Even after Negraneu told the Nasseri and the table that Nasseri had aces, Forest misplays a set. Nasseri makes a raise pre-flop raise with pokect 5's -- no HAR this time, no deep thought process, just a quick raise. AK-AT, small pair, big/medium suited connector pre-flop raise with no HAR. On a flop of 523 rainbow, Negraneu bets out, Forest calls and Nasseri has this massive huge HAR (it looks like he's having a heart attack) -- Nasseri raises all-in. There's only two possibilities here given Nasseri's reaction and raising two players all-in and how he played his big pair (aces) -- Nasseri has pocket 3's or 5's. But Forest says, "I have to call". I just can't see someone like Ted Forrest not able to make this read. The reality is that even WCP can make mistakes
Just a minor point, put Negraneau bets out on the flop, Forrest calls, Nasseri raises (not all-in!), Negraneau folds, Forrest backraises, Nasseri moves all-in, Forrest calls.
Does that change anyhing about the post? Not really, but it might explain Forrest's assertion that he "had to call".
Even after Negraneu told the Nasseri and the table that Nasseri had aces, Forest misplays a set. Nasseri makes a raise pre-flop raise with pokect 5's -- no HAR this time, no deep thought process, just a quick raise. AK-AT, small pair, big/medium suited connector pre-flop raise with no HAR. On a flop of 523 rainbow, Negraneu bets out, Forest calls and Nasseri has this massive huge HAR (it looks like he's having a heart attack) -- Nasseri raises all-in. There's only two possibilities here given Nasseri's reaction and raising two players all-in and how he played his big pair (aces) -- Nasseri has pocket 3's or 5's. But Forest says, "I have to call". I just can't see someone like Ted Forrest not able to make this read. The reality is that even WCP can make mistakes
Just a minor point, put Negraneau bets out on the flop, Forrest calls, Nasseri raises (not all-in!), Negraneau folds, Forrest backraises, Nasseri moves all-in, Forrest calls.
Does that change anyhing about the post? Not really, but it might explain Forrest's assertion that he "had to call".
OUT
Yep, you're correct. I was focused on the Nasseri HAR. I still don't get Forrest's "had to call" given the the information available and the amount he had to call. I thought it was large compared to the pot and he didn't have odds even if Nasseri had a straight (could be wrong though).  Also, shows that bottom set can be a big money loser (Ciaffone outlines this nicely in his NL book) and he could have raised Negraneu, giving him some wiggle room if Nasseri comes over the top all-in. But, that's just me.
Comments
Just a minor point, put Negraneau bets out on the flop, Forrest calls, Nasseri raises (not all-in!), Negraneau folds, Forrest backraises, Nasseri moves all-in, Forrest calls.
Does that change anyhing about the post? Not really, but it might explain Forrest's assertion that he "had to call".
OUT
Yep, you're correct. I was focused on the Nasseri HAR. I still don't get Forrest's "had to call" given the the information available and the amount he had to call. I thought it was large compared to the pot and he didn't have odds even if Nasseri had a straight (could be wrong though).  Also, shows that bottom set can be a big money loser (Ciaffone outlines this nicely in his NL book) and he could have raised Negraneu, giving him some wiggle room if Nasseri comes over the top all-in. But, that's just me.
Cheers
Magi