I was watching this video. When I was confused by what one of the commentators said. The commentator said basically that Daniel's pair of deuce would get beaten if Phill Laak would hit a 9?
Why is that?
He's talking about what Daniel is thinking. He's saying that Daniel is pretty sure that his pair of 2's is the best hand, unless Laak is holding a 9, which he could be (from Daniel's perspective).
So he's not saying that Laak needs another 9 on the river to win; he's saying that IF Laak were holding a 9, then he would be winning after that 9 on the turn.
Daniel checked the flop and Laak checked back. If Laak had hit the flop he probably would have bet the flop. From that Danial can assume his pair of 2's is good.
On the turn his 2's will still be good unless Laak is holding a 9.
Laak floats (calls with nothing) the turn to represent 99 (or better). A float means he plans to bluff the river and it worked.
If Daniel was going to bet the turn I think he should bet the river. He basically gave up on bottom pair.