6 ms·

> 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

by 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
  >How is cheating in this case logical? She had the losing hand at the time she called by a few percentage points. It’s +EV because of the money already in the pot. Not by a lot though, and she played badly in other spots previously.
  - Guvante 4y ago
    If she pegged him as going for a straight her odds probably weren't bad making the move a decent +EV. And it would also match her banter of "you probably got me".
    - __blockcipher__ 4y ago
      She specifically said she put him on ace high at one point, at which point Garrett retorts that (paraphrased, despite the quotes) "if she thought he had ace high why would she call with jack high?"
      - Guvante 4y ago
        There needs to be more evidence of cheating then "no one calls with Jack crap" (they totally do), "she had the better had" (she did not unless she knew the deck which requires way more evidence than presented), "the pot odds were good" (which any player would know was true if their opponent didn't pair up or have a better high card), or "flustered player who just won $130k on a bad call is flustered".
  - mod 4y ago
    She's also not losing the hand at the time she called, percentage wise, unless you factor in the cards folded by the other players. We don't know if she had that information.
    - Guvante 4y ago
      Nothing you said makes sense in the context of cheating in this game. How could she know only his cards? Or how could she know the rivers without knowing anyone else's cards? It was effectively a coin flip given how many outs he had and the fact that her hand was better at the turn. Saying she needed to cheat to win a coin flip is just weird. Also the fact that it is a coin flip is well known in the poker community. If you haven't heard people bitching about losing to JX you haven't played enough.
deanCommie 4y ago
Re: giving the money back Daniel Negreanu [0] has the opposite read from you: "The fact that she gave him the money back isn’t an admission of guilt, but likely the contrary. A money hungry scumbag cheat isn’t likely to give money back in that spot. Felt like she didn’t want to deal with conflict and can afford it." [0]https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1575726681117011968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1575726681117011968?... Re: 3 vs 4. I think both the cheaters and the non-cheater followers of this story believe that she was rattled and made a bad move. Even if she was cheating and KNEW his hand, she had no way of knowing that her Jack-high would hold up, unless people believe the entire casino is on in it and she knows all the cards coming. If we accept that she was rattled, and stressed, and made a rash move, and got away with it, then it's equally believable that in the moment she briefly got confused and remembered the wrong hand. Memory isn't foolproof, and in the emotional decision to decide to call she confused the last 2 hands or ipso-facto justified what she could tell was a terrible decision but needed to cover up with bravado because the game had to continue after this hand. Once you understand all of the above, it's clear she didn't need to cheat to wind up in this position, and in fact it makes LESS sense.
thereare5lights 4y ago
> The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly? Hm why would a woman when confronted with an enraged man threatening her seek to minimize conflict…
generalk 4y ago
> 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. I watched the hand. I've been in that spot. You think you have a good read on someone such that your not-great hand may actually be best, say, they're chasing an open-ender and your high card is good. (Which it would be, barring cards folded by other players.) You're nervous, you're facing an all-in decision, you know the safe move is to fold and move on, but damn all you just can't shake the feeling, and you have to gamble. Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer here. You didn't say this, but I fear that if this were someone like Daniel Negraneau monologuing about what to do and stating his read aloud ("I'm pretty sure you're chasing. I'm probably beat but if you're holding 8 9 I'm beating you right now. I'm right aren't I? sigh I call. Show me I'm beat.") then this wouldn't be an issue at all. > The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly? "He cornered me & threatened me. If he has the audacity to give me the death stare ON camera, picture what it’s like OFF camera. I was pulled out of the game & forced to speak to him in a dark hallway."[twt] Shit, if I was in that position, and producers/officials pulled me out of the game and put me in a room with my opponent where I was accused of cheating and told to return the money, damn good chance I'd return it just to make a scary situation stop. Maybe you're different, but that doesn't mean intimidation doesn't work pretty damn well. [twt]: https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992 https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992
- jstx1 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure you're chasing. Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any high flush draw. Let alone value hands (she's drawing dead against a 10). So she has to put him specifically on 78 (which he had), 68 or 67. That makes it more suspicious, not less. The intimidation thing makes sense if you believe her story. I can only guess what happened between the two of them after the game. I know that I've seen her change her own story about the hand that she thought she had. If you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't really go with their own story about what happened as a reason to exonerate them.

by jstx1 4y ago

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
>How is cheating in this case logical? She had the losing hand at the time she called by a few percentage points. It’s +EV because of the money already in the pot. Not by a lot though, and she played badly in other spots previously.
- Guvante 4y ago
  If she pegged him as going for a straight her odds probably weren't bad making the move a decent +EV. And it would also match her banter of "you probably got me".
  - __blockcipher__ 4y ago
    She specifically said she put him on ace high at one point, at which point Garrett retorts that (paraphrased, despite the quotes) "if she thought he had ace high why would she call with jack high?"
    - Guvante 4y ago
      There needs to be more evidence of cheating then "no one calls with Jack crap" (they totally do), "she had the better had" (she did not unless she knew the deck which requires way more evidence than presented), "the pot odds were good" (which any player would know was true if their opponent didn't pair up or have a better high card), or "flustered player who just won $130k on a bad call is flustered".
- mod 4y ago
  She's also not losing the hand at the time she called, percentage wise, unless you factor in the cards folded by the other players. We don't know if she had that information.
  - Guvante 4y ago
    Nothing you said makes sense in the context of cheating in this game. How could she know only his cards? Or how could she know the rivers without knowing anyone else's cards? It was effectively a coin flip given how many outs he had and the fact that her hand was better at the turn. Saying she needed to cheat to win a coin flip is just weird. Also the fact that it is a coin flip is well known in the poker community. If you haven't heard people bitching about losing to JX you haven't played enough.

deanCommie 4y ago

Re: giving the money back Daniel Negreanu [0] has the opposite read from you: "The fact that she gave him the money back isn’t an admission of guilt, but likely the contrary. A money hungry scumbag cheat isn’t likely to give money back in that spot. Felt like she didn’t want to deal with conflict and can afford it." [0]https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1575726681117011968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1575726681117011968?... Re: 3 vs 4. I think both the cheaters and the non-cheater followers of this story believe that she was rattled and made a bad move. Even if she was cheating and KNEW his hand, she had no way of knowing that her Jack-high would hold up, unless people believe the entire casino is on in it and she knows all the cards coming. If we accept that she was rattled, and stressed, and made a rash move, and got away with it, then it's equally believable that in the moment she briefly got confused and remembered the wrong hand. Memory isn't foolproof, and in the emotional decision to decide to call she confused the last 2 hands or ipso-facto justified what she could tell was a terrible decision but needed to cover up with bravado because the game had to continue after this hand. Once you understand all of the above, it's clear she didn't need to cheat to wind up in this position, and in fact it makes LESS sense.

thereare5lights 4y ago

> The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly? Hm why would a woman when confronted with an enraged man threatening her seek to minimize conflict…

generalk 4y ago

> 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. I watched the hand. I've been in that spot. You think you have a good read on someone such that your not-great hand may actually be best, say, they're chasing an open-ender and your high card is good. (Which it would be, barring cards folded by other players.) You're nervous, you're facing an all-in decision, you know the safe move is to fold and move on, but damn all you just can't shake the feeling, and you have to gamble. Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer here. You didn't say this, but I fear that if this were someone like Daniel Negraneau monologuing about what to do and stating his read aloud ("I'm pretty sure you're chasing. I'm probably beat but if you're holding 8 9 I'm beating you right now. I'm right aren't I? sigh I call. Show me I'm beat.") then this wouldn't be an issue at all. > The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly? "He cornered me & threatened me. If he has the audacity to give me the death stare ON camera, picture what it’s like OFF camera. I was pulled out of the game & forced to speak to him in a dark hallway."[twt] Shit, if I was in that position, and producers/officials pulled me out of the game and put me in a room with my opponent where I was accused of cheating and told to return the money, damn good chance I'd return it just to make a scary situation stop. Maybe you're different, but that doesn't mean intimidation doesn't work pretty damn well. [twt]: https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992 https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992

jstx1 4y ago
> I'm pretty sure you're chasing. Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any high flush draw. Let alone value hands (she's drawing dead against a 10). So she has to put him specifically on 78 (which he had), 68 or 67. That makes it more suspicious, not less. The intimidation thing makes sense if you believe her story. I can only guess what happened between the two of them after the game. I know that I've seen her change her own story about the hand that she thought she had. If you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't really go with their own story about what happened as a reason to exonerate them.