I am quivering with excitement.

I don't understand the Durr/Eastgate/Barry. Especially from Barrys point of view.

I could kinda see EastGate folding, because of his 4 kicker. 100% Durr would have reraised if he had TT, and with Eastgate sticking around Barry certainly put him on the 2.

Eastgate folded leaving Barry heads up with Durr, and especially with Durr's image I don't see how Barry could possibly fold.

There's a lot to this hand which goes beyond what most of the 2+2 community can really decipher, including myself, so I'll do the best I could to explain my version of the thought process.

Barry wanted callers for his aces, knowing that he was the tightest player at the table, he figures he could raise the standard 3X BB and get 2 callers, most likely Dwan and Eli (who were the most active at the table). The problem is that no one really took his image into consideration and that's what started the family pot of 20,000.

The flop is a standard bet from Greenstein's analysis. Of course there are 8 people in the pot, and the only hands that has him beat are 2x, 2-2, and 10-10 has him beat. You can logically knock out all 7-2, 8-2, 9-2, 10-2, J-2, Q-2, and K-2 combinations, which leaves us with 34 combinations of hands which beat AA out of about 1,100, or 3% of total hands. With 8 people in the pot with those odds, he felt he could take down the pot right there.

Durr's raise is standard for him because he knows these calculations, and by representing that he has a 2x hand to Barry would really freeze him. As it worked out, everyone behind him folded except for Eastgate who just calls. Any competent poker player knows when a player calls with that texture of the board, chances are very likely that he has a 2x hand, but not too powerful a kicker. When it comes back to Barry, he's almost 100% sure that one of these players has a 2, but from his thought process, he called an additional 20,000 or so with 90,00 in the pot, hoping to spike an A when he has the wrong pot odds to call. I believe even the implied odds were not in his favor because Dwan and Eastgate basically knew he had an overpair from his lead-in bet on the flop.

The turn works out for Dwan when Eastgate checks. If Eastgate bet into that pot about 85 to 90,000, Tom would give up that hand, and Barry would ship his stack over to Eastgate, but by Eastgate checking, he basically tells Dwan "I have a weak deuce, and a big bet in relation to my stack would push me out of the pot". And that's exactly what Dwan did.

Also, Dwan must've realized that Eastgate plays a straightforward game and hasn't played higher than 25-50 online, and was not prepared for that move from Dwan that many high stakes online players would do looking at the images of Eastgate and Greenstein. The images of Eastgate and Greenstein worked perfectly in Dwan's favor. In a sense it's a pretty logical concept that could go back to high school math.

I get the concept, but my point is. I'm sure at some point in the hand, be it pre or on the flop/turn, my guess is Barry wanted to be heads up against durr or eli. He got exactly that on the Turn, Eastgate folded (the only guy who realistically had a 2), and durr is sitting there pot committed by his 90/95k raise.

I'm trying to understand Barry's logic for folding. And I'm definitely not saying his fold is bad (Barrys one of my fav players) - just trying to understand the game.

Ok, when the hand got to the turn, instead of Barry's dreams of having Durr heads-up, he has Durr and a solid player in Eastgate in the hand. That makes it almost 100% that someone has a deuce. When Peter check/folds, he has to assume 100% that Durr has a deuce and Barry cannot call from his viewpoint.

Basically Barry's fold was caused by Eastgate's check/fold. You can see the look of anguish on his face releasing his hand to Durr. This is why LAG players with Durr's skill make money. It is almost impossible to put them on a range and makes you guess, which is horrible in poker.

Go Daniel

This is wrong.

Please explain

A) I think players call specifically because an UTG raiser is a tight player, his hand range is narrower, the pots odds are good, and each player as it goes along will have better and better position.

b) I think betting the flop was an obvious mistake by Greenstein. His hand is face up almost, 8 players saw the flop, and anybody can either have a deuce or represent one. As Bobbofitos also said, this is such a standard spot to check, 100% of the time.

Also, I don't thin you can rule out K2s, and Q2s. Daniel was playing K4s, it's pretty much the same as K2s and hardly different from Q2s And Daniel open limped and then called a raise in the first episode with J2s, I think he would've possibly played this hand with J2, and Doyle might've played T2 also with his 8-1 pot odds.

c) Durr's raise isn't at all standard. The chances of a player behind him having a 2 is too strong, not to mention the fact that he knws Barry probably has him beat.

d) Um, the action on the turn would be Eastgate-Greenstein-Dwan. If Eastgate bets, Greenstein folds, and then Dwan most likely folds unless he tries a much bigger monster bluff. If Greenstein is folding to the bet by Dwan, there's no way he ships it in when Eastgate bets out after cold-calling Durr's flop raise.

e) Players who play 25/50 online have only played straightforward? I'm under the impression that players who play 25/50 online (assuming they are winners) are among the best players in the world. Games above that don't run very often outside of heads up, and I think alot of great players either don't have the bankroll or are actually smart enough to realize they have no reason to play any higher than that.

a) Agree 100%
b) The only players at that table who I thik would play K2, Q2, and J2 are Eli and Daniel.
c) Not in our worlds is the raise standard, but in Durrland it is. I guess he figures the raise is the only way for the rest of the table to tell him what hands they have, since he knew Barry's hand like everyone else. If Eastgate, Barry, and one other player calls, Dwan is check/folding 100% in that spot IMO.
d) I'm only considering what Barry said in his analysis, but you're dead on with what the correct play would have been if Eastgate bet.
e) Not many 25/50 players (even the winning players) perform the same live as they do online, also in front of cameras and their every move viewed by the world. Obviously there are exceptions to this.

Why oh whyyy is there so much talk about this hand?

Pretty boring-ish imo. you all act like you've never put your opp on a strong hand like even a low flush (3 suits on board obv) and still gotten him to fold. and it was friggin 8 handed...pretty easy to gauge reads imo.

sigh at exaggerations. just sigh.

Veil you should post some of your high-level hands to blow this forum away.

Eastgate would've called any 2 (haha) on the button I assume, but w/e

I agree this is kids stuff. Why just yesterday I blew someone off the nut boat by betting $3.45 dollars on the river.

Pf... you're all talking about the wrong hand. Clearly the best read Dwan made all day was against Negreanu... he bet 4200 on the flop when Negreanu had 42s. Clearly he knew exactly where he was at.

well, i mean, say if any of the other players in the hand reraised durr to 100k on the flop w/o looking at their hand, then yeah that would be a cool hand. still not amazing but cool.

yet durr makes a pretty much imperative turn bet after donking the hand a bit and it's 'one of the best things ever'?

uhh

wow please get out, this is so poor u cannot imagine

jesus christ you have no clue

lol @ implying continuing on the turn is "imperative" if he's going to raise the flop. when he raised the flop, he had no idea eastgate was going to coldcall from the blinds you psychic poker genius

i too would like to see this, since he is obviously capable of making amazing bluffs and hero calls as a standard part of his game.

take a deep breath.

I said pretty much imperative. Even if it seems like a 50/50 decision then betting in this situation seems right. No need to be a psychic. Even a beginner was likely to bet big there not exactly knowing they would get two folds.

it's an okay spot, just kinda boring.

you guys are like this

step 1: use brain to tell you that you think it's really cool

step 2: disagree with anyone ever at allll for any reason that condradicts step 1 view.


seriously it's pretty pathetic. turning hands into bluffs is a fairly common spot. just last night i was facing a bet and a raise and i reraised repping the nut straight on safe board and got folds from 2pair and set. just had bottom pair, turned into bluff. it aint rocket science and it was hardly a hand to even worth noting to anyone really.

Hardly worth noting, really. Certainly nothing out of the ordinary. Barely worth mentioning out of the blue on a public forum.

okay, my bad, veil is leveling. should've been obvious nobody could be that much of a tool, but my level detector was broken or something

wp, sir, wp

what's up with durrrr seeming to move back and forth as to a rhythm in hands? is this a focus thing for him or just to disguise any movements for tells?

very sick play by him, he earned himself future HSP regular invites and tv time

This fold by Eastgate is so exploitable it's not even funny. If everytime a LAG double barrels you fold trips on that board you are gonna get owned all day. Terrible lay down by Peter Eastgate.

Seems like a decent strategy, calling off 500k to remain theoretically airtight.