What about Solomon's smaller turn bet of 44% ?
Ok sizing?
Why was this a no brainer call by V? Announcer said 0% chance of fold.
15 outs, with A draw, Q draw, and flush draw? One more card = 30% pot equity.
Pot odds? Call 1.5m to win 5m = 30%
Ok, so break even, and then add in implied odds for stacking all in, if he hits?
You have to take into account the levels of money they are playing for here, but generally speaking betting below half the the pot indicates some kind of weakness, although Solomon probably thinks it is smart to bet small to make it look like he is inducing a call as if he has something, which could also be part of the reason why Vogelsang doesn't want to come over the top out of position.
That said, a turn bet is far more likely to be a semi-bluff by Solomon after he is checked to, and so it was a no brainer call because V knows he could easily still be ahead and dominating, not to mention his overcards and flush draw and implied odds etc. - he also may have called a small c-bet on the flop if Solomon had made one because of the pre-flop play indicating V was still ahead at this point most of the time.
Bad pre-flop 3-bet call by Solomon with only KT, right?
I'm hesitant to just automatically label it bad as it did win in end... also I have never played these stakes, I don't know the exact dynamic of the table and I've definitely made worse plays, but yeah - in my opinion he is losing that pot against most other pros and most other boards or positions against Vogelsang. It isn't a profitable thing to do long term - he showed the bluff afterwards as well which, for a player like Vogelsang will just make him more aware of Solomon's range as opposed to making him be tilted by making a 50/50 fold on the river. I think you can see by Vogelsang's reaction that he is about to be disappointed but then kind of wonders more about why on earth Solomon would think making that play would be profitable most of the time.
However, Solomon did go on to river bluff a few more other players before he went out in a decent place so obviously he may have been intentionally playing more of a LAG style to take advantage of the nittiness at the table, which would highlight better observation and intuition about the situation than V may have given him credit for at this stage.
When Solomon also checked the flop, I'd read that as Solomon not having Q.
V should have then C-bet on the turn, right?
Probably, but like I said before I don't think V places any fold equity on Solomon at all and V's nittier style was working good so far - V probably doesn't put Solomon on complete random river bluffs yet so he doesn't anticipate the hand getting away from him if he is still in the lead. He probably thinks Solomon is only going to fold a weaker and dominated hand here, and that Solomon is still only calling any value bet with a better hand so there is not as much value in V c-betting.
Honestly, when you really think about it, Vogelsang's main mistake in this hand was just not anticipating Solomon bluffing so big on the river. If he had called the bluff on the river he would have gotten maximum value out of Solomon here, because honestly Solomon is probably folding any c-bets Vogelsang makes and there is no value in Vogelsang making them other than to prevent Solomon catching-up or ridiculously bluffing. In Vogelsang's mind he had showdown value with AKs so to semi-bluff Solomon out of that showdown value just to prevent Solomon from bluffing him or unlikely catching up wasn't strictly speaking the most valuable play in theory at the time.
Nevertheless, it is easy for us to see now what the better plays should have been for both players.