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."