lol nice link

Played it like a total fish on every single street.

variance is such an amazing thing

not surprisingly, andy's post-hand analysis is just as cringeworthy as the way he played the hand

Whenever I hear "hand analysis" it always reminds me of "hey, he cant have aces, I have an ace, if he has kings I can still win and he might laydown queens or jacks"

Great moments lol

Yeah commentary is A+.

I remember seeing some of Andy at WPT and thought he's either really fishy or a genius. He defo plays very weird with underbets, overbets, donking, etc.

It’s easy to criticize, especially in a forum like this. I’ve never been afraid of criticism, or of going against popular wisdom. I was fully aware when I made that play that it would draw criticism, but I did it anyway for reasons which I’m happy to explain. I am sure there are some of you out there who are going to jump at the opportunity to criticize regardless of my reasoning (haters be hating), while some of you are actually curious about why I played the hand the way I did. To the latter group, which I would hope would be the majority of the people who take the time to follow 2+2, please -- read on…

The point structure of the tournament had everything to do with my decision to play the hand the way I did. It was not a cash game, it was not a standard sit and go. The 12 players in the tournament were split into 2 groups of six. We played three heats vs. this group of six, one heat in each of NLH, PLO, and PLH. In each heat, the tournament paid the following number of points based on finishing 6th to 1st place: zero, 1, 2, 3, [BIG GAP] 6, 8. So coming in 2nd place got twice as many points as coming in 3rd. There was also a “double card.” A player could use their double card in one of the three heats, and they had to announce before the heat that they were using the card. To these players, the point payout structure for 6th to 1st was (obviously) zero, 2, 4, 6, [HUGE GAP] 12, 16. Three players used this event, which was the first event – Sorel, Ben, and Andrew. Long story short, there was a HUGE point gap between the first four places and the top two.

Have a look at minute 2:33, the chip counts at the time. I had a massive chip lead going into the hand in question, and I knew that if I could hold on to my chip lead and finish 1st or 2nd in this heat, not only would I win 6 or 8 points, but I would prevent at least two of those three players using their double card from a crucial score of 12 or 16. This would put me in great shape to make the final table (after the 3 heats, the 3 players with the most points advanced to the final table).

Think about how you would play in a satellite tournament with 6 people where there were two seats up for grabs and the bottom four spots paid practically nothing… Are you going to look to get max value in every spot when you have one of the two seats virtually locked up? That’s how I looked at this structure, and this perspective certainly helped me win the tournament.

Do I think I played the hand perfectly? Not at all. I’ve played poker professionally for just over 2 years, and I am certainly still learning. In retrospect, against a tough player like Sorel, betting the flop is the better play because the strong player assumes I’m C-betting every flop, even when I miss. I hadn’t played much against Sorel at the time, so I didn’t know much about his game other than I perceived him to be aggressive, the kind of guy who is better to let hang himself. There are PLENTY of players out there who would take the bait and lead out on the turn, but Sorel didn’t do that. As for my decision to check back the turn, say what you want, but once I decided to check back the flop, I felt that checking back the turn to continue to look weak was the right play in hopes of him catching a card or barreling on the river. I didn't want him to fold assuming I hit a K. When Sorel bet out on the river, I knew I had made a mistake to check back the flop, but I ultimately decided that I was unlikely to get called by a worse hand, and in the off chance that he caught a hand that beat me, I was never folding to his shove… That last decision to simply call his bet on the flop had EVERYTHING to do with the point structure, where, again, with my massive chip lead, I was virtually assured of locking up first or second place in the heat. There was A LOT more downside to me losing a big pot in the off chance that I was beat than there was in winning the marginal chips. I had only 2 points to gain if I went from 2nd to 1st place, whereas I had up to 6 point of downside if I lost that pot. Of even greater importance, if I surrendered the 2nd place finish, another player using their double card could jump from 6 to 12 points just by moving from 3rd to 2nd.

I’ve spoken with several pro’s whose opinions are QUITE different from Luke’s. But Luke is Luke – we all know he’s not on these shows for his poker prowess. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I have always been the kind of person who prefers to defend someone being criticized rather than join in, but that’s maybe that's just me. If you’re in the habit of ignoring the unique point structures of tournaments like this, I hope to see you at my table soon.

Sorry guys, I'm with the Frankenberger.

The preflop 3-bet doesn't make sense given that explanation.

<< sure it does... i didn't have as big of a lead to *start* the hand as i did after the hand (or what i expected to have after the hand). the more chips i got, the more i could go into semi-lockdown mode (not gonna completely shut it down, but could afford to lean toward conservatism). if you want to find fault with anything about the pre-flop action, how about Sorel not 4 betting 99 there? the reason he didn't do it? the double card. using the double card in the very first event put HUGE pressure on him not to bust first -- a big tactical mistake for him and the 2 others who used their card in event 1 IMO. with this pressure in mind, i thought i could apply pressure in position and steal pre-flop...

All this shows is how ridiculous the whole idea of this abortion of a show is. It causes situations/hands like this that I really doubt many of us are really interested in.

Real poker players want to see the best players playing for the highest stakes on TV, that is all.

I'd never heard of this dude until this show, but winning a bracelet, a WPT and some more FTs cannot just be luck. There is a tendency for good players to start thinking everything is 'standard' (Which it might well be at micro-mid stakes).

"First. came the innovators, then the imitators then the idiots..."

LOL if that really is frankenburger...

trying to justify your thought process when really all that happened was "OMG I HAZ TRIPS TIME TO TARP HIM"

how you could win even a 1 dollar sit n go is beyond me

He must do something right.

The funny thing is that I tought to myself after watching this vid: "Since he is a pro with good results, what could he possibly been thinking?" and now he is posting here . Still I don't know what to think of this hand. Maybe this shows that these kind of structures arent "real poker" or do you level yourself by taking this structure too far? I don't know but it still doesnt feel right. But tnx for your post.

Meh on that board and based on the preflop action, trips was clearly the nuts there.

Dude what? Luke is one of the top HU NLHE in the world. He's crushed 25/50 for years =\

Andy,
Thanks for the info regarding the nature of the tourney & your thought process --- it was helpful.
I know you know it, but I'll say it anyway ---- give no regard to these hater kids who have never been to a WPT let alone won one.
Your addition to the community is welcomed.

So the guy makes a single bad play on television out of his entire highly successful poker career. Give him a break.