Lex Veldhuis

There's this dutch poker player named Lex Veldhuis. He was popular in day 1 main event wsop. This guy is sick. He makes nasty bluffs and sick calls.

for those who had huge debate with me in my previous thread, Check out the scene where Lex calls 4-bet allin with King 4. I don't see any problem with that. Although I wouldn't risk that much over King 4 because I would've mucked it during pre-flop, I clearly assume that Lex called because he knew his King high was best. People will say Lex made good or horrible call but I think Muenz was a dumbass to shove his whole chipstack with 6 7 suited. Anyways, this was the clear example of what I was trying to show. Even when Lex rolls over better hand, People criticize him instead of Muenz who shoved with 67suited.

I find this guy interesting. I might learn some jackass strategy from watching this guy all day.

I think Lex Veldhuis is a very good player who knows when take advantage from good spots. He play a wide range of hands and u never know if he is bluffing of has the nuts.
I can realy only see his play working best tho at the WSOP main event when alot of ppl have fear of busting out (not that guy who had 67 lmao, he was trying to make a strong move n it didnt work, oh well!).
I was reading a blog of his and i heard he was down ALOT from playin cash games on pokerstars and didnt do too well in the WCOOP.
He is a good player tho, one that i do admire

He should be crown Super Donkey of the World... I was getting sick watching him play... am glad he got crushed on day 2 or 3... donkeys like that never profit.

i would be more impressed with him if he showed a litle bit of restraint...ummm lex, you dont have to, nor should you show EVERY bluff. quit worryin about impressin evelyn and play yo game. ty!

Yeah I agree with that--at times I just wanted to tell him to slow down for a second. He made some sick plays and could have lasted a lot longer if he treated it like the long tournament that it is. You can not win it on day one.

He is the worst player i've ever seen them televise..
Sick Plays does not equal calling an all in with k4.

He would bluff everytime, if there was a reasonable player at the table, they would have called him...
But no....This old guy couldn't call with his queens against a pair on the board after he'd seen lex show 3 bluffs back to back.

Lol, its no suprise Lex didn't make it far.


Pokerloves me::: i don't want to get in a debate, but its the same situation as the thread you posted earlier in the week, pushing all in with 6 7 > calling with k4..

He runs good lol especially with evelyn ng. Didn't he get knocked out of the ME by a donkey move??? He had a draw and the guy had top pair and he shoved with like 30bbs left.

Thing is, when Gus Hansen does much the same stuff they call it genius...

lol. evelyn ng is pretty hot isnt she? lucky lex.

Ive seen lex play a lot of poker (also televised), sure he is a very agressive player and plays a lot of hands and makes crazy bluffs. But he is doing something good when he cashes in the 40k event (last wsop) for about 300k. His main strengths are that he can pick up a lot of tells and has a good idea of the hand that his opponent has. His main problem is that he blows up in tourneys. Its almost always agressive play, and he has difficulty to change gears. A friend of mine that was also playing in the ept Barcelona told him when he was on 100k: 'Lex you know this event his 5 days right? You do not need to get 300k in chips on the first day, take it a bit easy. Maybe its a good idea to go on sitting out '.

not really

...makes moves that makes since. Lex was just trying to get some TV face time IMO. Lex was putting it in peoples faces. Sure I show a bluff at times. But I think what Lex did was disrespectful. He was just bluffing for the sake of bluffing. GL on the felts guys.

At least OzExorcist makes a post that makes sense.

Gotta disagree.

For one, I don't think it was just for the cameras. By all accounts Lex kept playing the same way after he left the feature table and eventually it got him knocked out.

Second, I don't think it's disrespectful in the least. It's not as if he slowrolled Doyle Brunson or called someone a northern European idiot or anything. He just played aggressive and showed some bluffs, which pretty much anyone will tell you is Good For The GameTM.

Third, Gus is known for playing any two cards and capitalising on the weakness of his opponents. Whereas Lex was... playing any two cards and capitalising on the weakness of his opponents. Maybe Gus doesn't show as many bluffs, but the play before his opponent folds is based on the same ideas.

if this guy is a donkey, then what does that make other people at his table? Super donkeys?

You gotta love his style of play, makes great poker. Better then 9 tight nits coolering each other.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I really was disappointed in Eli Elezra and Allen Cunningham. I just knew they were gonna make him pay and it never happened. I guess they never got the cards to do so. GL on the felts guys.

no, Gus Hansen at least knows when to let go of his hand when there has been many raises... Lex just calls with king 4.
Gus Hansen also doesn't show every bluff he makes, making him more respected among the poker community.

[ ] makes sense.

He called because he had better hand. I don't know how calling with better hand accounts for being a donkey. He called because he probably thought "poor kid is trying to steal the pot bcz i crushed him 3 times and he just mad cz i'm better than him. My King high is probably better hand than his." and called. He just followed his read and called. Most would fold. He called. It takes skills to call with King 4. I would fold too. Anyone can shove like an idiot but it takes skills to call with hands like his. And I think i saw Lex lay down two pairs on day 2. he knows when to let go of a hand also.

but you have to admit. that king 4 call was pretty funny. I was dying hard watching that.

I loved the line where he said something to Elezra like "it's a shame you actually have to have a hand to win a pot." This guy's gonna be a star.

Lol, thats a really good one

I haven't gone back to check the specific hand. But I think you're wrong about a couple of things.

First, do you really believe Gus never flat calls with garbage? I put it to you that it's simply not the case and in fact, it'd be a pretty major leak if it was.

Second, Gus is more respected among the poker community because he's 1: been around for longer and 2: to date, made a lot more money. Not because he does or doesn't show bluffs.

Are you saying he knew what the other guy had...?
I think you are being results orientated. Most players would fold that because thats the right play.

I bet Gus doesnt call all ins with trash after there has been raises except for metagame purposes... This guy thought he was ahead, lmao.


Hes also more respected because he doesn't say things like the above ^ quote to other professionals..

Lex reminds me of a worse Phil Hellmuth.

The only reason people like him is because people love players who show bluffs..that doesnt mean hes good.

*sigh*

OK, you've done it. You've made me go back and watch the actual hand. I didn't realise we were talking about calling a shove rather than just a three-bet. The same points stand though.

Have a look at Lex's face when he makes the call. He doesn't think he's ahead - he just thinks he's getting a reasonable price on a call (14.8K with 25.2K already in the pot).

The villain is on mega-tilt after being bluffed by Veldhuis so many times and given that genuine monsters make up such a small part of his range Veldhuis is probably no worse than about 40-60 and that's about right for calling. There's nobody to act after him to get in the way. And that's before we even get into metagame stuff. It says one thing about you if you show some bluffs - it says another thing altogether if you show you're willing to call shoves with K4, and that can be a hell of an image if you know how to manage it right.

Based on all that, I think the call was reasonable. Moreover, I think he's not the only player that would make it - metagame or otherwise. Sure, Phil Hellmuth and Allen Cunningham aren't among them, but that doesn't mean it was a completely stupid play.

...

Yes, right play was to muck it long time ago and not deal with the pot instead of reraising with K4. But why else would he call with K4 besides the odds? He read the guy with 67 and said to himself "aaw, poor kid is trying to steal the pot after I crushed him 3 times. kid's trying to outplay me just because I'm better than him. I bet my King high is probably better hand than his. My King high is good enough." and probably called. You think he would call someone else's allin bet? If somebody went all-in, he would fold. Since it was tiltboy's all-in, he called with King 4.

You have to admit. That guy with 67 got murdered. But let me ask a question. Is it ok for 67 to shove all-in 60 blinds to two reraises and expect people to fold but not ok for King 4 to call? Is shoving all-in with 67 a right play when there are two reraises in front of him?
We're both on same page that reraising with King 4 and calling with King 4 is not a right play. At the same time, shoving all-in to two reraises with 67 is not a right play also.

I agree shoving with 67 is not a good play in this situation. He was also not chip dead or anything. Bad play as well.

Cliff notes: focus on the situation rather than getting hung up on the specific cards, think of it as a squeeze and a re-steal shove (not a three-bet with K4 and a four-bet shove with 76) and remember that not everyone wants to limp meekly into the money.

I should really stop reading this thread...

There's an awful lot of the word "right" being bandied about here which is... interesting, for want of a better word.

You're focussing pretty much all of your attention on the cards these players were holding, not their reads and the table dynamics which are much MUCH more important in this situation. When you consider the whole picture, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the way either of these two played the hand.

It's a pretty standard squeeze play when Veldhuis three-bets and the cards he's holding are largely irrelevant. Sure, he could have just mucked the hand but he's got plenty of chips, he's in a zone where he's running over the table, there are image benefits in it for him and Elezra has given him a perfect opportunity by just calling.

Muenz has got to recognise that Veldhuis can be raising with anything in this spot and that the other two players in the hand won't be taking any further part unless they're holding legitimate monsters. So there's a big pot with dead money out there for the taking. Four-bet shoving with a stack that size almost certainly folds the first two players and since Veldhuis doesn't have to have a good hand either, chances are he picks up the pot. Shoving here is a pretty standard way of putting a bully back in his box.

Of course, it's complicated by the fact that he's maybe got a tilty image at the moment. I say maybe because thanks to TV editing we don't actually know how long it's been since Veldhuis beat him in those other big pots - it's possible significant amounts of time have passed and Muenz has rebuilt a tighter image. But regardless, it's a big bet and I think it was fair to assume that he was forcing Veldhuis to have some sort of reasonable hand in order to call - Muenz wasn't the only one at the table who was surprised when Veldhuis called that light.

Veldhuis making the call we've discussed above - at that point the cards he's holding do start to matter because he's got to assess them against Muenz's range. But note that until that point, all the plays are perfectly justifiable and it really doesn't matter what the players are holding.

One last thought: some players are perfectly happy to take risks like this early in order to either chip up big or get out and get back to their cash games and with that in mind I really don't think there's anything wrong with the way either Veldhuis or Muenz played this hand. They could have played super-snug and just folded these hands but they're not "wrong" just because they did something different to that.

Don't criticize me for using the word "right" when it's Implied Odds who used that term to describe "long-term profiting decision". Long-term profiting decision was to muck K4 and 67 during pre-flop. Muenz made horrible play. I would never shove 60 blinds to 2 reraises in front of me with 67suited and risk my whole tournament of getting knocked out. You're right. Lex can be reraising with nothing. But what he didn't see was the initial raiser. If initial raiser has pocket Aces, Muenz is done for. "long-term profiting decision" was to muck 67 and lose 1 big blind than to risk your whole tournament over 67.

What I don't get is why some people call Lex a donkey for calling with K4 when he called with better hand. His decision before calling was "i have odds. this guy's on tilt. i owned this guy. im better than him. i proved it. i crushed him 3 times. poor kid is trying to outplay me to get back at me. i bet my King high is a better hand." and called. Like you told me, don't focus on the cards and focus on situation. Why else would he call with K4? He read the tiltboy like a book. People are calling him donkey because they focus on cards and say King 4 is garbage hand. But it won the pot without sucking out, right? I don't know why some people criticize the caller instead of real idiot who shoved all in for 60 blinds with 67 to two reraises in the front from being on tilt.

I really like this guy's style of playing.

...

......

I give up.

This guy rocks. Ever since I watch this guy cold call with King 4, I started to add those hands to my ranges. On SNG, During bubble play, if I can sense that my opponent is attempting to steal my blind, I would even cold call it down with Queen 5 offsuit or King 2. Quite funny how I cold call it down with Queen 5 offsuit while my opponent was holding 9 2 offsuit. Back then, I would've folded Queen 5 because of the fact that they're rags even when I clearly knew that my opponent is bluffing. Before watching Lex, I would muck those hands because of the fact that they're "rags" regardless of if my opponent is attempting to shove my stealing. But now, if my read is proper that my opponent is bluffing, I would cold call it down with any high card. So far, it's been working well when I call based on my reads. Only thing I'm missing is this guy's aggression and this guy's ability to read.

Ummm YES.


NO. Really.

No joke. Watching this guy's style improved my game. I call down all-in bets with King high and Queen high sometimes. Few sngs where small blind attempts to steal my blind, I cold called an all-in bet with Queen 5 offsuit. What does my opponent roll over? 9 2 offsuit. It's hilarious how people think I'm a donkey for calling with Queen 5 when the real donkey is short-stacker who shoved all-in with 9 2 offsuit. Chatbox was filled with my call. Before watching Lex Veldhuis, I would fold in this situation since Queen 5 is a rag regardless of if short-stacker moved all-in against me. But now, if my reads are proper and I believe I probably have better hand and my opponent is trying to steal my blind, I have guts to call down all-in bets with Queen high.

This lex guy is such a genius. K4 call was sick. he's gonna be in high stakes poker soon. negreanu got him in. this guy is gonna take away everybody's money.

Sorry for writing this post after like two months or so. But ever since i saw this guy, my calling ranges became wider when I put them together with my reads. Queen high isn't a bad hand afterall.