| |
Main
Date: 16 Feb 2009 09:24:56
From: phlash74
Subject: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
I'm watching a rerun of this year's WSOPE main event (episode 2) when
the following hand comes up between the defending champ and Phil
Laak. I really don't understand her call on the end, what the hell
could Laak have that she beats when he shoves?
Blinds 150/300, ante 25
Stacks: Laak ~22,000, Obrestad ~40,000
Preflop: Laak raises to 1025 with the Th8h from the hijack, Obrestad
calls 1025 with AdJd in the cutoff, everyone else folds.
Flop(pot 2,725): 8s 5c Jd
Laak bets 1650 with middle pair, Obrestad calls 1650 with TPTK.
Turn(pot 6,025): 8s 5c Jh 8c
Laak checks his trips, Obrestad bets 3500, Laak tanks for a couple
minutes then finally calls.
River(pot 13,075): 8s 5c Jh 8c Tc
Laak checks his full house, Obrestad bets 4500, Laak instashoves for
15,750. Annette's getting about 3-1 on the call, but what the hell
can she beat? The backdoor flush draw came in, the board is paired;
does she really think Laak is checkraising all-in with worse than AJ
here? A bluff makes no sense either, because he couldn't be sure that
she would bet if he checked. She finally calls and loses more than
half her stack. She gets eliminated later with a bad beat from Marco
Traniello whose AQ outflops her KK. Obviously she's a hell of a
player, but I just don't see how she makes this call in this spot.
Michael
U.S. American
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 15:06:43
From: Patty
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
> I have to assume you're being sarcastic here, but hard to tell in
> writing.
Yes, definitely, sarcasm. Pros/wannabes are always wronged or got
their due depending on the outcome, while ordinary folks either get
lucky or get what they deserve when they lose. Just sorta making the
point that the OP/mortals shouldn't try to think at those levels, lol.
Nice levels discussion though.
Patty
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 14:06:23
From: funky cold medina
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
On Feb 16, 11:55=A0am, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Feb 16 2009 2:24 PM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
>
> > You can spend hours on these exercises, and all you'll accomplish is
> > giving yourself a headache. =A0Better to base your decision on "I just
> > don't think you got it."
>
> And never get in a land war in Asia;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D=
3EkBuKQEkio&feature=3Drelated
>
> Chandler
>
Damn you Chandler, I've had that clip favorite'd and lying in wait for
an opportune moment.
*@#&$@
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 14:58:39
From: chandler
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
On Feb 16 2009 5:06 PM, funky cold medina wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:55 am, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Feb 16 2009 2:24 PM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
>
> >
> > > You can spend hours on these exercises, and all you'll accomplish is
> > > giving yourself a headache. Better to base your decision on "I just
> > > don't think you got it."
> >
> > And never get in a land war in Asia;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio&feature=related
> >
> > Chandler
> >
>
>
> Damn you Chandler, I've had that clip favorite'd and lying in wait for
> an opportune moment.
>
> *@#&$@
Inconceivable!
Chandler
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:46:09
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
On Feb 16, 10:06=A0am, Patty <SuitedB...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> Remember, these are pros, and when they make these plays, it is not
> just a donkey call but actually strategy that involves statospheric
> levels of thinking and meta game factors that we donks cannot hope to
> understand.
LOL !! Ohhh-kayyy...
She's a hyper-aggressive Euro donk.
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:24:26
From:
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
On Feb 16, 1:06=A0pm, Patty <SuitedB...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > Annette's getting about 3-1 on the call, but what the hell can she beat=
?
>
> She looks pretty smart if he turns over Th9h.
>
> > A bluff makes no sense either, because he couldn't be sure that
> > she would bet if he checked. =A0
>
> Which is all the more reason to think he might be bluffing since if he
> has a big hand (trips, flush, fullhouse) he would like to be
> relatively assured of the chance for some value by betting rather than
> risking a check behind on a scary board.
>
> Remember, these are pros, and when they make these plays, it is not
> just a donkey call but actually strategy that involves statospheric
> levels of thinking and meta game factors that we donks cannot hope to
> understand. =A0Naturally that is true regardless of the results.
>
> Patty
I have to assume you're being sarcastic here, but hard to tell in
writing.
If not, then you're missing the fact that "strospheric" levels of
thinking are meaningless. If one action is wrong and the other action
is correct, as in this case, then if you think an odd number of levels
deeper than your opponent (be that 1, 3, or 27), you look like a
genius, if you think an even number of levels, then it doesn't matter
if it's zero, 2, or 438, you're still going to be wrong.
If she had thought 3 levels (this has to be a bluff, he wouldn't check
a better hand than mine on the river, so he wants me to fold, so I'll
call, but he knows that, so I'll fold), then she's smart.
If she goes one more level (this has to be a bluff, he wouldn't check
a better hand than mine on the river, so he wants me to fold, so I'll
call, but he knows that, so I'll fold, but that's what he thinks I'll
do, so I'll call) she looks like a moron.
I have yet to see or hear anyone articulate a valid reason for
stopping at 2 levels deep, vs. going on to 3, or 4, or alternately
going one more level than you are. It's a flip of the coin.
You can spend hours on these exercises, and all you'll accomplish is
giving yourself a headache. Better to base your decision on "I just
don't think you got it."
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 11:55:34
From: chandler
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
On Feb 16 2009 2:24 PM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:06 pm, Patty <SuitedB...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Annette's getting about 3-1 on the call, but what the hell can she beat?
> >
> > She looks pretty smart if he turns over Th9h.
> >
> > > A bluff makes no sense either, because he couldn't be sure that
> > > she would bet if he checked.
> >
> > Which is all the more reason to think he might be bluffing since if he
> > has a big hand (trips, flush, fullhouse) he would like to be
> > relatively assured of the chance for some value by betting rather than
> > risking a check behind on a scary board.
> >
> > Remember, these are pros, and when they make these plays, it is not
> > just a donkey call but actually strategy that involves statospheric
> > levels of thinking and meta game factors that we donks cannot hope to
> > understand. Naturally that is true regardless of the results.
> >
> > Patty
>
>
> I have to assume you're being sarcastic here, but hard to tell in
> writing.
>
> If not, then you're missing the fact that "strospheric" levels of
> thinking are meaningless. If one action is wrong and the other action
> is correct, as in this case, then if you think an odd number of levels
> deeper than your opponent (be that 1, 3, or 27), you look like a
> genius, if you think an even number of levels, then it doesn't matter
> if it's zero, 2, or 438, you're still going to be wrong.
>
> If she had thought 3 levels (this has to be a bluff, he wouldn't check
> a better hand than mine on the river, so he wants me to fold, so I'll
> call, but he knows that, so I'll fold), then she's smart.
> If she goes one more level (this has to be a bluff, he wouldn't check
> a better hand than mine on the river, so he wants me to fold, so I'll
> call, but he knows that, so I'll fold, but that's what he thinks I'll
> do, so I'll call) she looks like a moron.
>
> I have yet to see or hear anyone articulate a valid reason for
> stopping at 2 levels deep, vs. going on to 3, or 4, or alternately
> going one more level than you are. It's a flip of the coin.
>
> You can spend hours on these exercises, and all you'll accomplish is
> giving yourself a headache. Better to base your decision on "I just
> don't think you got it."
And never get in a land war in Asia;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio&feature=related
Chandler
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2009 10:06:05
From: Patty
Subject: Re: Annette Obrestad hand from WSOPE main event
|
> Annette's getting about 3-1 on the call, but what the hell can she beat?
She looks pretty smart if he turns over Th9h.
> A bluff makes no sense either, because he couldn't be sure that
> she would bet if he checked. =A0
Which is all the more reason to think he might be bluffing since if he
has a big hand (trips, flush, fullhouse) he would like to be
relatively assured of the chance for some value by betting rather than
risking a check behind on a scary board.
Remember, these are pros, and when they make these plays, it is not
just a donkey call but actually strategy that involves statospheric
levels of thinking and meta game factors that we donks cannot hope to
understand. Naturally that is true regardless of the results.
Patty
|
|
