Layne Flack is a no-limit hold'em (NLH) genius. He looks at the game a bit differently than the rest of us do, and his way of playing works beautifully. You don't believe me? You say he's too erratic? Yes, he's a bit too erratic (in my opinion), but so what? We all wish we had the skill to be that erratic, even if only sometimes. Here is a guy who won two World Series of Poker tournaments this year, both in no-limit hold'em. That hasn't happened since a certain world champion did it in 1993. (Don't act surprised that I mentioned myself, you already knew I have a big ego!)
Flack recently finished second in the Foxwoods World Poker Tour (WPT) $10,000 buy-in NLH event. Also, he has made at least three other WSOP final tables in pot-limit hold'em or NLH. Did I mention that he spots the field by drinking a couple of six-packs of beer while he plays? This brings me to this question: Does "drunk" Layne play better NLH then "sober" Layne? Let's put it this way, I am not afraid of anyone in the world in NLH, but I have a healthy respect for "drunk" Layne! When Layne is drinking (it hurts his other games, like limit hold'em, stud, Omaha eight-or-better, and so on), he is dead-on with his reads, and has no fear whatsoever. If he smells weakness, "Bam," he moves all in on you, and you fold, shaking your head. It's hard to beat a guy with great reads and no fear.
Here is a hand that took place at the final table at Foxwoods that shows something: greatness, recklessness, or both? With the blinds at $800-$1,600 and the antes at $300 a man, Layne limped in with the Ju 7u. Andy Bloch limped in with K-Q, and then Jay Colombo raised it $3,400 more from the big blind with Q-Q. Layne called, and Andy called. Sometimes I take a suited connector "flyer" like this myself (Daniel Negreanu style). Anyway, the flop came down 10-9-5 rainbow, and Jay bet only $7,000. Layne called, and Andy folded. It's strange that Layne called with merely the second-best-possible belly-buster, and Andy folded with a better belly-buster and two overcards.
Anyway, the next card off was a queen, and Jay bet only $12,000 (obviously, he didn't want to lose Layne in case Layne was drawing dead). With more than $30,000 in the pot, now an open-end straight draw, and, I'm sure, a plan to bluff in case he missed his draw, Layne called. The last card off was a king, Jay bet his last $37,000, and Layne called with his made straight (the board was 10-9-5-Q-K).
As far as how Layne played the hand, I can understand his $3,400 call before the flop, because the raise was so small. His $7,000 call after the flop was a lot harder to make, but he was probably thinking he could bluff Jay out if he didn't hit his hand. On the turn, he had to call the $12,000 bet.
As far as how Jay played the hand – hmm – I don't like the small preflop raise too much, but it's OK. Jay has to understand that he's pricing in a very dangerous player when he raises only $3,400 more. I would have to have bet more on the flop, or just checked. Think of this scenario: Jay checks, Layne checks, and now Andy checks or bets; either way, Jay gets Andy hooked in there for something. (Jay either check-raises Layne or Andy on the flop and wins it, or Andy hits top pair on the turn and gets hooked into the pot.) On the turn, I would have had to bet the size of the pot or all of my chips, or check. If Jay checks, he can check-raise Layne out of the hand, or get Layne to bet all of his chips when he is in bad shape. If they both check, Jay doesn't have to lose all of his chips on the end when the straight hits.
I really hate Jay's bet of $37,000 on the end. I just don't think Layne would call him with anything but a straight at this point in the hand. I think Jay should check on the end, or bet a little bit. By the way, I'm not saying that Jay should fold when Layne bets all in or raises all in on the end. Jay may well have to go broke on this hand anyway, but not by betting all in.
You just don't see too many hands like this come up, especially at a final table. Playing the J
7 before the flop and on the flop like this is a very risky play, and it takes a great champion like Layne – and a lot of luck – to make it pay off big. Make no mistake about it, though, Layne played the hand for two reasons: first, to hit it and win big, and second, to bluff big if he had to.
I hope you enjoyed this Hand of the Week. Good luck playing your hands this week.
Editor's note: Play $4-$8 limit hold'em with Phil Hellmuth at UltimateBet.com, table "philhellmuth." For more information about Phil or more Hand of the Week columns, go to PhilHellmuth.com.