Guy Laliberte correctly called the flop, turn and river??!?

Fair enough. However, the reason it was solved for 89T rainbow is because that's what Clogston called for, according to PokerNews.

I did watch the video.

I asked whether the guy calling the cards lost, .the question was not rhetorical.

so tilting seeing the guy tank and fold pre, had to stop watching there

Yeah I know I am going to sound like a buzz kill, and the odds that the cards came out as he called is incredibly great, but the odds that he would choose those specific cards are a lot less. He specifically picked 8-9-10 because each player had a jack and was calling for a sweat. He pick the 4 of spades on the turn because he wanted a blank. A low card is typically what is called for when looking for a blank. And then on the river, most people call for the ultimate low card, which is a 2. Yes, he called the right suit on both of them, and he asked for a 4 instead of a 5 or a 3, but there was reasoning for the cards he called for in each spot. The fact that the cards actually came out like that was huge. But the cards he called for all made sense for what the hands were and for what he wanted.

I am going to regret having posted this.

I think QJ was mucked face up as well, if you watch at :50 the player looks at his cards and appears to muck them without turning them back over.

yeah, so that really explains why he called for 8-9-10.

Not as much as we regret reading it.

It doesn’t really (pretty sure you’re being sarcastic) although slight chance it could have subconsciously triggered him to call out T98 if he saw those cards, since it makes a straight. Mostly I was pointing out it slightly changes the probability of this happening.

Nice link thanks and a good recap of the hand as it played out, WSOP-style.

I listened a few times and I can hear the ‘8,9,10’ part but not the ‘rainbow’ part.

It’s pretty muddled audio at that spot - not saying he didn’t say it but I’d be interested to know if anyone can hear it.

well we don't really need pokernews' input because we have the actual video. I listened a number of times and am pretty sure he just said T98.

I agree with you as to that is a reasonable explanation as to why he called out those cards but that doesn't impact on the probability of making all those calls correctly.

I also listened a number of times and, agreeing with harkin above, the 2nd time Clogston said 89T it was overlaid with the booth's commentary and therefore inaudible. So unless you're in possession of sophisticated audio analysis equipment, I'll go with PokerNews who either had a reporter in there or were relayed the info from an involved player.

Cool video but I do this **** on a daily basis. It allows me to see turns and rivers with hands that all the books say I have no business continuing with.

No I wasn't being sarcastic. I think when somebody folds Q-J face up in that situation, to call out 8-9-10 is a pretty normal hand to call out.

QJ was folded face up? If so what a scumbag. Wasn't this a final table?

No, it was not.
The tech failed to remove "duke" graphic after he folded face down. The announcers have to keep saying "he's not in the hand".
The action referenced at :50 is the JJ turning his hand over after being called.

that's a handy saying! i'll have to write that one down

Interesting. So if I'm understanding your point correctly, he improved his chances a bit because the scenario removed a huge swath of cards he could have called for, but didn't. Thus while the runout of the cards was random, his choice for calling out five cards was not.

I suppose this is technically true, but it would be akin to seeing someone sink a full-court shot in basketball, then saying "Meh, it's not THAT impressive. He could have thrown the ball in any direction but he chose to do so in the direction of that 18-inch hoop over there."

Hah. that's really clever.

My favorite hand name is Q3, San Francisco busboy. A queen with a tre (tray).

The odds don't change.

If I place 52 shuffled cards face down and you have to try to pick the As, your odds remain 1/52 regardless if I first randomly remove 1 card (or 5 cards, or 20 cards.) Your example is similar to such a situation where I randomly remove, say, 10 cards without either of us looking at them (and without us knowing that the As isn't among them) and you then picking the As. You would be wrong to argue that the chance of success was only 1/42.