It’s a quality fold, but I don’t think I’d call it a ridiculous laydown as the link is titled. Obviously we can see the hidden cards, but if you didn’t know what Badziakouski has I think the massive overbet would point to him having a monster. The sizing seems like he wants to look weak because he is so strong. If he had air and wanted to bluff the turn I don’t think he’d bet this big. A river bet of 35,000-47,000 might make me think he could be some percentage of bluffing/value betting (with an emphasis on value betting). But betting a little over 1.25x pot strikes me as him having the nuts or second nuts and hoping that his opponent has a big but inferior hand. 

If you think about it, the way he has played the hand kind of screams 99. Calling a preflop raise makes sense for middle pair. After a 6s, 7h, 8d flop, Negreanu leads out and Badziakouski re-raises. The flop was rainbow so he’s not betting a flush draw. Trips could certainly re-raise. A made straight could re-raise. A straight draw could re-raise. I don’t know how Badziakouski had been playing, but unless he is extremely aggro this doesn’t seem like a board that he’d want to re-raise with air.

The 9s on the turn results in check check. This could mean the hugely wet board has them shutting down or it could mean they are checking with a monster to get paid on the river.

The 8h on the river means there are monsters under the bed, monsters in the closet, monsters everywhere.

Negreanu leads out with his straight which is reasonable. But when he gets re-raised his opponent is polarized to either a boat or an outright bluff. 66 would make sense and has him beat. 77 makes sense and has him beat. 88 seems unlikely but has him beat. 99 makes the most sense as played since it would a) be a call to Negreanu’s raise preflop, b) have been an overpair with the straight draw after the flop in which re-raising Negreanu would be logical, c) would be trips after the turn but he would logically check given four to a straight that he can’t hit, and d) would be the nut boat after the river prompting him to bet big.

So that just leaves the question of whether Badziakouski is bluffing on the river. Given that he didn’t bet on the turn when the board was pretty scary, does it make sense that he would be bluffing after a turn that makes the board significantly scarier? That would be a pretty ballsy play. But again, the sizing of the bet says he has it. If he were bluffing, he could bet less and still accomplish the same thing. Why bet 1.25 pot when 0.75-1.0 pot will work against the straight (but probably not against any boats), and in the event that Negreanu comes over the top then a bluff can fold less expensively. Betting 1.25 pot would make me think that Badziakouski has it.

So while it is a very good laydown by Negreanu that maybe a lot of players are unable to get away from I don’t think it is a case of Negreanu reading Badziakouski’s soul. I think that if you think the hand through it is a laydown that, while a bit gut-wrenching, makes perfect sense.

Does a rec player get away from the straight? Maybe not. But I think a lot of pros have it in them to make this fold. If I were in this hand, I would like to think I could get away from the hand to the huge river bet. I would be tortured by not knowing whether I had made a good fold or not, but I think as played I would lean toward the fold. I’m not saying I am pro caliber (I most certainly am not), but I think a thoughtful replaying of the hand can get me to a fold. I would not be able to think it through as quickly as Negreanu did, but I think I could get to the fold. This would be a situation where a bit of a tank would be very justified.