7 ms·

I saw the poker event live. I genuinely think she was not cheating. She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in bet and while the play was mar

• melling 4y ago
  “Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had been "threatened" - something Adelstein denied.” That’s a lot of money to give back
  • silisili 4y ago
    That's what makes me feel like something is fishy. The dude immediately was calling her out, saying all but she cheated. If she beat him fair and square, any reasonable person would call him a sore loser and be happy to have taken his money.
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      This logic gives me a very ugly feeling and reminds me of, “why didn’t you scream? Why didn’t you fight?” A lot of comments in this post are applying the commenter’s context to her situation when judging her actions.
      • WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        All the discussion surrounding cheating allegations these past few weeks gave me a very ugly feeling. I have personally lost all respect for at least two communities. Supposedly intelligent people apparently are all too ready to turn into a mob too.
      • lamontcg 4y ago
        Also "if you were innocent, why would you sign a confession?" Bullying is an effective tactic. If it wasn't effective we wouldn't have so many bullies. Apparently we're still living by playground rules where if you don't stand up for yourself you deserve it.
    • rplst8 4y ago
      Because in poker if you don't play the way people think you should play, they get snooty. Especially "pros".
      • silisili 4y ago
        As a counterpoint, why did the 'pro' go all in on a junk hand, then?
        • alex_young 4y ago
          He didn’t go all in, he forced his opponent to go all in. He also had a ton of great scenarios at that point which were a lot better than a junk hand. It didn’t work out, and usually that’s just chalked up to how things go. Odd to get so upset about one hand IMO.
          • silisili 4y ago
            Thanks. I'm (obviously) not a pro, so it feels bizarre to watch. I guess they know the odds of different scenarios playing out than I would.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• codeflo 4y ago
  Just so I get this right, she made a play based on an error, and got lucky? I mean, stuff like that happens, and is usually a great story. Watching humans play games is exciting precisely because we aren’t robots.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    No, there's virtually no chance of that happening in this case.
  • spiderice 4y ago
    That is what GP is suggesting. GP's theory doesn't make much sense though. It doesn't account for the things she said during the hand that make no sense if she just misread her cards. Or the fact that she gave the money back. Much more likely to be cheating, imo
    • agar 4y ago
      How could cheating help her when he still had a reasonable chance of pulling either a straight flush, flush, or a pair in the river? What would be the logic that a calm, rational, 3rd party (that could even be using a computer to calculate odds) would use that would justify risking $100K+ on that hand? Also, don't you think that if someone's cheating they would be careful to play relatively conservatively so as not to cause this kind of attention?
      • albedoa 4y ago
        > Also, don't you think that if someone's cheating they would be careful to play relatively conservatively so as not to cause this kind of attention? If this is the first poker cheating scandal that you have followed, then you are forgiven for not knowing how funny that question is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_Gambling_Hall_cheating_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_Gambling_Hall_cheating_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus_Poker_Network#2007_cheating_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus_Poker_Network#2007_chea...
• 300bps 4y ago
  She said a lot of things. Many of them made no sense. For example, “I thought you had ace high!” as an explanation for why she called him while she had jack high. It was either a colossally dumb mistake on her part followed by implausible explanations or she bet a ton of money somehow knowing she had him beat with jack high.
  • alasdair_ 4y ago
    I think tv cameras and commentators and having tens of thousands of people watching you can totally mess with how you think when you have just made a mistake for six figures. Without any actual proof of cheating (especially in this terrible spot) my money is on a fuckup.
• jstx1 4y ago
  > Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3, especially as she literally said “threes are good, right?” during her deliberations. If you watch the video, you'll see that she knows that she doesn't have a 3 - she checks her hand before she calls and also a player at the table asks her if she has a 3 and she says no. Then afterwards she did an interview in which she explains how she thought she had a 3 but that doesn't match what she said at the table. > She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn’t much. It's not marginally +EV to call given the pot odds and she doesn't need to know her exact equity to be cheating, she could be getting binary "you're good" / "you aren't good" signals (and that's much easier to transmit and read without being noticed). The play on the turn is way too ridiculous. The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly? Sure, maybe she was intimidated but to me it looked like she cheated, she realised that she's in over her head and tried to make the whole thing go away by returning the money and coming up with a story about the hand she thought she had.
  • gregw134 4y ago
    Plus Garrett asked if she had a pair and she said no. Also, she went from playing $300 buyin tournaments in March to suddenly playing live stream for hundreds of thousands and winning $100k two showings in a row.
  • Guvante 4y ago
    > You'll see that she knows that she doesn't have a 3 I haven't played running it twice but it looked like there was still importance to secrecy before the second river was flipped given the way they were acting. > The play on the turn is way too ridiculous Assuming the cheater doesn't know the deck (which would be extremely hard to pull off). How is cheating in this case logical? She had the losing hand at the time she called by a few percentage points. Sometimes you call bluffs with a face card figuring it will win. It isn't a good bet but it isn't a terrible one as this hand shows. Also insinuating that no one would return money when threatened is weird.
    • alasdair_ 4y ago
• gregw134 4y ago
  Weird thing is she checked her hole cards during the hand. I guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but difficult to do. Giving the money back is also a bad look. The other odd thing is she's a very new player suddenly playing some of the biggest stakes in the world, and she's now won $100k in back to back appearances, while presumably making amateur mistakes like calling $130k with Jack high. I agree there's no convincing evidence but it's enough to raise my suspicions.
  • alasdair_ 4y ago
    >I guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but difficult to do. With TV cameras and thousands of people watching every tiny thing you do, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I can buy it. I’ve been in televised card games before and it is so easy to make dumb mistakes just because of the pressure of the cameras and audience.
  • noncoml 4y ago
    > Giving the money back is also a bad look. I wouldn’t read too much into this, it can be either. I’ve given back money during disputes just to avoid drama and because I was certain one way or another the money would come back to me anyway.
  • girvo 4y ago
    How in the world is giving money back a bad look. I swear some of the people here are working backwards from their already concluded “she’s a cheater” and twisting anything they can to fit it. It’s wild to see, as someone with zero stake in it either way, but a cheater would not give the money back when asked.
• baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn’t much. That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. In this case the EV of the call was extremely negative EVEN IF we assume that the all-in was a bluff 100% of the time. Problem is that jack high usually doesn't beat a bluff in this scenario. If you adjust that 100% to something realistic like 60% or 30% or whatnot, it becomes even more severely -EV.
  • alasdair_ 4y ago
    >That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. My point was that if she was cheating and knew what his cards were, there is no range to care about. And even then, it’s not significantly +EV.
    • friedman23 4y ago
      It's extremely +ev to call. If she folds she loses close to 35 thousand dollars of ev edit: closer to 20k, i didn't remember the exact pot size
      • mod 4y ago
        Your conclusion is correct, and your math is wrong. She loses her share/EV (47% per the graphics) of the pot (41.7k per the graphics) if she folds. So it's worth more like 20k to call, if she knows his exact hand.
        • friedman23 4y ago
          I didn't remember the exact pot size. I thought she raised 12k into 40k then got raised all in
          • mod 4y ago
            He bet 10k into 11.7k, she clicked it back to 20k, he shoved covering her 129k total to start the turn.
• nathanaldensr 4y ago
  The fact she keeps changing her story is the most intriguing aspect of this whole incident, far moreso than any particular action in the hand. Why would someone change their story so much after just winning this massive pot?
• mod 4y ago
  It makes sense if her signal is binary. "you have the best hand" buzzing in her pocket Calling with J4 doesn't make sense in any other scenario, so it's hard for us to say "well it doesn't make sense to call in the flip scenario." It makes way less sense to call with J4. She did something that doesn't make sense. She also announced that she did not have a pair of threes, out loud. Also for anyone else who wants to watch it, it was livestreamed, so it doesn't matter if you watch it live or now.
• pmoriarty 4y ago
  "Cheating in this spot just makes no sense" When there's money involved there will be people who cheat. Even when there's no money involved, some people will cheat.
• mod 4y ago
  > Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3 Per Robbi herself, " i ran it twice because i didnt think j high could be good". https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo?t=717 https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo?t=717 (says it at 12:00)
  • strangescript 4y ago
    That literally makes no sense. She called and agreed to run it twice before anyone saw any of the cards. She is literally saying "I called knowing I was losing and hoping I could catch a jack???" Come on
    • mod 4y ago
      Usually the player who is losing is the one who more strongly prefers to run it more than once. That's just an observation of mine based on watching a lot of hands. Monetarily, there's no difference whether you run it once or twice. It just lowers variance. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. She literally says it, I'm not reading into anything. What are you taking away from the video? (I genuinely am not sure what your argument is)
• strangescript 4y ago
  She didn't misread her hand. She checked it before calling. She was starting to realize she was way over extended with her cheat and was trying to find a viable explanation. Most likely all she knew was she had the better hand at the time of his all in via someone spying his hole cards and some kind discrete alert system, like a vibration. She just wanted to make a play for the cameras but didn't think through how it would look. The intention was most likely for her to get it first, then even if he called it would just look like she tried a big bluff. Would have looked great for clips and streaming...
• jurassic 4y ago
  I don't know the full context but "threes are good, right?" sounds like a great thing to say if you're playing the character of the dumb blonde at a table full of men who underestimate you. You want them to feel superior whenever you go head to head.