> She had the losing hand at the time she called by a few percentage points. This tells me you don't understand the basics of poker. Which is fine, but you mig

> She had the losing hand at the time she called by a few percentage points. This tells me you don't understand the basics of poker. Which is fine, but you might want to be clear about that before opining :P While the expected percent change of her winning the hand was slightly worse than a coinflip, her pot odds made her call +EV. In other words by calling that allin, she stood to profit. Your comment was implicitly assuming that she can only win as much money as she puts in with the final bet. So yeah, 53% of the time she's going to lose the hand, but her actual expected value of making the call is positive. > 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. I'm a bit confused by this, could you explain this in another way? If you're saying that there was maybe a reason to maintain secrecy (as far as what hand she had) after the first run, that's not true because she already won a hand therefore she will have to show her hand regardless of how the second river goes.