Unabomber bust out hand: good semibluff or resteal?

betgo · #1 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 ]

#2 12-17-2005, 12:58 AM

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) [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

How much did that mistake potentially cost him? Hard to judge the rationale without knowing that and the situational dynamics of the table.

#3 12-17-2005, 01:04 AM

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.

#4 12-17-2005, 01:04 AM

how can you even call that semi bluff? he donked it good.

two0crew · #5 12-17-2005, 01:05 AM

it was like 10x more wasn't it, seems like a steal bluff went bad to me..

#6 12-17-2005, 01:06 AM

[ 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.

#7 12-17-2005, 01:07 AM

[ 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 · #8 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.

#9 12-17-2005, 01:09 AM

[ 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 · #10 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.