[ QUOTE ]
He also managed to be T3000 into a T40000 pot on the turn.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the article he describes that bet as "goofy" and intended it to be "like a check" (although what that means, I have no idea).
I'm more concerned with the fact that as he's recalling the Ted Forrest hand (Forrest= AA Board= 664A6), he corrects Howard Lederer when Lederer said that Forrest made a good check because "There was a fifty-fifty chance that he was walking into four sixes." This is, of course, incorrect - he's presumably saying it because there are only the case 6 and the case ace left, and for his opponent to call he'd have to have one of the two (however, this does help you better understand why Forrest made the check in the first place, instead of it seeming to be an indication that he'd completely lost his mind). As it turns out, the only way for it to be fifty-fifty for Forrest to run into quads would be if DN would call in the small blind with some bizarre range like {AK-AQ, A6, 76-65}.
But then after correctly explaining why it was nowhere near fifty-fifty for Forrest to run into quads, Negreanu says that Lederer made this mistake not because of a simple math error but because a math-centric approach to the game won't take into account an opponent's "mood and playing style", when you didn't have to know anything about his mood or playing style to know that even your strongest read on his emotional state wouldn't give you enough of a chance that he has the six to consider checking. It looks to me like it was a simple error in forgetting to establish someone's range, not in failing to see into their soul. For some reason Negreanu seems to be rather inclined to give credit for his analysis not to conditional probability and common sense, but to The Force.
Oh, by the way, if you think he's a donkey because of one board misread, there's a
great money-making opportunity currently available to you.