Unabomber bust out hand: good semibluff or resteal?

[ 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?

wrong

[ 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]

[ 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]

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.

deleted

[ 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.