3 ms·

I agree it's way up for debate, there's no consensus among pros, or anyone besides people with political agendas. I also doubt this will resolve, it's going to

by mod 4y ago

I agree it's way up for debate, there's no consensus among pros, or anyone besides people with political agendas. I also doubt this will resolve, it's going to be the next Postle scenario.

bombcar 4y ago
Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad call on one hand is nothing compared.
- csa 4y ago
  > Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad call on one hand is nothing compared. It’s way more than one hand. 1. She used a time bank chip to tank a turn bet by Garrett when she had J8 (no pair no draw — same J-high situation) against Garrett’s made full house. In that case, there was an over or two on the board, so it was even more ridiculous to 2. Her changing story is not a good look. It could be because she was lying. It could be because she had no idea what she was doing and was just making up poorly-constructed possible explanations on the fly. 3. If you’ve ever played poker at a competitive level, her reaction when she makes an absolutely super thin hero call and is good and just sort of smiles is different than every other hero call I’ve ever seen. It’s super suspicious. To be fair, she could have been on something (Xanax?), so that’s a possible explanation. 4. She played really tight the other two sessions she played on HCL. Why was she all of a sudden including super thin value calls for this session? There are many good possible explanations, but someone deviating this much from their normal strategy and be right both times is suspicious. 5. Her undisclosed backer who was also at the table mouthed something to her during the session. What was that about? I was super suspicious, but could just be something simple. I mean, a simple explanation is that she is a relatively wealthy person who was on a heavy dose of Xanax, and she was tired of getting bullied by Garrett (a top notch pro). She made a stand at a relatively random time, and she happened to be right. If that was her story, no one would bat an eye. But she’s going with various whackadoodle stories that don’t really make much sense unless you start engaging in some random theorycrafting like she’s a narcissist who can’t admit that she had no idea what she was doing (possible, but who are we to say?).

by mod 4y ago

I agree it's way up for debate, there's no consensus among pros, or anyone besides people with political agendas. I also doubt this will resolve, it's going to be the next Postle scenario.

bombcar 4y ago

Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad call on one hand is nothing compared.

csa 4y ago
> Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad call on one hand is nothing compared. It’s way more than one hand. 1. She used a time bank chip to tank a turn bet by Garrett when she had J8 (no pair no draw — same J-high situation) against Garrett’s made full house. In that case, there was an over or two on the board, so it was even more ridiculous to 2. Her changing story is not a good look. It could be because she was lying. It could be because she had no idea what she was doing and was just making up poorly-constructed possible explanations on the fly. 3. If you’ve ever played poker at a competitive level, her reaction when she makes an absolutely super thin hero call and is good and just sort of smiles is different than every other hero call I’ve ever seen. It’s super suspicious. To be fair, she could have been on something (Xanax?), so that’s a possible explanation. 4. She played really tight the other two sessions she played on HCL. Why was she all of a sudden including super thin value calls for this session? There are many good possible explanations, but someone deviating this much from their normal strategy and be right both times is suspicious. 5. Her undisclosed backer who was also at the table mouthed something to her during the session. What was that about? I was super suspicious, but could just be something simple. I mean, a simple explanation is that she is a relatively wealthy person who was on a heavy dose of Xanax, and she was tired of getting bullied by Garrett (a top notch pro). She made a stand at a relatively random time, and she happened to be right. If that was her story, no one would bat an eye. But she’s going with various whackadoodle stories that don’t really make much sense unless you start engaging in some random theorycrafting like she’s a narcissist who can’t admit that she had no idea what she was doing (possible, but who are we to say?).