View Full Version : Unabomber bust out hand: good semibluff or resteal?
betgo
12-17-2005, 12:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Patrik Antonius raised from middle position to 200k, Phil 'Unabomber' Laak pushed in from the small blind for 2.06m. Antonius called and the players turned up:
Phil Laak [Kd][3c]
Patrik Antonius [Ah][As] The board came [Ks][Js][10d][Ad][5h] giving Antonius a set of [A]'s and Phil Laak was eliminated in 6th place with $160,995.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that was more of a value bet and a steal bluff by Laak, rather than a semi-bluff. I've never seen the guy play except on TV, so it is hard for me to judge. IMHO, he doesn't appear to be top tier talent in the pro ranks. Why else would someone overlay so much with a not so great hand? He presumably wasn't short stacked.
But what the heck do I know? He cashes in pro tourneys and has a hottie famous actress girlfriend. (I only have the hottie girlfriend part) /images/graemlins/cool.gif
How much did that mistake potentially cost him? Hard to judge the rationale without knowing that and the situational dynamics of the table.
A resteal has everything to do with table dynamics, so I don't think we can analyze whether or not it was a good play just based on this summary.
PS Spee, I don't know what a 'value bet and steal bluff' is, but this was a lot more steal bluff than it was value bet.
how can you even call that semi bluff? he donked it good.
two0crew
12-17-2005, 01:05 AM
it was like 10x more wasn't it, seems like a steal bluff went bad to me..
[ QUOTE ]
how can you even call that semi bluff? he donked it good.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a semi-bluff because he has outs against hands like AK and QQ that will certainly call him. And there's no way you can determine that this was a donk play based on the information that you have.
[ QUOTE ]
PS Spee, I don't know what a 'value bet and steal bluff' is, but this was a lot more steal bluff than it was value bet.
[/ QUOTE ]
I meant the AA was the value bet. Sorry for the poor wording.
betgo
12-17-2005, 01:07 AM
Obviously a major misread. Antonius raised only 2.5xBB, which the Unabomber obviously interpreted as weakness.
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously a major misread. Antonius raised only 2.5xBB, which the Unabomber obviously interpreted as weakness.
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this 'obviously' a misread. For all you know, Antonius has raised 2.5x the last four times Laak was in the blind. If his range is wide, then it wasn't a misread, Laak was just unlucky to run into the top end of the range.
betgo
12-17-2005, 01:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously a major misread. Antonius raised only 2.5xBB, which the Unabomber obviously interpreted as weakness.
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this 'obviously' a misread. For all you know, Antonius has raised 2.5x the last four times Laak was in the blind. If his range is wide, then it wasn't a misread, Laak was just unlucky to run into the top end of the range.
[/ QUOTE ]
K3o is not an obvious hand to resteal with, so he must have had some kind of read that Antonius did not have a strong hand. Maybe it was just that Antonius was a big stack and had been putting in a lot of raises. Obviously his read was way off, since Antonius turned over aces.
[ QUOTE ]
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's the size of the overlay that is the question. How many times does he have to get a laydown and guess right on the opponent's hand to be a long run winner in that situation?
He must have thought that the opponent was on a steal or medium strength hand. I don't known that he could logically rule out any kind of pair or ace unless he had some info that triggered a different read.
Perhaps the opponent had been bluffing or had shown rags recently. Or maybe he was reading the guy as someone who could lay down a middle pair, or medium Ace. Dunno.
Maybe someone was there and will give a more detailed data dump.
Does anyone know how much the mistake cost him?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously a major misread. Antonius raised only 2.5xBB, which the Unabomber obviously interpreted as weakness.
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this 'obviously' a misread. For all you know, Antonius has raised 2.5x the last four times Laak was in the blind. If his range is wide, then it wasn't a misread, Laak was just unlucky to run into the top end of the range.
[/ QUOTE ]
K3o is not an obvious hand to resteal with, so he must have had some kind of read that Antonius did not have a strong hand. Maybe it was just that Antonius was a big stack and had been putting in a lot of raises. Obviously his read was way off, since Antonius turned over aces.
[/ QUOTE ]
istewart
12-17-2005, 01:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously a major misread. Antonius raised only 2.5xBB, which the Unabomber obviously interpreted as weakness.
Laak is pushing 2M to pick up a 400K pot. K3o is not a great restealing hand, but plays OK against some calling hands.
I am not sure if I like the play, but it is not as bad as it looks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this 'obviously' a misread. For all you know, Antonius has raised 2.5x the last four times Laak was in the blind. If his range is wide, then it wasn't a misread, Laak was just unlucky to run into the top end of the range.
[/ QUOTE ]
K3o is not an obvious hand to resteal with, so he must have had some kind of read that Antonius did not have a strong hand. Maybe it was just that Antonius was a big stack and had been putting in a lot of raises. Obviously his read was way off, since Antonius turned over aces.
[/ QUOTE ]
Antonious having aces =! his read was off. Either way Laak is horrible so talking about his hands seems an exercise in futility.
[ QUOTE ]
Antonious having aces =! his read was off. Either way Laak is horrible so talking about his hands seems an exercise in futility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. If Laak's read was based solely on the frequency with which Antonius had been raising (and we don't know that it was), then the fact that Antonius turned over AA this time does not mean his read was wrong. I don't think his read was "this guy has 33"; more likely it was along the lines of, "this guy has A2-AK, K8-KQ, Q9-QJ, J9-JT, T9, 22-AA". AA is part of the range, so the fact that that's what Antonius had does not make Laak wrong.
Similarly, if Antonius' actual range was AT-AK, KQ, 88-AA and he folded AT face up, then Laak's read would be wrong, even though his play worked.
istewart
12-17-2005, 01:43 AM
Do you know what the following symbol means?
[ QUOTE ]
=!
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="white">Hint: You said the same thing I did. </font>
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what the following symbol means?
[ QUOTE ]
=!
[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="white">Hint: You said the same thing I did. </font>
[/ QUOTE ]
I've actually never seen that before, I just thought it was a typo. My bad.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Antonious having aces =! his read was off. Either way Laak is horrible so talking about his hands seems an exercise in futility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. If Laak's read was based solely on the frequency with which Antonius had been raising (and we don't know that it was), then the fact that Antonius turned over AA this time does not mean his read was wrong. I don't think his read was "this guy has 33"; more likely it was along the lines of, "this guy has A2-AK, K8-KQ, Q9-QJ, J9-JT, T9, 22-AA". AA is part of the range, so the fact that that's what Antonius had does not make Laak wrong.
Similarly, if Antonius' actual range was AT-AK, KQ, 88-AA and he folded AT face up, then Laak's read would be wrong, even though his play worked.
[/ QUOTE ]
boy, your in an argumentative mood tonight. everything you are saying is conjecture. "if he had raised the blinds the last 4 hands" "if" "if". Fact is, it was a horrible way to donk off chips. Who bets 2 mil with the goods? Only the goods will call. hence, donk move.
[ QUOTE ]
boy, your in an argumentative mood tonight. everything you are saying is conjecture. "if he had raised the blinds the last 4 hands" "if" "if". Fact is, it was a horrible way to donk off chips. Who bets 2 mil with the goods? Only the goods will call. hence, donk move.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is conjecture. That doesn't make it wrong. He didn't expect to be ahead when called, but he did expect to have outs against many hands that could call, and he obviously expected a fold a good amount of the time. Without knowing how often Antonius had been raising his blind, we don't know what Antonius' range was or what Laak's perception of his range was, so we don't know whether or not it was a good play. Labeling it a 'donk play' is also conjecture.
no it was K3 into an unknown hand as poker is played. you have a chance for a bracelet and millions in cash and you push K3. way to work those edges. donk move.
Annulus
12-17-2005, 02:05 AM
I really don't know much about Laak's game, but just the few times I've seen him on TV he seems like the type to eventually self destruct. Of course this is just my opinion. And he is so annoying.
ActionJeff
12-17-2005, 02:13 AM
he risked 2M chips for 400K. It was not a great play, but Antonius seems super aggresive, and it is a reraise with a lot of FE. An (incorrect) read on the raise could have made the difference, but I think I am correct in stating that Antonius is raising as much as half his hands from that position, and probably needs at least AQ or a decent sized pair to call the large reraise, which consistitutes a pretty small part of his range. I am not defending Laak's play, but I really don't think it is as bad as it seems. And I refuse to provide any mathematical reasoning right now. It is 2 in the morning, lay off!
Annulus
12-17-2005, 02:25 AM
Wonder if he was trying to look cool on tv with this play.
I agree this play probably does have a high chance of being successful but the few times its not, you are history.
Roman
12-17-2005, 02:38 AM
Antonious has been raising a whole lot before this, showing down stuff like 85o and whatnot, Laak hadn't been playing back at him at all. It isnt a terrible move, even though I doubt I would make it.
jedinite
12-17-2005, 03:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wonder if he was trying to look cool on tv with this play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very simple explanation, actually.
Phil was getting ready to do the crab dance (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forums/viewtopic.php?t=7967)
lighterjobs
12-17-2005, 05:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wonder if he was trying to look cool on tv with this play.
[/ QUOTE ]
that worked out pretty good for him.
Laak clearly cultivates his unstable image, and has also said that tournaments are harder to win now because of the TV exposure of his wild style.
However I suspect he is properly tight in the beginnings of tournaments, and has probably found that he can use his famous loose image to his advantage early on. TV tournaments also have wild blinds at the end to facilitate a lot of action, so his loosening up is warranted to some extent by the time he reaches the television.
However Laak still has a wild streak above and beyond the prudent.. (contrasted with say.. the kind of 'prudent wildness' that Harrington displays when the blinds begin to force action) Laak draws great strength from that wild beast that wants to raise raise raise... but he struggles to keep it reined in. It gets out at the wrong times on occation, the true mastery of the "ultra-rager" style is knowing how to employ it selectively. It is a hard style to manage for both the opponent and the practitioner -- Laak seems to desire variance at the high levels of the tournament, even when he is an underdog or is flipping for his whole stack... probably comes from having a movie star gf
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.