Just watching the final table and couple early hands had me thinking. Just for context I don’t often play NL and sorry if my reporting is clunky..
Seidel opens UTG 98ss, Seth Davies flats CO with TT(w Td), bb flicks it in A8o. Flop T76dd. Seidel cbet ~1/3 pot, Davies calls, bb folds. Turn Jd, Seidel c/c ~ 3/4 pot bet. River Q, Seidel c/c his last ~650k with about 1.65m in there.
Seidel didn’t take that long to call but didn’t snap, and seemed pained as he sigh-called the river. I could be wrong about that. He definitely contemplated something for a litlle while. If 89 is in the sigh-call range, what else is in there that Davies beats? I think Davies maybe discounted frequency of AK with a diamond, perhaps because Seidel bet flop 3way(?) or some other voodoo reason I didn’t catch. I’m definitely curious what Davies was targeting with the river bet. Perhaps it’s absurd to question this river bet especially not knowing their history? I think I was primed by an interesting hand 20 mins earlier when Dvoress opened QTdd, Koon flats 88 behind, Dvoress c/c meaty bets twice AJ8dd-3, river 5d went check/check. Maybe some spidey sense stuff but an extraordinary play by Koon, where there’s surely lots of worse hands that can call a bet on the river and probably some of Dvoress’s flush draws would be cbetting flop. Who knows. In the Davies/Seidel hand it seemed to be razor thin though. Thinking about it now, perhaps Davies was thinking that as played the main hands that beat him are 98, JJ, QQ and AK and maybe AK can be discounted somewhat? Obviously I’m very interested in this one but not an experienced coroner. What happened??

Thanks, and love to all