On another topic, I actually thought Dwan's analysis was a bit pedestrian. He never mentioned how having the T gave him a blocker to TT, nor how Eastgate's buying in at a depth over his head gave him the wiggle room necessary to get away with this move. We know how good he is and who he talks shop with; I'm sure he must have been thinking about these things. The analysis of this hand on Deuce Plays was much better from a deep theory poker perspective.

PS: I'd also surprised if he was truly thinking his hand "could be good" when Barry c-bets into 7 people.

Dno who is worst, Peter Eastgate or Darwin Moon. Holy sh*t what a bad fold.

But see that was your problem. You were erroneously just number crunching like a blind monkey without even much of a base understanding of what you were doing. The reason I didn't go into that much detail was because I've already spoken about this hand at length in the original hsp thread and didn't want to sound redundant.

Kinda amusing since I am on your side, I just reached the conclusion in a different way.

I was advocating that Laak can even have no pair hands like 85s (which even has an open-ender on the flop). Granted he won't open utg with these sorts of hands and triple barrel with them that often, but I think adding it all up, they're more likely in his range (even ignoring pot odds) than his tiny river value range of like KK*100%+AK+AA+KQ*less than 100%. QQ I think checks the turn large majority.

ty ty ty OP

you're all very welcome guys. surprised no one found these before. it seems they are pre-production shots done by one of the HSP production staff that were cut prior to airing.

that'd be too much info considering the target audience. and obv he didnt think his hand was good but he wouldnt say "im sure he has AA at this point"

gd vids, ty OP. the 42 AA QT is one of my favourite TV pots ever so cool to see tom talking about it - his jedi mind tricks on bazza at the end is pritty funny.

It seems pretty strange to construct a range for a player that doesn't contain the hand he actually had. Whether its typical or not, its obviously greater than 0 like your analysis has. Even adding the obvious AJo, I think your range is too strong. Laak's a nit, but some of the time he's going to do funky things.

I also think you have to put a lot of weight on the fact that Laak rarely value bets thin in position on the river. I don't know if that in and of itself is enough justification for the call (given your point that he might bluff with the best hand) or if Patrick actually had a tell (or made a 'bad' play).

Edit: And by the way, Nice work OP.

Agree with that, shabado. It seems like the popular thing to do is forget that Laak will show up with these 'funky' hands a fair amount. Well, more than fair compared with the microscopic river value range in that hand. So it's inane to try and construct his or anyone's opening raises with such meagre and uninformative ranges.

And Laak haaaates to turn hands like 55/66 into bluffs on the end. Time and time again he has proven that he is checking back these on the river almost every time. Fair enough he's giving up a ton on all his bluffs on the river, but again weighing it against the pot odds and not much of a value range = call is good here.

daniels interview with the hand against durrrr is amazing

how can dn still not realise that dwan is obviously fake thinking to mask when he has an easy decision. It's not all that complicated or new

This is great stuff, i'd love to see more of these videos