What are you talking about? Barry has no obligation whatsoever. But if he DOES offer an analysis, it should probably make sense and stuff.

Durrrr is obviously thinking way beyond nearly every player out there right now except jman/raptor/a few others in his crew, and if that's not obvious to you from following his career even casually, there's nothing I can say anyway that will change your mind.

yeah but even tho his analysis was kinda lacking (i still really like it mostly) that could easily just reflect the fact that it's really hard to convey some things in a podcast directed at quasi-amateurs. just as durrrr's thought process probably goes deeper than "can't win if you fold," barry's probably goes deeper than his analysis. after all he's been a winning player for decades, he's probably internalized a lot of his basic thinking to the point where it's as natural as breathing.

don't get me wrong though durrrr is awesome and if he were gay i'd sleep with him.

dude is that really necessary ??

I think the best analysis of this hand is by bobbofitos on his blog. As he says they all played the flop bad but Tom manouevered out of it on the turn.

I demand a BalugaWhale analysis.

Read it. Not impressed. Barryg's bet on the flop is fine for a variety of reasons, of course he's not trying to get 3 streets of value but he's gotten a second chance to thin the field on a dry flop. He just has to know how to play it from there. Durrrr knew where he was at the entire time, saying the flop is an autofold is silly IMO.

Nobody cares of course but I'm sticking with my analysis in the main HSP thread.

http://www.pokerroad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5203

maybe sth to keep an eye on too what other pros have to say about the hand.

What I like is that durrrr's shirt says NETS.

Someone 'shop BarryG's to say VETS and it's the perfect picture.

Barry's analysis was interesting especially about the buy in amount.

But I don't understand is the part about the suits of the aces and deuces.
can any one explain this?

+

Basically the suits of Barry's aces compared to the flop's deuces dictate how many combos of A2s durrrr can have.

wow what a GOOD bluff this was by dwan now that i think more about it

the turnbet had to work a big portion of the time, but it would here i believe. with the T he has a blocker vs TT so he can try and represent the full house. peter could have had A2 and in that case he would never go away, but i think he more often has a smaller deuce. he is playing his 42 face up and dwan knows that peter will be squeezed and be afraid of greenstein if he calls the turnbet.

i think everybody played pretty good except greensteins flop call... partially boatmining and partially hoping to win at SD without having to call more bets goes against each other too much and he had to call too much

very cool to hear greensteins thoughts!

nh

How is the play negative EV even if does fail a little over 50% of the time? He bet $104,200 into $133,500, he is getting almost 1.3 to 1 on his money, thus making it a positive EV even if it fails slightly over 50% of the time. Also he completely eliminated the chance of Eastgate having 10s full because he had a 10, and based on the amount of action Eastgate had given (scared call on the flop, and a check on the river).

Both Barry and Eastgate completely failed to disguise their hands and even more importantly disguise their intentions with their hands. Tom wasn't worried at all about Barry, Barry basically announced he has a mediocre hand and is making a probe bet with that 10k. With Barry out of the picture Tom only had to worry about Eastgate.

Eastgate announced he has a 2, but he is scared and doesn't want to go too far with it. Remember the hand where Eastgate just called with 3 sixes, ace kicker? That told a lot to Dwan about Eastage's personality and not wanting to take high risks. Also, Tom knew that Eastgate was up in a session and wasn't desperate to take chances. Barry and Eastgate are 2 most snug players at the table, Dwan wouldn't dare this move against any other players. He knew that they need practically nuts to call any 3 digit number bet.

The 37k raise on the flop, presicesly told Dwan where everyone is at in the hand, and opened the door for this bluff.

All I am trying to say that maybe to you it seems like the play would work only about 50% of the time, I am sure Dwan had factored in many things, and in his mind it was a much more successful move.

For me personally, this is the best bluff I have every seen, Brad Booth's bluff against Ivey's kings doesn't even compare to this imo.

Any kind of percentage concerning this hand is irrelevant.

Durrr doesnt need percentages. He KNOWS.





Serious btw

i think

1. dwans bluff was very good. both eastgates and greensteins hands is face up and he knows eastgate cant call with a deuce bad kicker because he is deep and has greenstein behind him. and he knows greenstein has AA-QQ because TT is almost impossible having a T himself. that part does eastgate NOT know: only dwan knows greenstein doesnt have TT. and dwan knows eastgate doesnt know this, so he know eastgate will fold because of the possibility that either dwan or greenstein has TT or dwan has A2. information is everything

2. eastgates fold on the turn is very standard. he is too deep to stackoff. he has barry behind him wich will have TT imo a huge portion of the time from eastgates perspective because overpairs SHOULD have folded the flop given the raise and cold call. completely disagree with greensteins talk about never having TT in the spot. at least that cant anybody else know than himself.

3. barry greenstein made a very bad call on the flop, that made eastgate believe he could have TT. trying to legitimate it as partially a 2 out mining and at the same time a value call with the hopes of getting to SD goes against each other.

4. barry greenstein COULD have made the superior move on the turn here and shipped it in. but only if he processed all the information available, and understood that eastgate must have folded a deuce, and that dwan understood eastgade had a bad deuce on the flop. this is difficult however because greenstein doesnt know dwan has a T and by that reason can eliminate the possibility of somebody having the full house. greenstein is last to act and have much less chips than eastgate. however getting it in would be sick high leveling and he would take a great risk outleveling hmself only to see dwan show up with A2 or TT. he also wont get the rest of dwans stack here if dwan is bluffing, while he will lose it all when dwan is valuetowning.

I know, its just his post was a bit self contradicting

IMO the part that is the real bad play is Eastgate not re-popping Durrr on the flop, that is the reason he he played 2 4 hoping to catch a flop like that one. He knows Durrrr is hyper aggressive and by not raising there he lost control of the pot, if he did raise there he would have lost Barry but who knows about Durrrr, Durrrr would have probably hit a 10 on the river. Who know

The possibility of durrrr hitting a 10 on the river is not the point here

Dwan's turn play was brilliant -- maybe the best poker play I've ever seen.

Dwan's flop play was spew.

Barry said on his podcast that he'd made up his mind that he was willing to go broke in the hand if it folded back around to him on the flop.

This fact makes Dwan's flop reraise -EV. He essentially needed Eastgate -- and only weak/passive Eastgate -- to wake up with a exactly a baby deuce to save the hand for him. If anyone else wakes up with a hand, or if it folds back around to Barry, Dwan loses the hand.

He bluffed Eastgate but he thought he had Barry beat, also when he made the bet he was not sure he was on a bluff he might have put Eastgate on a 10 ?.

How could Eastgate check a 2 without thinking he would push to a bet from Durrrr? If Durrr had 10's full there is no way he is betting this hard.

No. Barry's action screamed "large pair."

He thought he might be able to take Barry off the hand.

I strongly doubt he thought he had anybody beat, it is quite obvious that barry had an overpair being the first position raiser, maybe, but very unlikely barry had A10, either way durrrr knew he was beat. The only reason he raised the turn is because he had 10s full blocked having a 10 himself, but by no means he thought that his pair of 10s was good. It allowed him to represent 10s full and set up a bluff on the turn. When it got to Eastgate on the flop the pot has been bet and raised, trips with no kicker is not the nuts.

This was a well calculated bluff and nothing else by Durrrr.

Honestly, I don't know if barry really was willing to go broke. He cares a lot about what people think about him as a poker player, he even mentioned in his analysis how this hand will be talked about and he will be criticized. So he probably just said that he was willing to go broke against dwan just to defend himself.

The fact is, it was folded back to him, and he failed to commit against durrrr after Eastgate got out.

The problem is the way Eastgate plays it Barry starts thinking he didn't have a deuce and may have just had a ten, which makes it more likely for Dwan to have a deuce.

I thin Barry would be much better of check calling or check folding the flop. Would have been interested if Barry checks, Dwan bets and Eastgate raises.