3 ms·

The poker one doesn’t make sense to me in any direction. Even if she was cheating and had full knowledge of the other player’s cards, her call still doesn’t mak

The poker one doesn’t make sense to me in any direction. Even if she was cheating and had full knowledge of the other player’s cards, her call still doesn’t make sense. Giving back the money to the other player was a really suspicious move though. It seems like she mostly just didn’t really understand what she was doing.

jstx1 4y ago
> her call still doesn’t make sense. It 100% makes sense to call the shove on the turn if you know Garett's hole cards. In fact the problem is that it only makes sense if you know his hole cards.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  How?? The hole cards aren't enough - there are more cards coming on the table. Even if you know that your nothing beats his nothing you are risking a lot on a small advantage that his nothing won't turn into something.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    There is no more betting to go, so it does make sense. You are 47% to win but it’s +EV because there is already money in the pot so the pot odds favor you. That said, there are far better spots to do this and her other plays earlier were less than great.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > How?? After the shove on the turn the pot is $161k, she needs to call $109k. She needs 109/(109+161) = 40.3% equity to break even. So if she has more than 40.3% equity, she should call. If you plug in their cards on the turn into an equity calculator, you'll see that she has 54.55% equity (not accounting for dead cards like the stream calculation but either way it's the same outcome) so it's +EV for her to call.
  - mod 4y ago
    If Garrett turned his hand face up, she makes about 20k by calling on the turn.
- bena 4y ago
  This is what I kind of don't like about all of the analyses. They pretty much admit that Garett's hand is weaker on the table. He has more outs, yes, but if the hand were to stop right there, he'd lose. If he doesn't hit his outs, he loses. Which is what happens. On both rivers. His response to the call feels a bit like Michael Scott in the episode Casino Night. "I went all in, you should fold, I have good cards". Ok, that's why you play the hand. If all the responses are going to be dictated on rails, then why bother. Deal the cards and let the computers sort it out. And it's not like it was guaranteed that he wouldn't hit either his straight or flush. I know the cards have RFID in them, I don't know if they're sensitive enough to tell the exact order of a stack of cards. Because that's what she would have had to know, his cards, and the next cards in the deck in order.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > His response to the call feels a bit like Michael Scott in the episode Casino Night. "I went all in, you should fold, I have good cards". You're misunderstanding. His response (and the response from the rest of the poker community) isn't based on any call, it's based on a call with her specific hand. That's the suspicious part (and her behaviour after the hand). Garett has bluffed and been called and lost many times and not accused the other player of cheating.
    - mod 4y ago
      Even in the hand, he was laughing while knowing that he lost. He only freaked out (okay, his eyes did) when he saw her actual hand.
  - mod 4y ago
    > Because that's what she would have had to know, his cards, and the next cards in the deck in order. She would only have to know that if it was an absolute requirement that she wins the hand. It's not--she can take a positive expectation, which includes a coin flip, and still be wildly profitable. The outcome of the last two cards isn't overly important, just the state of the game when she committed $109,000. > He has more outs You've made a fundamental error here. He's the only one with outs, as outs refer to cards that will improve your hand to be the winner. She doesn't have outs, because her hand is better than his at every single point. I think your points are reasonably well thought out, they're just missing some fundamental knowledge required to make any kind of valid determination.

jstx1 4y ago

> her call still doesn’t make sense. It 100% makes sense to call the shove on the turn if you know Garett's hole cards. In fact the problem is that it only makes sense if you know his hole cards.

deanCommie 4y ago
How?? The hole cards aren't enough - there are more cards coming on the table. Even if you know that your nothing beats his nothing you are risking a lot on a small advantage that his nothing won't turn into something.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  There is no more betting to go, so it does make sense. You are 47% to win but it’s +EV because there is already money in the pot so the pot odds favor you. That said, there are far better spots to do this and her other plays earlier were less than great.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > How?? After the shove on the turn the pot is $161k, she needs to call $109k. She needs 109/(109+161) = 40.3% equity to break even. So if she has more than 40.3% equity, she should call. If you plug in their cards on the turn into an equity calculator, you'll see that she has 54.55% equity (not accounting for dead cards like the stream calculation but either way it's the same outcome) so it's +EV for her to call.
- mod 4y ago
  If Garrett turned his hand face up, she makes about 20k by calling on the turn.
bena 4y ago
This is what I kind of don't like about all of the analyses. They pretty much admit that Garett's hand is weaker on the table. He has more outs, yes, but if the hand were to stop right there, he'd lose. If he doesn't hit his outs, he loses. Which is what happens. On both rivers. His response to the call feels a bit like Michael Scott in the episode Casino Night. "I went all in, you should fold, I have good cards". Ok, that's why you play the hand. If all the responses are going to be dictated on rails, then why bother. Deal the cards and let the computers sort it out. And it's not like it was guaranteed that he wouldn't hit either his straight or flush. I know the cards have RFID in them, I don't know if they're sensitive enough to tell the exact order of a stack of cards. Because that's what she would have had to know, his cards, and the next cards in the deck in order.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > His response to the call feels a bit like Michael Scott in the episode Casino Night. "I went all in, you should fold, I have good cards". You're misunderstanding. His response (and the response from the rest of the poker community) isn't based on any call, it's based on a call with her specific hand. That's the suspicious part (and her behaviour after the hand). Garett has bluffed and been called and lost many times and not accused the other player of cheating.
  - mod 4y ago
    Even in the hand, he was laughing while knowing that he lost. He only freaked out (okay, his eyes did) when he saw her actual hand.
- mod 4y ago
  > Because that's what she would have had to know, his cards, and the next cards in the deck in order. She would only have to know that if it was an absolute requirement that she wins the hand. It's not--she can take a positive expectation, which includes a coin flip, and still be wildly profitable. The outcome of the last two cards isn't overly important, just the state of the game when she committed $109,000. > He has more outs You've made a fundamental error here. He's the only one with outs, as outs refer to cards that will improve your hand to be the winner. She doesn't have outs, because her hand is better than his at every single point. I think your points are reasonably well thought out, they're just missing some fundamental knowledge required to make any kind of valid determination.