Hi guys,
 
Sorry it has taken me this long, but I am finally writing to address the ace high flush fold.  I think that the mistake that many of you are making when you criticize the fold is that you are giving undue attention to the fact that my hand may be underrepresented.  Sometimes in NLHE poker, it doesn't matter if your own hand is underrepresented:  this would be in situations in which your opponent is polarized, and the hand that you have represented AND the hand that you actually have both fall in the range of hands that is (a) worse than what your opponent is representing and (b) better than his bluff.
 
Before I get to the hand from the video, let me give you a fairly basic made-up example.  Suppose your opponent raises preflop and you decide to just flat call with AA.  Let's say the flop is A-9-4 with a flush draw.  He bets and you just call.  The turn is, say an eight, not completing the flush.  He checks, you bet, and he calls.  Now the river is a deuce, completing the flush.  Your opponent checks, you bet, and now your opponent cr-shoves.  This is a thematic example in which your hand is very underrepresented - BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER.  Your hand basically plays just like A-3 or even worse here.  The same principle applies to the hand in the video.
 
In the hand in the video, I bet into two players on a monotone Q-J-x flop (I forgot what the low card was).  When Cindy calls me there, she has to have something pretty strong.  She is going to have AQ at worst if she has no diamond.  Other non-diamond hands could be two pair or a set.  If she does have a diamond, she could already have a flush, or she could have a pair with a big diamond.  I have the Ad, so we are looking at Kd-Qx or Kd-Jx as the most likely candidates.  Now the turn is the 8d.  I check.  Now there is no reason for her to bet with a small flush (as she beats hands that I would fold and I will call with hands that beat her) and certainly not with a set (where I will call with my flushes and possibly even take her off the hand when she still has outs; and if I don't have a flush, she does not need to bluff).  After I call the turn bet, she knows that I can't have 'nothing'.  I can either have a set trying to show down (or hope the board pairs) or I am going to have a good flush myself.  So once she bets the turn, she is almost 100% to have a good flush.
 
Now when I lead into her on a brick river, my hand is necessarily polarized.  And given that she always has a strong hand here, it is an absolutely retarded spot for her to raise.  She cannot expect that I will fold out the Ad (which is very much a part of my hand range here) and she is going to beat all other hands that I am leading with (but she cannot expect me to call a raise with).  So she can just call with her flush - unless it is of course the straight flush.  Therefore, the only hand that makes sense for her to raise here is in fact the straight flush.  And thus, I can now fold.
 
Those of you that are thinking, well if you are folding the ace high flush here, isn't this a good spot to bluff?  Well first of all, many of my ace high flushes would contain sf blockers.  But more importantly, she can't know that I would (and should as per my analysis) fold the ace high flush her.  That is of course a key point.
 
Finally, for those of you that are wondering about the size of her raise, remember that she wants to get paid no matter what I have.  When you have the straight flush there, the tendency is to do less analysis about the opponent's range, since you know your hand is better.  So she wants to make a raise that looks bluffy and is likely to be called no matter what I might have.
 
I hope all this makes sense and that you guys can now make more sense about why I think that it is not only a fold - but a somewhat clear fold - in that spot.