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.
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.
Comments
And if you did raise in Lederer's position, would you be raising for value or just to 'ask a question'? Like just say you got 3 bet or PL called the raise how would you react then?
If he calls he has virtually no idea where he is, the only way a call is good is if he makes the decision he's reraising the turn, no matter what. Lederer should wise up to the fact that because he's got a reputation as such a supertight nit, players will take note when he starts raising postflop and be much more likely to respect it. I think you have to raise 8's on that board to at least find out what's happening, everyone folds- happy days. Someone raises, reassess. Someone calls, reassess on the turn. But put the big decisions on your opponents to start.
i am raising to ask the question. if i have a respected tight image i prob take down the pot if i think PL is standard C betting, which he is. If PL calls, and checks the turn, i fire big again (assuming PA has folded) if you get 3 bet you have to fold.
i know i only have 88, but a raise there looks strong, maybe like a set sometimes... The point is, as HL has position, and has rereaised the flop there PL really does need to have the goods to continue, so get the raise size right and you win a nice pot there and then.
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
SUPER-SYSTEM IS NOT STILL RELEVANT
Phil Laak is a Nit, so cant see him checking a good hand at any point, maybe PA got lucky this time but i think he has put him on the exact hand the way he has played it
if he checks the turn and bets the river he is repping a wider value range than he is by 3barreling. whether PA will believe him or not is another matter.
greghogg why would you raise the flop and bet the turn big
you will have to make it atleast 50k on the flop so the pot size on the turn is atleast 120k. you bet 100k and he jams on you. and you get to fold. i think stack sizes are around 250k at this point so you are going to have put 2/3 of your stack into the middle and then fold, wp.
there are times when betting for protection is good, this is not one of them.
And deuces, calling the flop with 88 and then raising the turn is just unbelievably bad considering how polarised PL's range is there, what would a turn raise achieve?
Keep it going!
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.