3 ms·

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 th

by 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...
__blockcipher__ 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? Because her call was +EV. Not knowing Garrett's cards, it was an insanely stupid call that threw away money. But if one knew Garrett's cards, they'd know it was a healthily +EV call. The fact that Garrett had outs is very irrelevant here. You seem to think that one would only cheat by knowing that the opponent is drawing completely dead. But that's nonsense. You just need to know if your call is +EV or not.
spiderice 4y ago
Others have already answered, but just to explain it another way: she wasn’t supposed to know her opponents hand. She went all in, only knowing that she had high card Jack. In other words, she definitely knew her opponents hand. Edit: to clarify, I doubt she knew her opponents specific cards. But she definitely knew her high card Jack had a good shot of winning, which is an absurd thing to suspect without cheating.

by agar 4y ago

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...

__blockcipher__ 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? Because her call was +EV. Not knowing Garrett's cards, it was an insanely stupid call that threw away money. But if one knew Garrett's cards, they'd know it was a healthily +EV call. The fact that Garrett had outs is very irrelevant here. You seem to think that one would only cheat by knowing that the opponent is drawing completely dead. But that's nonsense. You just need to know if your call is +EV or not.

spiderice 4y ago

Others have already answered, but just to explain it another way: she wasn’t supposed to know her opponents hand. She went all in, only knowing that she had high card Jack. In other words, she definitely knew her opponents hand. Edit: to clarify, I doubt she knew her opponents specific cards. But she definitely knew her high card Jack had a good shot of winning, which is an absurd thing to suspect without cheating.