Of course Hero is going broke here. There is no way, stacks dont go inside, when one player has top set and another top two, and there is so little stack left behind. However Heros line missed out on value from all the hands, he was ahead off, and thats why it was a mistake.
I see this differently - Hero went broke because of not thinking in ranges and overplaying when hitting a flop.
Hero's min-raise is not optimal. That said, what does hero think UTG+1 is re-min-raised with? The min-raise from the UTG1 easily has strong ranges 99+ (might even have worse pairs), ATs+, AQo+, KJs+, KQo, JTs+.
There is no skill in hitting a flop. When Hero hits the flop hard of course he wants to get maximum value from it.
I agree with this! Is going all-in the path to get maximum value from worse hands? I would argue "no." What did Hero want to accomplish with going all-in? Was hero afraid of the possible straight draw on a rainbow board? Going all in on the flop in this scenario for 18 big blinds will only get called by better AA, TT, 44 (though 44 unlikely) and perhaps a chop with AT, and that is exactly what happened.
Hero could have bet an amount that the following opponent range would call: 99, JJ, QQ, KK, AK, AQ, AJ, KT, QT etc.... the objective is getting worse hands to call Hero's bet. A 1/3 pot to 1/2 pot bet on the flop would not put Hero's tournament at risk on the flop.. but would provide a pot building scenario to gain more information and possibly get it all-in on the river if we thought Hero's hand beat enough of opponents range. This 1/3 to 1/2 sizing could also induce opponent to shove which provides hero an opportunity to re-evaluate before committing tournament life to the pot.
Finally - betting 3x the size of the pot has to work almost every time to be profitable. This means hero should only bet 3x the pot when very, very sure hero will win (whether at showdown or by opponent folding).
Would be great to know where this tournament was in terms of places to the $$ to see if ICM implications were also a factor.