But all those 1 pair hands will get checked down (or at the very least knowing Laak, Antonious should definitely assume this if he's playing skillfully).

everyone please just add veil to your ignore list with this link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/pr...ignore&u=95051

i realize that there's always at least one of these "standard call" people in every hand discussion, but he is actually saying that phil ****ing laak raises any 2 cards 100% of the time utg in a full ring game if there's a straddle and then triple barrels all of them

i also remember him posting stupid **** over a year ago then challenging me to play 50/100 hu and then bitching out

This has to be like 18th level thinking or something to even entertain a call like that.

Like Carnivore said,only really beats middle connecters and A-10 or A-J.

Way over my head......would love to hear Patriks thinking there.He couldnt have possible put him on A-J specifically could he?Could have just as easily been A-K or Q that was Cbet on the flop and then connected on turn or river.I geuss he put him on suited middle connecters that missed or something??

Im speechless.

How do you not see the flaw in this logic? You're saying his UTG raise contains 100% of hands and equal likelihood. Think about that for a while.

Yes you did say he was likely to do it, in fact you were basically saying he does it 100% of the time. You were using the AJ to write off "1.6% of the deck", which assumes he 3-barrels AJ 100% of the time. Without saying how often he 3-barrels the numbers you use are meaningless. What if he only 3 barrels 1 in 100 times he has AJ. What if he 3-barrels 1 in 20 times?

It may be a correct call but you haven't gone anywhere near justifying it with your incomplete way of applying maths.

All of you debating whether the call was good or not, should learn some f modesty and be glad you get to watch a master at work at his field of expertise purely for your entertainment

It's easier to make hero calls in heads up pots?

yeah for sure

sick sick call. i think a lot of the time PA tries to make hero calls like this (on the most recent million dollar cash game for example) but goddamn that looked ridiculously good.

My two cents. Phil isn't raising up the straddle to 6K like that with 22-44 very much. With QQ I think he would still bet the turn but not a near pot bet like he did. AK I don't think he would bet 2/3 pot on the river in such a huge pot. Only hands Laak can really 3barrell with those bet sizes are KK and KQ. And there are tons of flush and straight draws for barreling which all missed.

Also Hachem's look was funny he is so outmatched in this lineup so is the nit Lederer.

hahah

antonious is a station, he should fold flop, once he gets to river laaks thinking way longer wot number to valuebet with his value range but to get to river against laak is pretty lol

I think Lederer is well suited. Most of the table will be playing LAG, which makes nitty play quite profitable. It might be boring, but it's effective.

I don't see why Lederer's fold was bad. In that spot vs Phil Laak and Patrik to act behind you, you should fold.

Patrik's hand simply had better implied odds vs Phil if he caught a 10 or a 4. He also had a chance to hit any spade on the turn to continue to the river. He could also bluff with any Ace (to represent a straight) or heart that came on the turn, so Patrik was simply just in a better position than Howard, with half the deck letting him continue or giving him bluff outs.

I think he would've felt more stupid if Laak turned over 99 lol. Then people would be like "wtf?".

If Laak turned over KK, he could just muck his cards and say "cold deck".

veil clearly has no clue what he's talking about.

The calldown the entire way is impressive. But given the prior action, the river call is beyond fundamental.

I never said Laak needs to be raising 100% of the time utg with a straddle at a full ring game. I said it need only be slightly possible. Remember, just because you think you're beat, it doesn't mean it's correct to fold.

Laak being able to raise with some sort of hand that will then miss the board and he will fire 3 times - is no where near lower than 4%. And 4% is a generous figure. Patrick could know more and assume that Laak's most probably holdings are just K/K and maybe A/A. With most K/Q's folding utg most the time in PA's mind? And AK not betting flop like that, and Q/Q not playing turn like that, etc, etc, etc. There's so much evidence to tell us that his range is extremely tight, but zero to assume that Laak is going to be 3 barrelling with an air hand less than this tight range. Exactly zero.

Cliff notes: Given all the action, the river is a fundamental call with 28% pot odds, and Laak's 3 barrel range is much bigger than his standard 3 barrel range against Patrick.

Just because your first inclination is that this is an amazing call, doesn't mean you have to justify why in your mind. Just think about it with an open mind. I've used math to rigorously give me more than enough evidence to say it would be a bad fold on the river given the action.

the math you used in this thread made some brash assumptions tho as others have pointed out. imo this thread needs less arguing more worship....sick call god!

if Laak has KK there he woulve value bet the river like 35-40k range , the 80 k bet on the river is weird , PA the ever sexy man , smelt it and look him up. GOD WINS.

lol. he's getting 2.5-1 on a call, that means 40%.

soul read imo

what a sexy call

huh? the turn is a super easy call. he has a pair and a flush draw; the slightest chance at the best present hand, plus a 1/3rd of the deck to greatly improve.

on the river he can only beat a bluff; not an easy straight forward river call.

from what I seen on tv so far from PA when he tanks on the river his usually going to end up calling. ive seen fold trips 2 pair instantly before.. but Laak hand doesnt make sense there if he had an overpair he woulve c/r the flop , Howard woulda bet to see where he was , and PA would just called. Laak woulda folded and from that play I think Howards ranges would be prolorized. thats my thought process anyways

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHA

I thought Lederer was solid until he tried to break down that one hand where Townsend called down PA with QJ on the Q6xKx board after firing 3barrels then being raised on river and calling. He like compared it to some supernit hand where he and Cunningham had like a set vs a straight and the board paired and only like one street of betting occurred and Lederer got away cheap. Just sickened me that he doesn't consider anything about opponent history or playing hands where both you and opponent aren't giant nitbags.

This guy gets it!

And K/Q off may even fold utg. I've seen Laak do this. But then again if we assume he's playing a random missed draw hand this might be irrelevant in some sense.

love that idiots think this can be summed up by purely math.

i think that on the river laak read the situation well in that he thought pa was weak and a 3rd barrell should take the pot down, but his mistake in my opinion is he bet to much and he forgot that he was up against a fearless soul reader that will call if he thinks there is a good enough chance that laak is bluffing.

either that or pa is in fact a live superuser.

EDIT: this was not internet poker and people get reads irl.