Greenstein talks about the hand on poker road radio:

http://pokerroad.com/radio/tips-from...n-and-eastgate

Thanks so much for posting this. Extraordinary how fast these guys could process all that information during the hand. Amazing!

Good analysis by BG. That'll definitely be a hand that stings for a bit but you can't fault him for the fold. That's what happens when you play against a guy who lays you 2-1 on a HU match..

FYP

great analysis, thanks for posting it. I like BG and his game.

<-- omg me on first page!!

I msg'd Barry about this hand , great analysis but if Ivey says to fold too imo

Barry is the man for using the phrase "Tom posterized me".

Great podcast, this was very interesting.

But with all due respect -- and I mean that -- I think Greenstein's flop analysis is crazy.

When he's discussing the flop he says he was going to fold because AA is obviously beat. Then he considers drawing to a 2-outer, but correctly realizes he doesn't have the odds. So he takes it to another level and calls because Dwan can have air and Eastgate knows this and could be calling light.

Then when discussing turn, he says he knew Eastgate had TT or a deuce and would either bet, check-call, or check-raise. But this contradicts his read as previously stated. If scenario (a), then he has to call turn once Eastgate folds since he was in fact light. If scenario (b), he has to fold flop because Eastgate has him crushed and, as he knows, doesn't have odds to draw to an ace.

In other words, he claims, at alternating times, to have two simultaneous reads, yet acted consistent with neither.

Furthermore, calling on the slight chance both players check both streets is really bad... I don't know how serious Greenstein was about this, but I hope he's half-joking. Even without knowing a ton about Eastgate or Dwan's game, he's got to realize there's almost no shot in hell a 3-way, $120k+ pot will be checked down after flop.

You're forgetting that Barry's line depends on either:

a) hitting an A on the turn, or
b) Dwan slowing down and checking through the turn

and if not, releasing the hand.

Neither happened, and he went ahead and folded.

The real question is whether the likelihood of this happening and the implied odds were sufficient.

Perhaps I misssed Barry saying this, but I would have liked to hear how Barry would have played Peter Eastgate's hand if could have switched places.

He admits a couple times that the implied odds weren't there. And he went momentarily nuts if, as I already said, he really believed he could get to a free showdown after all those aggressive calls on the flop.

Quite interesting to see all the 'small' details he brought into his analysis, but his initial flop thinking seemed horrible - 'Tom might have a ten and be raisin to find out where he's at. I was going to re raise him and get all in'

Mmmno he says the pot odds weren't there.

Listen in context, he's talking about implied odds (him doubling or tripling up his ~$230k) even if he never says the exact phrase "implied odds."

He says something to the effect of "pot (meaning implied) odds weren't there" but if you add in the Dwan was on a bluff and PE had Tx then together these two possibilities (barely) allowed for a call.

Also, in Barry makes it clear that Dwan's play wasn't nearly as wild as it is portrayed in the episodes.

The turn checking thru was a strong possibility. If Dwan had not taken his strong line and been scared by Eastgates call ( like most players would have been ), the turn would have checked thru. Peter Eastgate had been playing scared/tight and I do not think he would have bet the turn for fear of BG having 10's full. Remember in Eastgates mind his trips is a virtual bluff catcher as any other 2 beats him, which is why he folded to Dwan. Since he values his 24 weakly he is unlikely to bet for fear of a trap.


Of course when Dwan bets again, he screams that he has A2 or 10's full. And since Barry is a good player he has to lay it down. Which is the reason why Dwan's bet was possible, as long as he knows Eastgate can lay down weak 2's. Overall I still think the play was -ev, because usually Eastgate will have strong 2's, quads, or 10's full. When Eastgate calls he screams he has trips or better, and the majority of his range is strong 2's and boats. The only weak 2's Eastgate is likely to have is 23 and 24. K2 A2 1010 22 are all the other hands he is likely to have, so Dwans play fails slightly over 50% of the time.


EV wise the move was -ev, unless Eastgate folds K2 and A2 as well.

barry argumentation sucks imo.

I'd be interested how the hand changes if Eastgate starts with $200k. Does Durrrr realize his big bet is less threatening and hold back? Is Eastgate more likely to go with the hand?

Poor Barry still thinks durrr was raising the flop for information

Barry did say that, a few months after the hand, he had reasoned that Dwan may have been raising on a blocker (not for information or for value).

There's one point where Barry mentions Peter shouldn't have been worried about Barry having tens-full, because Barry wouldn't bet with tens full. He then says this is because Barry would have no reason to bet with tens full.

I disagree with the last statement. Betting tens full in an 8 way pot, where it's likely at least somebody has tripped the deuce is probably going to get you paid off. If you bet consistant with the way you'd bet JJ+ and AT, or 2-3 to balance your range, you're going to get paid off by somebody with a deuce. Since you know where 3 of the tens are, it's unlikely people will pay you off with anything else besides the deuce.

Well, you could argue that since he's in EP there's a good chance that if a 2 is out there they can lead the betting for him.

But I agree that there's nothing wrong with leading with TT here. Try to build a pot against a 2x (or two) and hope they fill up. And just because Barry never does this here does not mean that Eastgate knows that Barry never leads here.

After all, asking yourself how to optimally play TT on a 8-way raised T22 flop is freakishly rare in HE. However, if you recognize that this could easily play a fair bit like a 4-way PLO hand then you can easily see why betting a TT can work very well.

Dos anyone know if PE plays a lot of PLO? That could explain a fair bit of his timid play with trips when facing aggression.

i thought it was fine and good and very humble. wtf

Its funny tho if this hand happened at like my local poker people would never release Eastgates hand regardless. Dwan seems to get away with so many bluffs that would never work for other people

As for Greenstein - once eastgate has called and then folded - there is no way barry can call