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.

Maybe that's why he's playing, and you're watching, stuck in your world where everything is an inside joke and every poker hand you play is "lol standard".

He had a well thought out gameplan that took into consideration the unique format of the tournament. He stuck to his strategy and won the tournament even though he missed a c-bet and Mizzi didn't facilitate a check raise.

He missed some value(possibly not a great deal) by taking a "non standard" line and it wasn't catastrophic. Imo his thought process and overall results speak for themselves.

It's interesting that he even found the need to defend himself but it's great that big time winning players share their sometimes unconventional thinking.

if this is the case, why check the flop?

lol wut

sounds like u mad brah. why dont u go hug andys nuts some more

lookslikewegotabadasshere.jpg

This is a good/interesting point, thanks for sharing.

I disagree with this, it's way too simplistic reasoning. The idea you can check because he's aggro is flawed because:

1) Like you said, Sorel has a brain and knows you rep a stronger range when you check back.
2) Sorel's not looking to bluff off his stack. Ever. No way. So your check doesn't get value from air.

I don't agree that any young/competent tourney pro is ever "taking the bait". You'd need someone with 0 hand reading ability and 0 understanding of the tourney structure to induce bluffs.

If you think this is the case I'm sure Luke would be willing to play you online at any stake you want for as long as you want.

terrible hand analysis and bad attitude ripped to shreds in just a few sentences

nh sir

is Frankenberger a pro or a fish on a massive heater?

I think he went on a massive heater and decided he was good enough to quit his job and play professionally.

@ 38.40 " theres not that many 9s in the deck".
OUTSTANDING

Once the flop came down with two 9's on it, he wasn't on the steal anymore. He had so much showdown value it wasn't a bluff anymore.

edge of the world won the thread imo.

Holy **** Frankenberger is awful.

Do you even know what a thin value bet is, given his sizing here? My god, you're dreadful.

dont tap the aquarium imho

Yeah, quickly skimming through your posts (tl;dr, sorry ), on one hand you say that you don't expect Mizzi to get out of line because of his double up card (see: flat-calling with 99), on the other you say that you check back because you think it's likely for him to spaz and you want to let him to hang himself (your words).
You also say that you don't feel like it's necessary to play big pots with your position, but then you opt to 3-bet A7.
Post-flop, I think you agree that a c-bet would be optimal, holding top trips is no spot to pot control (which your analysis seems to indicate) and if you c-bet all hands that miss, you clearly want to maximize value by betting.
I never had an intention of questioning your quite stellar tournament record, but this hand was just played really poorly and I think most poker players would agree. Your analysis which puts emphasis on tournament structure doesn't convince me, you seem to be negating yourself on a lot of points. But hey, Im no pro, so maybe I"m wrong.

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. .........


LOL i am on the shows for my poker prowess aswell as my enteratinament commentary and the rest , infact every single tv show i have always made the final table of excecpt that donkey mixed game 1 u also fluked . i would offer u a series of bets 1st about that hand that u played every street very wrong ( we could ask 5 ppl who are playing the premier league with us ) secondly we can do a last longer for up to 100k in the premier league we are about to play , thirdly not only did u play that hand bad but u are a monster whale who folds k6 to a 4 bb re shove when u have opened for 2.5 bb hu

LMFAO! in after schwartz

It also looked like Frankenberger tried to raise less than the minimum amount, unless I misunderstood the dealer chatter. If true, it seems like he may be a novice at this game. Does anyone know what games he got his bracelets in?

In before

OOooooooooooooooooosh.