also there the top 3 and PA shows why he is so good here
Cheers beaneh for HH as i didn't get to look last night at the footage although i'm sure i have seen it before
Laak: Standard
Led..:Standards
PA: Seems bad, not sure how deep they are, or if that even matters
Flop:
Laak: Kind of good, think if he checks he turns his hand face up, but with how LAP these games play pre, might be c/f
Led..: ahhahahahahahhahahahah
PA: Fine probably
Turn:
Laak: ehhh, with previous, I think he's repping kind of a narrow range. Even though K's are amazing barrel cards against droolers, PA obv is not a drooler. Not sure how deep into the meta we can get without extensive knowledge that we dont have, but just below the surface this seems like it might be a check back. Sizing is good though if he's trying to rep 55-QQ aswel. Im just not sure PA will give him credit for being able to VB that thin, so whether he is able to is irrelevant.
PA: if ^ is true, he cant do anything else?
River:
Laak: Spose he can have like one more hand, but i guess PA can be like 100% that he is super polarized now. There can also be 2 missed flush draws in his VB range. So he's polarized to like KQ+ or air, that being said, I hate his bluff. Especially because the river being Dx make him have a tonne more air.
PA: Like it son.
That being said, its somewhat (very) arrogant of me to slate a river bluff of someone who is far superior. So yeah, just my 2 cents and we do not have the info laak has either so...it's kind of an evaluation based off little-no info. In a vacuum, its bad. But the games not played in a vacuum...wanna know why?
CUZ ITS TOO SMAL 2 FIT PEEPIL IN LAWL
2) Flop play: PA is defo right to check, but once lederer folds, i think PA should get out of the way. Laak betting 16k into 20k on flop is fine. repping big pair, standard c bet. Lederer should raise.
3) Turn play: the K spades means Laak could still have AA, KK, but it really narrows his range and this could look like a 2nd barrel with over cards. I would prob lead here, to say oi matey, i got a strong hand... if i still get action i got the flush draw to back me up.
4) River play: Omg! what an amazing call, im dumb struck, must have had him on AJ!
c'mon
Taking down the pot there and then when the pots are relatively small doesn't have as much merit, especially considering how deep they are and what can happen (ie he folds the worst hand or calls with better, yay).
Like when she said that there was absolutely no doubt Hellmuth was the best tournament player in the world, i made this sound.
lk;sdjasdfghsdfk;ghaksdfgljasdf'jgl;adfjg'adfljglhadgjfad'gjadfhdfal'hj'adfgja#