Here is the tournament hand as transcribed by Bart Hanson (Thnx Bart!). The stack sizes are included in brackets:

[11 BB]Brunson : 9c 9d | 5s
[n/a] Randy Ohel: 9h 5d | Jh
[2 BB] ETay : 5h 6s | 3c
[19 BB] George Danzer : Qd 4d | Ad
[12 BB] Justin Bonomo : 2h 3h | 6d Td 6h

Etay brings it in for minimum. Danzer COMPLETES. Bonomo CALL. Brunson CALL. Etay RAISE. Danzer CALL, Bonomo CALL, Brunson CALL.
Pot size : 4.5 BB (9 SB)

4th Street
Brunson : 9c 9d | 5s 7d
ETay : 5h 6s | 3c Jc
Danzer : 4d Qd | Ad Jd
Bonomo : 2h 3h | 6d Td

Checked to Brunson who BETS, Etay RAISES!, Danzer CALLS, Bonomo CALLS, Brunson 3BETS! Etay CALLS all-in for just under 1/2 a small bet. Danzer and Bonomo CALL.
Pot size : 10.25 BB (20.5 SB)

5th Street
Brunson : 9c 9d | 5s 7d Qh
ETay : 5h 6s | 3c Jc Ac [ALL-IN]
Danzer : 4d Qd | Ad Jd 3d
Bonomo : 2h 3h | 6d Td 6h

Bonomo CHECK, Brunson BET, Danzer RAISE!. Bonomo FOLD. Brunson 3BET! Danzer CALL.
Pot size : 16.25 BB

6th Street
Brunson : 9c 9d | 5s 7d Qh Qc
ETay : 5h 6s | 3c Jc Ac 2c [ALL-IN]
Danzer : 4d Qd | Ad Jd 3d As

Danzer CHECK, Brunson BET Danzer CALL.
Pot size : 18.25 BB

7th Street
Brunson : 9c 9d | 5s 7d Qh Qc | Kh
ETay : 5h 6s | 3c Jc Ac 2c | 7s
Danzer : 4d Qd | Ad Jd 3d As | 8d

River CHECK by Danzer and Brunson

To be discussed: ranges and equity on each street.

Here are my thoughts on 3rd and 4th:

3rd street: Brunson's actual equity is just about 21%

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
4d Qd Ad	26.18%	59,845	225,399	34	42,644	373
5h 6s 3c	27.78%	62,496	97,324	753	221,847	3,576
2h 3h 6d	25.21%	42,252	73,222	688	211,155	3,583
9c 9d 5s	20.83%	39,364	203,281	74	8,897	131

Vs the ranges Todd has discussed he probably thought he has around 22-24% equity. lets assume for Todd's sake that all opponents have low draws except Danzer with a flush draw.:

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
{*d *d Ad}	25.43%	57,256	188,329	91	79,169	1,135
{$L$W 3c}	25.71%	52,602	96,883	415	191,442	2,335
{$W $W 6d}	26.66%	52,495	94,199	413	206,446	2,287
9c 9d 5s	22.20%	39,377	220,098	63	8,667	145

We have to assume Danzer has some sort of hand, but we know that he has been witnessed in similar spots with razz hands and has also been known to play hands as weak as just one wheel card in the hole when he has an ace up, so lets use that range to compare. If Danzer's range is {$W * Ad} then Todd has 1/4 equity to the river. Not bad! But that doesn't make it any easier to play 99|5, which makes me think he is better off folding even though the math makes this a call :

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
{$W * Ad}	21.37%	40,869	121,278	140	109,660	1,646
{$L$W 3c}	25.82%	55,423	108,443	426	180,525	2,294
{$W $W 6d}	27.52%	58,651	112,967	395	196,669	2,389
9c 9d 5s	25.29%	40,957	256,797	69	7,566	128

4th Street: I think we have to assume Danzer has a flush draw at this point, nothing else makes sense (unless he is known to take multiple bets in the face with a weak low draw - I doubt that to be the case) so we will change his range accordingly. A 3 flush with A showing and one wheel card in the hole is the 11th best starting hand (ranked 1-14), it's not exactly a strong hand to start with in S8b - but I think we can safely put him on this range based on the prior streets. At this point I think Todd over estimated his equity, even though there were 4 dead diamonds and a dead J.

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
{*d *d Ad}Jd	34.64%	113,451	259,212	117	71,995	676
{$L$W 3c} Jc	21.99%	50,015	83,888	196	152,834	1,170
{$W $W 6d} Td	20.76%	39,133	68,006	114	155,766	1,103
9c 9d 5s 7d	22.61%	65,082	188,668	26	21,464	164

Todd's equity for a 3 way side pot is:

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J 3 $L $W J

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
{*d *d Ad}Jd	42.51%	179,135	281,950	18	84,301	383
{$W $W 6d} Td	26.21%	66,579	84,828	19	181,662	443
9c 9d	5s 7d	31.28%	122,175	233,195	17	26,665

Todd's equity in a heads up side pot if he can push out Bonamo:

ProPokerTools Stud Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: J 3 $L $W J $W $W 6 T

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
{*d *d Ad}Jd	54.01%	284,439	305,879	2	101,209	45
9c 9d	5s 7d	45.99%	236,365	294,119	2	34,087

The equity run shows us that jamming will help Danzer's range more than it helps Todd's, but I certainly see what he was thinking here. Add in factors such as the size of the side pot and ICM issues, and I think it becomes clear that a jam is not the ideal play. With that said, it doesn't suck as bad as most people on twitter and the live stream thought it did. I get what Todd was thinking, it shows that even though he made an error in equity calculations his thought process is far more advanced than his opponents (and twitter) give him credit for.

How bad are these people at poker?

I think a lot of streets can be argued but how can that 3-bet on 5th possibly be good

Nice to hear from *TT* again, feels legit old school.

A couple of observations.
While you can learn something from this sort of hand ranking, the utility of any starting hand in a stud game is so dependent on visible cards, implications from opponent prior action and tournament considerations that I don't think it's enlightening. A hand like this has a lot of value in a multiway pot vs big cards, a lot of value vs opponents who play razzy lows or two-lows and a lot of value with a live suit. It's a perfectly fine stealing hand that can be defended after opening against a modest raising range. There are times you would play this hand strongly on Third and times you would muck it.

Brunson was clearly trying to use Etay's get-in to leverage and put pressure on what he believed were hands with no showdown value yet. With a 5 door he has a degree of deception about what kind of hand he has, and if the cards broke correctly, by repping a strong hand he could get HU vs Etay later in the hand with dead money in the middle.

On Fourth Brunson is repping a range that includes Aces with three-to-a-seven, a rundown gutter or open-ender, rolled Fives or maaaaybe a set of Sevens. The rarest hand for him in this spot should be an overpair, but when he leads the Queen on Fifth, then pocket Queens join the picture

When both Danzer and Etay catch suited wheel cards (and Etay's is an Ace) on Fifth, and Danzer raises his lead, Brunson appears to have lost his marbles.

The only sense I can make of Brunson's Fifth as played is that he put both Etay and Danzer specifically on incomplete low hands with no more than one suited card in the hole, possibly having made a small pair, and that Danzer did not give him credit for the range he was repping.

If that were the case, and Danzer was hoping to get Bonomo to fold his equity and maybe get Brunson to slow down with a bigger pair by raising, then Brunson's action would make some sense.

Danzer tends to make moves in HU pots rather than trying to do circus tricks in a huge pot with an all-in player for the sake of a small side pot, so I think that take on things is unrealistic. Bonomo paired his door card and Danzer raised into him after Brunson bet an apparent brick Queen, so given his playing style Danzer should have a flush often. Every extra bet Brunson put in after Danzer's raise on Fifth is unnecessary.

The big pot is an argument for Brunson wanting to get to showdown, but if jamming Fifth is hard to defend, firing Sixth looking at both open Aces and a four-flush low board is inexplicable. Going apesh:t on Fifth gave Brunson a free one on Sixth and he should have taken it, since Danzer can river bet any low with impunity, and Brunson will have to pay another bet on the river whenever he's getting scooped or chopped.

The jam on Five successfully put the fear of rolled Fives in Danzer's head, but in a pot of this size with an all-in player it doesn't make any difference; Danzer is obliged to show down any low, flush or Aces-up. Given Brunson's range on Fourth, the only losing hand Danzer would show down would be to cry call his open Aces, but very few of the hands he raises with on Fifth end up that way -- something like (2s4d) that bricks the river -- and it's not like Brunson can get another bet in on the river and like it.

this hand is lol........

i truly mean it

how do you possibly bet and 3b 5th...

Any thoughts on why danzer didn't cap 5th?

Based on the play in the rest of the hand I assume he was giving Brunson a range heavy with trips and figured he could get an extra bet in on 6th with a bigger edge anyway (unless he hits one of the few remaining diamonds) and save a bet when Brunson pairs his board.

Is this play in Todd's chapter on Stud8 in SS2? Is he a Stud 8 expert or did he just have connections?

Hard not to play 4th strongly when you catch "good" and everyone else catches bad.

All else aside, just because you misplay one particular hand doesn't make you bad at poker or not an expert.

I was half kidding. The 9s are OK buried, and he has to play it strong on 4th street. It isn't as bad as it looks.

Non tourney player asks if Brunson's call on 3rd is the right thing to do.

Call vs. raise or call vs. fold?

Call v. fold. He was virtually tied for second in chips (one stack n/a so that's an assumption) and called a complete by an Ace door and an overcall. Is this really the time to take a flier w/ pocket 9's?

If the shorter stack has a low hand and it bricks off the Nines will be in a great spot, since the short stacked low hand will have trouble peeling with another short stack so close to a commitment decision. For that reason, the debate should be between flatting and raising, which should put Etay to more significant decision. If she decides to reraise the rest of the field has to take two to the face in jeopardy of more. Getting HU with a single low hand would be ideal for 99, and that's the only way that might have happened on 3rd.

The deceptive nature of Brunson's door card can help him out later in the hand because he can barrel no matter what he catches. If he catches low it looks like a busted low hand is in bad shape. If he catches high, he still likely has the best hi hand and can value bet.

Especially shorter than full ring, hands like this go up in value and are more versatile. Full ring you run into more spots where Nines are behind for hi but don't know it, and that's why they're problematic. In this spot I think not playing would be a mistake.

Mistakes made later IMO but this isn't a bad spot for this particular hand.

OK, thanks. As I said I don't play tourneys but it seemed to me that he should've folded rather than risk getting crippled.

the 3bet on 5th is insane and Todd seems to just be thinking "danzer's a lagtard" still instead of "oh he may have a hand now regardless"

I think if you're trying to rep rolled you actually do have to bet 6th and fire 7th but that was a super dumb position for him to have had to put himself in. Can danzer fold a rivered flush?

Is Danzer a lagtard? From his 2-7SD videos on RIO, he seemed very solid.

When I watched this hand I couldn't believe it. Electrical that is an interesting take. I am just not sure I would even want to put in a raise on 3rd after the ace completes with the small stack behind.

I understand the deceptive value of his hand, but you can't even assume that the ace complete is a low hand. If you are raising 3rd into aces or any other good pair you are putting yourself into a huge hole. With only 11 BBs i am not sure in that specific spot I would want to try and isolate 1 low hand with the 99s, with a shot that I am not isolating anyone and it ends up multiway(excluding the 2BB stack) or that I am up against a better pair. I think against 3 to a low, a pair or what todd thought it was, 3 diamonds, you are less than 50% equity to win against that hand. It might be just slightly lower, which means that when you add a third hand into the pot your equity is even worse.

I think the play on 5th almost had me falling out of my chair when I watched it.

Danzer's an excellent player, I've just seen him be very loose and aggressive on 3rd in these final table streams. I'm not passing a judgement in this thread on whether it's too loose or not.

LOL:

On sixth street, Eric Wasserson has the lead and bets. Max Pescatori calls. On the river, Wasserson bets again and Pescatori calls.

"Six," says Wasserson.

Wasserson shows A65 in the hole, good for 6-5 low, and Pescatori mucks.

"Did you start with fives?" asks George Danzer.

"Yeah, I started with split fives and I check-raised fifth street," replies Wasserson sarcastically.

"Nevermind," says Danzer. "I forgot we play differently."

Stud8 softest game of all time imo.

What's crazy is I remember reading todds stud8 portion of super system 2 and thinking it was pretty well put together and logical. Obv this hand is prolly an outlier but it is rly redic how poorly it was played.

Any comments on Danzer's 6th st call and checking the river with his flush?

I guess Brunson's nutty betting convinced him that he probably had a full house; just not quite convinced enough to fold. I don't even know if Brunson's bet on 6th was a bluff or a value bet. If Danzer didn't already have the flush on 5th, looks like 6th just made him trips or Aces up.

yeah, but I think as others have pointed out, this hand being played in a tournament at that exact point in time is what made it interesting.

i have seen Stud 8 hands play out like this in a typical ring game and in the end, the loser can shrug and pull out a wad of cash, rebuy and say "hey, i gave it a shot"

*i guess if he's on the 20th level he can think that Danzer is taking all of this into consideration and will muck thinking that there is no way that Todd goes crazy like that in that spot in a tournament. but who knows.