After chess, cheating rows rock poker and fishing(bbc.com)
bbc.com
After chess, cheating rows rock poker and fishing
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63108879
234 comments
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
It’s +EV because of the money already in the pot.
Not by a lot though, and she played badly in other spots previously.
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".
And it would also match her banter of "you probably got me".
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?"
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".
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.
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.
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.
Her call is good even if she knows his hand. Amazingly good, since almost no players have ever called with jack high, no draw. Ever.
I think if she cheated (I don't have any strong opinions on whether she did), that her signal was binary. It makes the most sense given her actions, and inability to explain them.
Buzzer that buzzes when "you have the best hand right now" makes a lot of sense and is easy for a bad player to understand.
It's a coin flip, but she's 55% favorite unless she knows the discarded/dead cards. If she knows them, she has 47% equity which makes her call very profitable given the pot size of 40k.
This is basic "pot odds" or EV calculation, I encourage you to do it.
If she didn't know his exact hand, her play is unspeakably bad. She has virtually zero equity against Garrett's range here. He's holding one of the two or three hands she can beat given his line. Most of his bluffs are crushing her.
I think if she cheated (I don't have any strong opinions on whether she did), that her signal was binary. It makes the most sense given her actions, and inability to explain them.
Buzzer that buzzes when "you have the best hand right now" makes a lot of sense and is easy for a bad player to understand.
It's a coin flip, but she's 55% favorite unless she knows the discarded/dead cards. If she knows them, she has 47% equity which makes her call very profitable given the pot size of 40k.
This is basic "pot odds" or EV calculation, I encourage you to do it.
If she didn't know his exact hand, her play is unspeakably bad. She has virtually zero equity against Garrett's range here. He's holding one of the two or three hands she can beat given his line. Most of his bluffs are crushing her.
I never claimed it was good play, just that it is believable play.
Also the whole counterpoint hinges on not believing she felt she was calling a bluff which she explicitly called her plays as being.
Also the whole counterpoint hinges on not believing she felt she was calling a bluff which she explicitly called her plays as being.
Not saying it's the case here, or even that anyone has suggested it's remotely suspected, but some cheating involves knowing what card the dealer is going to play next.
Her odds were 47%. To claim she needed to know she was ahead to possibly win makes zero sense.
He was behind and needed an out. So many outs existed he was more likely to win but "high card beats almost flush/straight".
He was behind and needed an out. So many outs existed he was more likely to win but "high card beats almost flush/straight".
I hesitate to reply, because it's not a very important point I was making. But to be clear, if she was cheating by knowing for a fact what card the dealer was about to play (and her opponent's hole cards), then none of those odds you mention, matter.
Edit: And again, not saying this is remotely a possibility here, or has been suggested by anyone. But all the cards were in fact known by the television program covering the table, and there have been cases of someone in the control booth feeding info back to a cheater at the table.
Edit: And again, not saying this is remotely a possibility here, or has been suggested by anyone. But all the cards were in fact known by the television program covering the table, and there have been cases of someone in the control booth feeding info back to a cheater at the table.
The hole cards were known. I'm not sure that the cards in the deck that were still to come were known by anyone. They use RFID tags and I doubt there is a reader on the planet that can pick out the exact order of 40+ un-powered tags stacked on top of each other.
And if she only knew the hole cards, that only tells her she is 47% to win.
I mean, it's still +EV because of pot odds, and it's possible a cheat happened I guess, but it's hardly conclusive. To reasonably allege cheating requires more than a sample size of one hand.
And if she only knew the hole cards, that only tells her she is 47% to win.
I mean, it's still +EV because of pot odds, and it's possible a cheat happened I guess, but it's hardly conclusive. To reasonably allege cheating requires more than a sample size of one hand.
> 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.
No, there isn't.
In tournaments, players are forced to put hands face-up when no more betting can take place. This is in part so people can see there's no cheating/collusion going on, and in part because it's better for TV.
In cash games, there's no such requirement. Players often don't show their hand because they don't want to give away information to the other players. There's rules about who has to show first, but if she had lost the pot, she could have folded without showing.
> Assuming the cheater doesn't know the deck (which would be extremely hard to pull off)
The insinuation is exactly that, that she knew the deck. (Rather, that software knew the deck and alerted her to a favorable position)
If you're not up-to-date on how that can happen, I suggest you review the mike postle scandal, and other proofs of concept where people are, in fact, reading the state of the entire deck.
No, there isn't.
In tournaments, players are forced to put hands face-up when no more betting can take place. This is in part so people can see there's no cheating/collusion going on, and in part because it's better for TV.
In cash games, there's no such requirement. Players often don't show their hand because they don't want to give away information to the other players. There's rules about who has to show first, but if she had lost the pot, she could have folded without showing.
> Assuming the cheater doesn't know the deck (which would be extremely hard to pull off)
The insinuation is exactly that, that she knew the deck. (Rather, that software knew the deck and alerted her to a favorable position)
If you're not up-to-date on how that can happen, I suggest you review the mike postle scandal, and other proofs of concept where people are, in fact, reading the state of the entire deck.
What evidence is there that she did? Literally half the deck was a win for her in this situation.
The presumption that people don't call with JX is a weird one, unless you have never played poker before.
The presumption that people don't call with JX is a weird one, unless you have never played poker before.
> The presumption that people don't call with JX is a weird one, unless you have never played poker before.
This assertion belies your mistakes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you're talking about playing J4 preflop. It's pretty bad, but whatever, people do it all the time. And of course they can win with it.
They don't usually rely on calling a $109k bluff on the turn with jack high to win, though.
> unless you have never played poker before.
I was a professional player before they shut down the big 3 online sites.
Also you're calling out a whole lot of top professional players with that statement.
This assertion belies your mistakes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you're talking about playing J4 preflop. It's pretty bad, but whatever, people do it all the time. And of course they can win with it.
They don't usually rely on calling a $109k bluff on the turn with jack high to win, though.
> unless you have never played poker before.
I was a professional player before they shut down the big 3 online sites.
Also you're calling out a whole lot of top professional players with that statement.
"I wouldn't do that" isn't the bar here. "No one would do that" is.
Unless you can claim you haven't seen a huge bet on Jack Shit then that isn't sufficient evidence of cheating.
Unless you can claim you haven't seen a huge bet on Jack Shit then that isn't sufficient evidence of cheating.
> 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.
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.
How do you know that threats have been made?
https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992
"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."
"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."
I don't but I doubt there is evidence to the contrary either. So any positing requires considering both sides as being the chances current evidence provides.
Given bad bets leading to threats of violence is not unheard of presupposing the threat wasn't made is baseless.
Given bad bets leading to threats of violence is not unheard of presupposing the threat wasn't made is baseless.
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?...
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.
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?...
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.
> 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…
Hm why would a woman when confronted with an enraged man threatening her seek to minimize conflict…
> 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
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
> 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.
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.
> Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any high flush draw.
Fair, there are definitely semi-bluffs that beat J4 here, and of course if Garret had a made hand she's toast.
There's also (and I think she says this at some point, "purely a bluff-catcher" IIRC) tons of pure air bluffs that J4 beats.
I simply do not understand the stance that if a poker player makes a call with a crap hand that turns out to be good, and then holds up, that she must be cheating. Not for nothing, but I have never heard such accusations leveled at a male player like this.
> 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.
I am not questioning her credibility.
Because there is no reason to.
The only reason anyone thinks she might be cheating is because her heads-up opponent angrily accused her of it. Not even after a bad beat! After his hand, which was never ever the best hand of the two, failed to make any of its draws over a river that was run twice.
I question the credibility of the accusation. Garret has every reason to accuse his opponent of cheating, especially given that he successfully intimidated Robbi into returning his chips, which to me is just insane.
Why the conversation isn't "poker player doesn't catch his outs, demands his money back" is beyond me.
Fair, there are definitely semi-bluffs that beat J4 here, and of course if Garret had a made hand she's toast.
There's also (and I think she says this at some point, "purely a bluff-catcher" IIRC) tons of pure air bluffs that J4 beats.
I simply do not understand the stance that if a poker player makes a call with a crap hand that turns out to be good, and then holds up, that she must be cheating. Not for nothing, but I have never heard such accusations leveled at a male player like this.
> 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.
I am not questioning her credibility.
Because there is no reason to.
The only reason anyone thinks she might be cheating is because her heads-up opponent angrily accused her of it. Not even after a bad beat! After his hand, which was never ever the best hand of the two, failed to make any of its draws over a river that was run twice.
I question the credibility of the accusation. Garret has every reason to accuse his opponent of cheating, especially given that he successfully intimidated Robbi into returning his chips, which to me is just insane.
Why the conversation isn't "poker player doesn't catch his outs, demands his money back" is beyond me.
But again it’s not uncommon to believe your opponent is chasing a card especially in this case - straight and flush draw and the straight is below your top card. If it’s a straight draw they have, you know you have them beat. And going all in pre-river on your draws is the main tactic you’d expect to see.
> Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer here.
I suppose Hanlon's razor is adequate here - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I suppose Hanlon's razor is adequate here - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
The problem with the cheating is that it requires her to be (1) smart enough to not get caught cheating in a high stakes poker game and (2) dumb enough to cheat in a ridiculously obvious way. Those seem mutually contradictory. If you can pull off the cheat you'd be smart enough to cheat in a less obvious way.
[deleted]
Did she make predictions this specific? I couldn't hear everything that was said in the clip, but I don't remember her saying anything this specific.
Oh no, the stuff I put in quotes was not Robbi speaking during the hand, but my imagining of what Neganeau would have sounded like in his typical confident chattery thinking aloud.
If she didn't say anything like this, I guess I don't understand why you said you "fear" that this wouldn't be happening if Negraneau had made the same moves and had narrated precisely what cards he put his opponent on.
My sense is that the different reaction would be because of the narration, not the identity of the player (though it would also make sense that a player with a decade(s) long reputation would be given more deference than a newer player).
My sense is that the different reaction would be because of the narration, not the identity of the player (though it would also make sense that a player with a decade(s) long reputation would be given more deference than a newer player).
Daniel Negreanu is a player who is renowned for making insane reads like the GP is roleplaying, narrating them live. GP is—I believe—saying that if Negreanu had made the same play and narrated it this way, nobody would have batted an eye.
I think the reality is she just made a shitty decision in the moment that happened to play out well. Anyone who's played poker long enough has done the same dozens of times.
I think the reality is she just made a shitty decision in the moment that happened to play out well. Anyone who's played poker long enough has done the same dozens of times.
Weird thing is she checked her hole cards during the hand. I guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but difficult to do.
Giving the money back is also a bad look.
The other odd thing is she's a very new player suddenly playing some of the biggest stakes in the world, and she's now won $100k in back to back appearances, while presumably making amateur mistakes like calling $130k with Jack high.
I agree there's no convincing evidence but it's enough to raise my suspicions.
Giving the money back is also a bad look.
The other odd thing is she's a very new player suddenly playing some of the biggest stakes in the world, and she's now won $100k in back to back appearances, while presumably making amateur mistakes like calling $130k with Jack high.
I agree there's no convincing evidence but it's enough to raise my suspicions.
>I guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but difficult to do.
With TV cameras and thousands of people watching every tiny thing you do, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I can buy it. I’ve been in televised card games before and it is so easy to make dumb mistakes just because of the pressure of the cameras and audience.
With TV cameras and thousands of people watching every tiny thing you do, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I can buy it. I’ve been in televised card games before and it is so easy to make dumb mistakes just because of the pressure of the cameras and audience.
How in the world is giving money back a bad look. I swear some of the people here are working backwards from their already concluded “she’s a cheater” and twisting anything they can to fit it. It’s wild to see, as someone with zero stake in it either way, but a cheater would not give the money back when asked.
> Giving the money back is also a bad look.
I wouldn’t read too much into this, it can be either.
I’ve given back money during disputes just to avoid drama and because I was certain one way or another the money would come back to me anyway.
I wouldn’t read too much into this, it can be either.
I’ve given back money during disputes just to avoid drama and because I was certain one way or another the money would come back to me anyway.
> 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.
That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. In this case the EV of the call was extremely negative EVEN IF we assume that the all-in was a bluff 100% of the time. Problem is that jack high usually doesn't beat a bluff in this scenario. If you adjust that 100% to something realistic like 60% or 30% or whatnot, it becomes even more severely -EV.
That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. In this case the EV of the call was extremely negative EVEN IF we assume that the all-in was a bluff 100% of the time. Problem is that jack high usually doesn't beat a bluff in this scenario. If you adjust that 100% to something realistic like 60% or 30% or whatnot, it becomes even more severely -EV.
>That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range.
My point was that if she was cheating and knew what his cards were, there is no range to care about. And even then, it’s not significantly +EV.
My point was that if she was cheating and knew what his cards were, there is no range to care about. And even then, it’s not significantly +EV.
It's extremely +ev to call. If she folds she loses close to 35 thousand dollars of ev
edit: closer to 20k, i didn't remember the exact pot size
edit: closer to 20k, i didn't remember the exact pot size
Your conclusion is correct, and your math is wrong.
She loses her share/EV (47% per the graphics) of the pot (41.7k per the graphics) if she folds.
So it's worth more like 20k to call, if she knows his exact hand.
She loses her share/EV (47% per the graphics) of the pot (41.7k per the graphics) if she folds.
So it's worth more like 20k to call, if she knows his exact hand.
I didn't remember the exact pot size. I thought she raised 12k into 40k then got raised all in
He bet 10k into 11.7k, she clicked it back to 20k, he shoved covering her 129k total to start the turn.
Ah, sorry.
Just so I get this right, she made a play based on an error, and got lucky? I mean, stuff like that happens, and is usually a great story. Watching humans play games is exciting precisely because we aren’t robots.
[deleted]
No, there's virtually no chance of that happening in this case.
That is what GP is suggesting. GP's theory doesn't make much sense though. It doesn't account for the things she said during the hand that make no sense if she just misread her cards. Or the fact that she gave the money back.
Much more likely to be cheating, imo
Much more likely to be cheating, imo
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?
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?
> 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_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus_Poker_Network#2007_chea...
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_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus_Poker_Network#2007_chea...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Disagree. She thought he had Ace high... because that's what came out on the river (which means her saying that means "I thought you had jack shit"). She's flustered because she's getting grilled and has a lot less experience, and probably understands that she's being accused of cheating. The fact that she played with a bad hand against someone who in all likelihood had a better hand probably speaks more to her experience and state of mind than anything else.
“Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had been "threatened" - something Adelstein denied.”
That’s a lot of money to give back
That’s a lot of money to give back
That's what makes me feel like something is fishy. The dude immediately was calling her out, saying all but she cheated.
If she beat him fair and square, any reasonable person would call him a sore loser and be happy to have taken his money.
If she beat him fair and square, any reasonable person would call him a sore loser and be happy to have taken his money.
This logic gives me a very ugly feeling and reminds me of, “why didn’t you scream? Why didn’t you fight?”
A lot of comments in this post are applying the commenter’s context to her situation when judging her actions.
A lot of comments in this post are applying the commenter’s context to her situation when judging her actions.
All the discussion surrounding cheating allegations these past few weeks gave me a very ugly feeling.
I have personally lost all respect for at least two communities. Supposedly intelligent people apparently are all too ready to turn into a mob too.
I have personally lost all respect for at least two communities. Supposedly intelligent people apparently are all too ready to turn into a mob too.
Also "if you were innocent, why would you sign a confession?"
Bullying is an effective tactic. If it wasn't effective we wouldn't have so many bullies.
Apparently we're still living by playground rules where if you don't stand up for yourself you deserve it.
Bullying is an effective tactic. If it wasn't effective we wouldn't have so many bullies.
Apparently we're still living by playground rules where if you don't stand up for yourself you deserve it.
Because in poker if you don't play the way people think you should play, they get snooty. Especially "pros".
As a counterpoint, why did the 'pro' go all in on a junk hand, then?
He didn’t go all in, he forced his opponent to go all in. He also had a ton of great scenarios at that point which were a lot better than a junk hand. It didn’t work out, and usually that’s just chalked up to how things go. Odd to get so upset about one hand IMO.
Thanks. I'm (obviously) not a pro, so it feels bizarre to watch.
I guess they know the odds of different scenarios playing out than I would.
I guess they know the odds of different scenarios playing out than I would.
"Cheating in this spot just makes no sense"
When there's money involved there will be people who cheat.
Even when there's no money involved, some people will cheat.
When there's money involved there will be people who cheat.
Even when there's no money involved, some people will cheat.
I don't know the full context but "threes are good, right?" sounds like a great thing to say if you're playing the character of the dumb blonde at a table full of men who underestimate you. You want them to feel superior whenever you go head to head.
> Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3
Per Robbi herself, " i ran it twice because i didnt think j high could be good".
https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo?t=717 (says it at 12:00)
Per Robbi herself, " i ran it twice because i didnt think j high could be good".
https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo?t=717 (says it at 12:00)
That literally makes no sense. She called and agreed to run it twice before anyone saw any of the cards. She is literally saying "I called knowing I was losing and hoping I could catch a jack???"
Come on
Come on
Usually the player who is losing is the one who more strongly prefers to run it more than once. That's just an observation of mine based on watching a lot of hands.
Monetarily, there's no difference whether you run it once or twice. It just lowers variance.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. She literally says it, I'm not reading into anything. What are you taking away from the video? (I genuinely am not sure what your argument is)
Monetarily, there's no difference whether you run it once or twice. It just lowers variance.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. She literally says it, I'm not reading into anything. What are you taking away from the video? (I genuinely am not sure what your argument is)
She didn't misread her hand. She checked it before calling. She was starting to realize she was way over extended with her cheat and was trying to find a viable explanation.
Most likely all she knew was she had the better hand at the time of his all in via someone spying his hole cards and some kind discrete alert system, like a vibration. She just wanted to make a play for the cameras but didn't think through how it would look.
The intention was most likely for her to get it first, then even if he called it would just look like she tried a big bluff. Would have looked great for clips and streaming...
Most likely all she knew was she had the better hand at the time of his all in via someone spying his hole cards and some kind discrete alert system, like a vibration. She just wanted to make a play for the cameras but didn't think through how it would look.
The intention was most likely for her to get it first, then even if he called it would just look like she tried a big bluff. Would have looked great for clips and streaming...
[deleted]
She said a lot of things. Many of them made no sense. For example, “I thought you had ace high!” as an explanation for why she called him while she had jack high.
It was either a colossally dumb mistake on her part followed by implausible explanations or she bet a ton of money somehow knowing she had him beat with jack high.
It was either a colossally dumb mistake on her part followed by implausible explanations or she bet a ton of money somehow knowing she had him beat with jack high.
I think tv cameras and commentators and having tens of thousands of people watching you can totally mess with how you think when you have just made a mistake for six figures.
Without any actual proof of cheating (especially in this terrible spot) my money is on a fuckup.
Without any actual proof of cheating (especially in this terrible spot) my money is on a fuckup.
The fact she keeps changing her story is the most intriguing aspect of this whole incident, far moreso than any particular action in the hand. Why would someone change their story so much after just winning this massive pot?
It makes sense if her signal is binary.
"you have the best hand" buzzing in her pocket
Calling with J4 doesn't make sense in any other scenario, so it's hard for us to say "well it doesn't make sense to call in the flip scenario."
It makes way less sense to call with J4. She did something that doesn't make sense.
She also announced that she did not have a pair of threes, out loud.
Also for anyone else who wants to watch it, it was livestreamed, so it doesn't matter if you watch it live or now.
"you have the best hand" buzzing in her pocket
Calling with J4 doesn't make sense in any other scenario, so it's hard for us to say "well it doesn't make sense to call in the flip scenario."
It makes way less sense to call with J4. She did something that doesn't make sense.
She also announced that she did not have a pair of threes, out loud.
Also for anyone else who wants to watch it, it was livestreamed, so it doesn't matter if you watch it live or now.
All these accusations of cheating without any concrete proof are really worrying to me. I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating.
It looks very similar to the vote rigging claims we're seeing a lot more of recently in the U.S. Don't like the outcome? Just blame your opponent of cheating! No need to show any _real_ proof - just make up some vague claims of what _could_ have happened! And just keep repeating it. And this all seems to working pretty well - THAT is the scary thing
Obviously none of this applies in the case of the fisherman, who seem to have been caught red-handed.
It looks very similar to the vote rigging claims we're seeing a lot more of recently in the U.S. Don't like the outcome? Just blame your opponent of cheating! No need to show any _real_ proof - just make up some vague claims of what _could_ have happened! And just keep repeating it. And this all seems to working pretty well - THAT is the scary thing
Obviously none of this applies in the case of the fisherman, who seem to have been caught red-handed.
The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
Niemann has admitted to cheating online on chess.com before 2020, like at least 50 other titled players. Niemann has denied ever cheating over the board.
After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize money tournaments.
To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in Lichess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g
It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but clearly the standards are different online.
chess.com has announced that it will release an additional investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group.
chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago.
So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use".
FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.
After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize money tournaments.
To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in Lichess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g
It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but clearly the standards are different online.
chess.com has announced that it will release an additional investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group.
chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago.
So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use".
FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.
> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it.
So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing but allegations.
So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing but allegations.
> He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online.
If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and they have informed Niemann about it. According to them Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement.
> How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient
Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card counting.
If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and they have informed Niemann about it. According to them Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement.
> How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient
Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card counting.
chess.com has a lot of false positives in their cheating detection method, and they are in business relationship with Carlsen, so any testimony they migth give will likely be biased. I am actually very surprised to see so many people throwing away any notion of a due process and calling for immediate harsh punishment like lifetime ban.
[deleted]
chess.com will put their credibility on the line to assassinate this one player?
That sounds a bit conspiratorial - isn't it more likely that both Carlsen and chess.com take issue with cheating and they are in a business relationship, not because?
Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
That sounds a bit conspiratorial - isn't it more likely that both Carlsen and chess.com take issue with cheating and they are in a business relationship, not because?
Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
chess.com never had that much credibility ever, banning people left and right, and even joking about false positives.
> Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
What do you mean, 'finally'? People who were appalled by Carlsen's tantrums were insisting on it from the very start. If you have an evidence of cheating, present it. If you don't, stop behaving like a spoiled child and do not bully your opponent.
> Isn't the point that finally there is a discussion what a due process looks like?
What do you mean, 'finally'? People who were appalled by Carlsen's tantrums were insisting on it from the very start. If you have an evidence of cheating, present it. If you don't, stop behaving like a spoiled child and do not bully your opponent.
I'm not sure I understand your argument, I find it a bit too conspiratorial, and I'm not a fan of chess.com either.
> What do you mean, 'finally'?
It literally took the world champion to throw a 'tantrum' to get a public discussion about cheating in chess: How should FIDE sanction (online) cheaters? What is the process? What type of evidence is required? What are the statistical methods to distinguish a super GM from a GM with engine help? What anti-cheating measures are necessary?
> What do you mean, 'finally'?
It literally took the world champion to throw a 'tantrum' to get a public discussion about cheating in chess: How should FIDE sanction (online) cheaters? What is the process? What type of evidence is required? What are the statistical methods to distinguish a super GM from a GM with engine help? What anti-cheating measures are necessary?
I mean, chess.com does make mistakes and then laughs them off, 'oh, you are a really good player, ha-ha, sorry for our allegations about you cheating' - I find this attitude rather unhealthy, since according to some HN users, cheating once on chess.com is enough to justify a to permanent lifetime ban from all chess events, online or over the board ones.
Regarding a 'tantrum' if Niemann is such a bad vile cheater, why did Carlsen start all this intimidation campaign only after losing? (and losing in a game where there were no obvious computer moves, just a solid play from Niemann and not the best play from Carlsen)
If he has some evidence of cheating, he should bring it to the table. Or just play according to the rules.
Regarding a 'tantrum' if Niemann is such a bad vile cheater, why did Carlsen start all this intimidation campaign only after losing? (and losing in a game where there were no obvious computer moves, just a solid play from Niemann and not the best play from Carlsen)
If he has some evidence of cheating, he should bring it to the table. Or just play according to the rules.
Not sure what you mean - there is plenty of evidence Niemann cheated online, even if you personally don't believe chess.com. If you believe chess.com, Niemann is a cheater that lied about his cheating.
Again, I don't get the whole 'campaign' thing, it sounds like a big collusion.
Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs). But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the cheating allegations are unfounded. My understanding is it simply was the straw that broke the camel's neck. Likely a false straw, but the bucket was already full at that point.
Again, I don't get the whole 'campaign' thing, it sounds like a big collusion.
Sure, had Carlsen won, he would maybe not have withdrawn (apparently he still felt uncomfortable with Niemann's inclusion, as did other GMs). But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the cheating allegations are unfounded. My understanding is it simply was the straw that broke the camel's neck. Likely a false straw, but the bucket was already full at that point.
There is no evidence Niemann used computer engines to progress in FIDE ratings. Whatever happens in no stakes online games is irrelevant. I use CheatEngine to make my Crusader Kings 2 games me interesting, so what?
He's currently 19, and there are apparently more recent cheating things per chess.com. This isn't like "he cheated long ago and has made amends", it's guy whose cheated recently, and whose coach was also banned due to a history of cheating was found to be acting and playing suspiciously well in recent otb tournaments".
Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're making it out to be.
Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're making it out to be.
16 and 19 is a far greater age difference than it would seem by numbers only. Online play and over the board play are greatly different too. In sum, we have no hard evidence, and many allegations. I'd suggest ignoring allegations until we see some more substantial evidence.
> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it.
So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation.
> Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation.
> Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
> So what?
Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility?
In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility?
In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
Neither lack of credibility nor a history of cheating is evidence of cheating.
Evidence is the tool by which people attempt to get an edge over uncertainty. Lacking medical credibility is not proof that you're medically foolish, but it's certainly evidence. Conversely, having medical credibility is not proof that your doctor's plan is medically wise, but it's certainly evidence.
It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he’s cheating, especially against Magnus’ style. your comments indicate you lack any depth in poker or chess.
Would love to see what you are referring to, as I have yet to see any convincing case of this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
where’s your evidence to the contrary?
where’s your evidence to the contrary?
here you go: https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380022788169728
i’m sure you’ll find fault with it as yet another arm chair expert
i’m sure you’ll find fault with it as yet another arm chair expert
So then no there has not been any evidence shown of him cheating over the board?
This isn't true at all.
Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional Magnus openings. He’s either the greatest chess player alive, (and like Robbi can’t even explain his game, and admitted to cheating in the past) or he’s cheating. i’m happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody in 5 years in chess.
what evidence do you have for your position?
what evidence do you have for your position?
If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not very well informed about chess.
> He’s either the greatest chess player alive
Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
> He’s either the greatest chess player alive
Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
how do you defend Hans, then? you’re just doubting what i’m saying without substance
The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not really sure what such evidence would even look like for a super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine moves.
the burden is on you, now: https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380022788169728
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
but i’m sure you have quite literally nothing to refute this with but the autistic cries from the ether
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
but i’m sure you have quite literally nothing to refute this with but the autistic cries from the ether
If you happened to read the article you were posting, you would see this isn't about OTB chess.
stay classy
cc @dang
cc @dang
Can you give any source to these large claims?
My position is that the statistical analysis is flawed: just think critically about it for a bit and you can understand why. It has been beaten to death already.
My position is that the statistical analysis is flawed: just think critically about it for a bit and you can understand why. It has been beaten to death already.
just think critically about how arrogant you are: https://twitter.com/andrewlbeaton/status/1577380022788169728
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
what analysis have you published publicly to be scrutinized?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
what analysis have you published publicly to be scrutinized?
sure is bud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
i’d love to see any substantive comment from you though
i’d love to see any substantive comment from you though
Not of OTB cheating which is another thing entirely.
The video is damming
I see what you are saying and understand the point.
But there should be a balance somewhere.
Lance Armstrong cheated in cycling and won 7 championships. The fact that he came out as a cheater later absolutely demolished the integrity of the whole sport. And I feel really bad for anyone who competed honestly all that time with zero chance of getting anything done given that the field is rife is cheaters.
So that extreme is also pretty devastating and chess lovers done want chess to fall into that state either
But there should be a balance somewhere.
Lance Armstrong cheated in cycling and won 7 championships. The fact that he came out as a cheater later absolutely demolished the integrity of the whole sport. And I feel really bad for anyone who competed honestly all that time with zero chance of getting anything done given that the field is rife is cheaters.
So that extreme is also pretty devastating and chess lovers done want chess to fall into that state either
Cheating in chess seems somehow worse than what Armstrong did. There could be a version of cycling where everybody dopes and it becomes a level playing field --- there's still strategy in the rides, they still suffer up the climbs, etc. Doped athletes are still incredible to watch.
But in chess if you're outsourcing decision-making to the algorithm... why even have human players at all?
But in chess if you're outsourcing decision-making to the algorithm... why even have human players at all?
I'm amazed people still believe there's such a thing as "clean" professional sports. I assume everyone is doping.
I agree with your assessment about Armstrong vs outsourcing decision-making. It wouldn't surprise/bother me to find out chess players are taking ritalin or whatever to increase their focus, but using a computer is troublesome. That would be like Armstrong riding an electric bike.
I agree with your assessment about Armstrong vs outsourcing decision-making. It wouldn't surprise/bother me to find out chess players are taking ritalin or whatever to increase their focus, but using a computer is troublesome. That would be like Armstrong riding an electric bike.
> I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating.
You usually don't get these with elections either, unless the cheaters are lazy and just add 1000 votes in a 100 citizen area. Usually, you'll see weird things that are very implausible which will lead to investigations, i.e. a perceived battle ground state going 99:1 to one side. It's possible, there's no clear evidence of cheating (yet), but it's extremely unlikely.
You usually don't get these with elections either, unless the cheaters are lazy and just add 1000 votes in a 100 citizen area. Usually, you'll see weird things that are very implausible which will lead to investigations, i.e. a perceived battle ground state going 99:1 to one side. It's possible, there's no clear evidence of cheating (yet), but it's extremely unlikely.
The thing that really gets me is that crazy events like this happen sometimes. I mean, here is Stu Ungar winning insanely by calling with 10 high: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzgRZ_AKVfg
No one accused Stu of cheating.
No one accused Stu of cheating.
> No one accused Stu of cheating.
https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-s... https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/
https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-s... https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/
There is a lot of money involved. So I presume there is cheating involved, similar to doping.
Also the cheating schemes are hard to understand sometimes. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting
Also the cheating schemes are hard to understand sometimes. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting
I think she should hand over her ring over to the casino. The one she removed after the amazing call. She isn't obligated to, but, that is so weird to remove a ring under the table - it would help stop doubt.
https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-jad...
So.. is 3:45 the point where people think Robbi smacks the table and removes the ring?
It looks to me that the slap just moved the ring to the side. At 3:58 There’s something that appears to be the red ring still on her hand. Not to mention that before that moment, I can only make out one ring on her middle finger, and that ring band is still on her finger after.
I imagine they’ll look into that ring during their investigation. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.
This is definitely quite the statistical anomaly.
So.. is 3:45 the point where people think Robbi smacks the table and removes the ring?
It looks to me that the slap just moved the ring to the side. At 3:58 There’s something that appears to be the red ring still on her hand. Not to mention that before that moment, I can only make out one ring on her middle finger, and that ring band is still on her finger after.
I imagine they’ll look into that ring during their investigation. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.
This is definitely quite the statistical anomaly.
Finding evidence is very difficult. A year or two ago there was an infamous case with a man named Mike Postle. There was 0 hard evidence of him cheating but his decision making was so statistically improbable that the entire poker community is certain that he cheated.
These players, especially in poker absolutely need to be paranoid or they will be robbed.
At a certain point we are going to need to subject suspicious players to cavity searches.
These players, especially in poker absolutely need to be paranoid or they will be robbed.
At a certain point we are going to need to subject suspicious players to cavity searches.
> Finding evidence is very difficult.
That doesn't make it right to accuse people of cheating without any evidence beyond "well a _normal_ person wouldn't have done something like this, so they must be cheating!".
That doesn't make it right to accuse people of cheating without any evidence beyond "well a _normal_ person wouldn't have done something like this, so they must be cheating!".
It's not a Crown court and he's not being accused of a crime - it doesn't haven't to be beyond all reasonable doubt. If someone's acting weird at your event you can just go off your gut if you want to - your event.
We're ruining the guys life and career. Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements. If he said "I saw him messing with something in his pocket" it would at least be something. But we don't have that.
> Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements.
It's much more nuanced than this. Magnus said that there's more he'd like to say but he'd want Hans' permission to speak openly - https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888
Just because he can't immedially dump all the information that he has doesn't mean that he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
It's much more nuanced than this. Magnus said that there's more he'd like to say but he'd want Hans' permission to speak openly - https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888
Just because he can't immedially dump all the information that he has doesn't mean that he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
Until Magnus actually gives us something, it still means nothing.
> he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
No one is obligated to play anyone, that much is true. Magnus has gone quite a bit further than that with his statements.
> he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
No one is obligated to play anyone, that much is true. Magnus has gone quite a bit further than that with his statements.
[deleted]
[deleted]
you’re insane if you think there’s no proof in the chess and poker. you have no basis to make the judgement and are yet another arm chair expert on HN. Robbi is a liar. she embellished her career, and her poker game. there’s no way any player would give the money back after a “bad” play like that. she can’t even talk about the hand — she doesn’t remember her cards correctly. the list of tells is endless if you have any depth of knowledge in the game.
Then show the video of her cheating.
Show the metal detectors, finding a hidden device that transmits signals to her, about what the other person's cards are.
That is evidence. Nothing that you mentioned is actual evidence of cheating.
Show the metal detectors, finding a hidden device that transmits signals to her, about what the other person's cards are.
That is evidence. Nothing that you mentioned is actual evidence of cheating.
a player at the board could be signaling her. she might be able to see his cards. she removed a ring after the hand in question. why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal? you’re creating a straw man.
if you’re in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can’t explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they know anything about that solution?
if you’re in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can’t explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they know anything about that solution?
So then no, you have seen no device giving her signals from the outside. You see no accomplis telling her what her opponents cards are.
That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the person who was giving her signals, and then use the video footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed at everyone.
Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video evidence.
> why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal?
I was giving an example of what evidence would actually look like.
That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the person who was giving her signals, and then use the video footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed at everyone.
Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video evidence.
> why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal?
I was giving an example of what evidence would actually look like.
i mentioned a potential device. have you even played poker before in a casino?
> i mentioned a potential device.
Ok great, have you looked at the device? You say it was a ring, then prove it. Show me the picture of the internals of the ring, and show me how the ring was giving her signals.
Thats evidence. A picture of you opening up the ring, and showing a hidden computer or whatever you think the cheating ring is doing, is evidence of cheating.
Ok great, have you looked at the device? You say it was a ring, then prove it. Show me the picture of the internals of the ring, and show me how the ring was giving her signals.
Thats evidence. A picture of you opening up the ring, and showing a hidden computer or whatever you think the cheating ring is doing, is evidence of cheating.
lol. you’ve made it clear you’re not capable of evaluating the situation.
And you are admitting that you can't show evidence.
If you had evidence, you'd have shown it.
So things like a picture of the device giving her answers would be evidence.
A video recording of the specific other person in the room, giving her info on the other person's cards, would be evidence.
And now you just say "lol" proving that you do not have actual evidence here.
If you had evidence, you'd have shown it.
So things like a picture of the device giving her answers would be evidence.
A video recording of the specific other person in the room, giving her info on the other person's cards, would be evidence.
And now you just say "lol" proving that you do not have actual evidence here.
i mentioned a slew of ways she could be cheating. all you’re doing is begging for hard evidence without being able to defend or rationalize what happened. this isn’t a court of law. there’s no presumption of innocence.
your responses indicate you’ve likely never played poker at a high level. you may have never even played in a casino. what basis do you have to defend this person?
i don’t think anyone in poker who won a hand they played badly just offered to return the cash. that alone tells me everything.
edit: someone also paid for her entry into this game and she’s an amateur playing with phil ivey and GMan. https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/1576643133583937537?s=2...
your responses indicate you’ve likely never played poker at a high level. you may have never even played in a casino. what basis do you have to defend this person?
i don’t think anyone in poker who won a hand they played badly just offered to return the cash. that alone tells me everything.
edit: someone also paid for her entry into this game and she’s an amateur playing with phil ivey and GMan. https://twitter.com/haralabob/status/1576643133583937537?s=2...
You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. You can have evidence that changes your belief - people acting suspiciously their behaviour being consistent with cheating, lying, changing their story, having history of doing this in the past - all of this is perfectly valid evidence that can change your own belief about what's happening, and you should be able to speak to speak about it.
Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well, sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.
Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well, sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.
I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a reasonable person that the thing being claimed may have happened.
But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating.
Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum.
I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"
But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating.
Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum.
I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"
I think you are missing the bigger picture here.
The question is not whether Niemann cheated in this specific game against Carlsen (he likely didn't) but to what extent Niemann has cheated in the past, how (online) cheaters should be treated when it comes to over-the-board chess and if the chess profession will finally take cheating seriously, i.e. introduce anti-cheating measures similar to other professional sports or gambling.
As has been stated several times in this thread: Niemann has a history of (online) cheating, admitted to it, and while doing so likely lied about the extent and recency of his (online) cheating.
The question is not whether Niemann cheated in this specific game against Carlsen (he likely didn't) but to what extent Niemann has cheated in the past, how (online) cheaters should be treated when it comes to over-the-board chess and if the chess profession will finally take cheating seriously, i.e. introduce anti-cheating measures similar to other professional sports or gambling.
As has been stated several times in this thread: Niemann has a history of (online) cheating, admitted to it, and while doing so likely lied about the extent and recency of his (online) cheating.
> Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum.
I'm not a chess expert at all but, from my understanding, he is known for some unconventional play. I could see Magnus having done a calculation ahead of time of a very unconventional opening and, seeing the counter being the exact optimal choice, being convinced of cheating.
All that I really know is he has a lot of credibility and the person he's accusing does not. I think it's a big story because it's dramatic no matter how it turns out.
I'm not a chess expert at all but, from my understanding, he is known for some unconventional play. I could see Magnus having done a calculation ahead of time of a very unconventional opening and, seeing the counter being the exact optimal choice, being convinced of cheating.
All that I really know is he has a lot of credibility and the person he's accusing does not. I think it's a big story because it's dramatic no matter how it turns out.
> You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different.
There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to.
> By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...]
I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards".
We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to.
> By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...]
I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards".
We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
> But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
The fishing one is the outlier, since in that case th cheaters were caught red handed in dramatic fashion in front of a crowd. With the chess and poker it's much less clear if anything happened and what to do about it.
I know this is HN, but that guy yelling
"WE GOT WEIGHTS!" felt out of a movie. Those dudes were MAD.
"WE GOT WEIGHTS!" felt out of a movie. Those dudes were MAD.
I couldn't quite understand but it looked like the cheater just stood there and witnessed the revelation unfolding without saying anything in confession or in his defense.
Probably the best move, I mean what can you say? An immediate apology isn't going to be credible and you can't really claim innocence at all.
I would expect him to just leave
Kinda hard with a crowd chanting for police. There are videos from later on where police write cheaters details up. What they did is a felony https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/sports/bass-fishing-cheat...
This was a $30K tournament and supposedly this cheating team cleaned $500K last year.
This was a $30K tournament and supposedly this cheating team cleaned $500K last year.
I would want to stay near the authority figure and on camera if I had that many people that mad at me.
Rightfully so, those tournaments have very large buy-ins and the cash + prize rewards are pretty great. I get the feeling many other contestants thought they were cheating in previous wins, I am surprised they don't have more advanced measures for detecting cheating. I've seen some people comment that the eyeball test on some of those fish's weights was laughable.
I think the only reason this drama is going around is because of the chess drama. It's in the zeitgeist and it's good clickbait right now. It's made clear by articles like this that are using the chess drama to make their article interesting, including an even more tenuous link to some fishing drama.
Go back an hour in the footage, and she's calling with Jack high on a KQK board against the same player, and she calls for extra time before eventually folding a bet on the river when she still has Jack high. It's apparently not unlike her to be trying to catch bluffs with hands that lose to the bluff. She's new to poker and playing against sharks on TV. She's nervous and embarrassed and doing and saying things that don't make sense.
Go back an hour in the footage, and she's calling with Jack high on a KQK board against the same player, and she calls for extra time before eventually folding a bet on the river when she still has Jack high. It's apparently not unlike her to be trying to catch bluffs with hands that lose to the bluff. She's new to poker and playing against sharks on TV. She's nervous and embarrassed and doing and saying things that don't make sense.
I think the fish one, with the dramatic reveal of the first weight followed by the absurdity of pulling more weights and fish fillets out all while an angry crowd gathers around would have been a sensation no matter what. I agree with you on the poker though.
The fish one went viral on its own. It’s been on the front page of Reddit in one sub or another for a couple days.
> It's apparently not unlike her to be trying to catch bluffs with hands that lose to the bluff.
> calls for extra time
So its consistent that she’s acting exactly like she’s waiting on external input in situations where she might have the potential to call a bluff even though she has nothing to call with. And you’re making that out as if that reduces the suspicion?
> calls for extra time
So its consistent that she’s acting exactly like she’s waiting on external input in situations where she might have the potential to call a bluff even though she has nothing to call with. And you’re making that out as if that reduces the suspicion?
Playing jacks is exactly what you’d expect from a player who hasn’t memorized all the odds.
Especially since it works sometimes, it can become a huge trap.
Especially since it works sometimes, it can become a huge trap.
Faith in the athletic sprit of fair play and may the best win probably never existed.
"...Anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011, in which 57% of competitors admitted doping compared to under 4% in WADA test results..." https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-s...
"...In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters. ..." https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-...
"...For a nearly year Serena Williams was allowed 'Therapeutic Use Exemptions' (TUEs) which involved LOTS of steroids. Date for use/Date given/Substance
Oct 2010 - Mar 2011/23 Dec/Hydromorphone Dec 2010/23 Dec/Oxycodone Nov 27-Dec 1 2010/23 Dec/Methylprednisolone 12-19 Mar 2014/13th Mar/Prednisone 21-30 Mar 2014/2 Apr/Prednisone 7-21 May 2014/8 May/Prednisone 10-17 Nov 2014/3 Dec/Prednisone, Oxycodone 5-10 June 2015/8 Jun/Prednisolone https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/tandon-a-closer-look-at...
"...Anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011, in which 57% of competitors admitted doping compared to under 4% in WADA test results..." https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-s...
"...In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters. ..." https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-...
"...For a nearly year Serena Williams was allowed 'Therapeutic Use Exemptions' (TUEs) which involved LOTS of steroids. Date for use/Date given/Substance
Oct 2010 - Mar 2011/23 Dec/Hydromorphone Dec 2010/23 Dec/Oxycodone Nov 27-Dec 1 2010/23 Dec/Methylprednisolone 12-19 Mar 2014/13th Mar/Prednisone 21-30 Mar 2014/2 Apr/Prednisone 7-21 May 2014/8 May/Prednisone 10-17 Nov 2014/3 Dec/Prednisone, Oxycodone 5-10 June 2015/8 Jun/Prednisolone https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/tandon-a-closer-look-at...
Does Prednisone or Oxy really give you a performance boost? I feel like if so it’s marginal and she really was taking them for a medical reason?
WADA has restrictions on Prednisone: "...Prednisolone & prednisone within 10 days of a competition." https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/key-changes-2022-prohi...
"...Oral corticosteroids reduce the pain and inflammation that often occurs with extreme exertion. Athletes have reported that corticosteroids help them push through the pain of extreme exertion and allow them to recover faster for the next event..." https://truesport.org/clean-sport/5-facts-about-corticostero...
"...Oral corticosteroids reduce the pain and inflammation that often occurs with extreme exertion. Athletes have reported that corticosteroids help them push through the pain of extreme exertion and allow them to recover faster for the next event..." https://truesport.org/clean-sport/5-facts-about-corticostero...
Painkillers and anti-inflammatories are usually taken to shorten recovery time. It's usually a sign that an athlete can't keep up due to old age/injury or, if many athletes are using them, because the sport has an unrealisticly busy calendar.
Prednisone, that's Medrol right? Wrong kind of steroid. This is an imunosupresor that destroys skeletal muscles, bone strength, etc.
The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would claim that.
What is obvious is that the lady made a mistake. If someone were helping her cheat, there’s no way they would have told her to call, especially after the flop.
She was behind the entire hand after the flop, and even after the turn she still had a disadvantage. She shouldn’t have called it at all and there was no reason to even think about it. If she were cheating her accomplice would have told her under no uncertain terms to fold. Who would advise anyone to make a 6 figure bet on a coin flip???There’s no circumstance under which her actions make sense except in the case of her making a mistake.
She made a mistake and got lucky, that’s all there is.
What is obvious is that the lady made a mistake. If someone were helping her cheat, there’s no way they would have told her to call, especially after the flop.
She was behind the entire hand after the flop, and even after the turn she still had a disadvantage. She shouldn’t have called it at all and there was no reason to even think about it. If she were cheating her accomplice would have told her under no uncertain terms to fold. Who would advise anyone to make a 6 figure bet on a coin flip???There’s no circumstance under which her actions make sense except in the case of her making a mistake.
She made a mistake and got lucky, that’s all there is.
> The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would claim that.
A not small number of well-known pros don’t think it’s so simple:
https://preview.redd.it/e4x1y513wer91.png?width=1409&format=...
Most of the pros think it was just a new player who did something stupid that she didn’t understand, having seen that at the table many times before. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take.
That said, she has several other issues that need to be addressed beyond making that specific hero call.
A not small number of well-known pros don’t think it’s so simple:
https://preview.redd.it/e4x1y513wer91.png?width=1409&format=...
Most of the pros think it was just a new player who did something stupid that she didn’t understand, having seen that at the table many times before. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take.
That said, she has several other issues that need to be addressed beyond making that specific hero call.
> Most of the pros think [she didn't cheat]
I don't have that impression. I follow about 100 pros on SM.
I don't have that impression. I follow about 100 pros on SM.
That may be true.
I’m just basing it on what I’ve read on Twitter.
I have not read a random sample.
There are plenty pros (as shown in the linked list) who are not convinced more than 50% that she cheated.
Given the circumstances, I doubt there will be a smoking gun unless someone confesses. As such, I think it’s really tough to fully rule out either side of the discussion.
I’m just basing it on what I’ve read on Twitter.
I have not read a random sample.
There are plenty pros (as shown in the linked list) who are not convinced more than 50% that she cheated.
Given the circumstances, I doubt there will be a smoking gun unless someone confesses. As such, I think it’s really tough to fully rule out either side of the discussion.
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.
I also doubt this will resolve, it's going to be the next Postle scenario.
Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad call on one hand is nothing compared.
> 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?).
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?).
> The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would claim that.
Well, I can offer a counter-example that proves you wrong. I played professionally for a decade (so I'm not a person who "knows very little about poker") and I am claiming that she's cheating. I would be very confident making this claim based on her turn call alone, but when you add in the contradictory follow up explanations and the fact that she RETURNED THE CHIPS, I'd rate her cheating at >99% probability.
Well, I can offer a counter-example that proves you wrong. I played professionally for a decade (so I'm not a person who "knows very little about poker") and I am claiming that she's cheating. I would be very confident making this claim based on her turn call alone, but when you add in the contradictory follow up explanations and the fact that she RETURNED THE CHIPS, I'd rate her cheating at >99% probability.
> and the fact that she RETURNED THE CHIPS
Much like with plea bargains in the criminal justice system, the fact that she returned the chips is (weak) evidence against the claim that she was cheating (since it suggests she had no plan or preparations for being accused), not for it.
Much like with plea bargains in the criminal justice system, the fact that she returned the chips is (weak) evidence against the claim that she was cheating (since it suggests she had no plan or preparations for being accused), not for it.
This has nothing to do with the plea bargains in the criminal justice system. There's strong incentives to take take plea bargains, but what incentives are there to voluntarily return winnings?
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?...
"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?...
Some people are easier to bully than others.
I paid for college partly through poker. Early in my career I used speech play to tilt a guy and get him to call when he shouldn’t, winning a big pot.
The guy was furious and cornered me afterwords, yelling “we don’t do that here. You better give me my fucking money back!” And so on.
I was 19 and not used to defending myself against angry adult men and I gave him the money back, despite definitely not having to.
I wouldn’t do that now, but if you have a loud angry man yelling at you, it’s definitely possible to just want it to stop.
(And I’m six two and was heavy into martial arts at the time.)
I paid for college partly through poker. Early in my career I used speech play to tilt a guy and get him to call when he shouldn’t, winning a big pot.
The guy was furious and cornered me afterwords, yelling “we don’t do that here. You better give me my fucking money back!” And so on.
I was 19 and not used to defending myself against angry adult men and I gave him the money back, despite definitely not having to.
I wouldn’t do that now, but if you have a loud angry man yelling at you, it’s definitely possible to just want it to stop.
(And I’m six two and was heavy into martial arts at the time.)
Why does her returning the chips matter? Are you not familiar with how chronic cheaters operate in pretty much any other field?
From fighting games to Donkey Kong to fishing to whatever else you can think of, people that chronically cheat often have the mentality to double down and/or muddy the fields to try and disprove that they're cheating. Because the best counter to any sort of cheating accusation is to never fold. This is even when they're explicitly countered with hard evidence of the cheat.
From fighting games to Donkey Kong to fishing to whatever else you can think of, people that chronically cheat often have the mentality to double down and/or muddy the fields to try and disprove that they're cheating. Because the best counter to any sort of cheating accusation is to never fold. This is even when they're explicitly countered with hard evidence of the cheat.
How do you equate "giving the money back" with "doubling down"?
I didn't? I said that a cheater isn't going to give the money back because they're never going to do anything that makes them look like they're giving up.
> The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would claim that.
Doug Polk is suspicious of cheating here, and Tom Dwan called this one of the most suspicious plays he's ever seen.
Doug Polk is suspicious of cheating here, and Tom Dwan called this one of the most suspicious plays he's ever seen.
> Only people who know very little about poker would claim that
At least half of the best professionals in the world believe she cheated.
This is why poker is a great game. People like you that presume to understand poker very well and are so confident in what they believe. Please keep playing.
And btw, I'm 50/50 on her cheating or not. It would be extremely simple to cheat in this environment.
At least half of the best professionals in the world believe she cheated.
This is why poker is a great game. People like you that presume to understand poker very well and are so confident in what they believe. Please keep playing.
And btw, I'm 50/50 on her cheating or not. It would be extremely simple to cheat in this environment.
As an ex-professional player and a software engineer, gotta agree here. There have actually been proofs-of-concept for reading cards off these RFID tables. It's not hard to believe someone improved on that technology and put it all together with a buzzer in her pocket saying "you have the best hand."
Agree that these levels of bold, decisive claims are signals about what makes poker a great game.
Nobody has near enough evidence to be sure. I think the play is incredibly suspect, and I think I've met many players at the tables stupid enough to make it. It's not common, but they exist and keep playing.
What is exceptionally stupid are the guys saying "it would be a mistake to call here if you were cheating" while still believing "she called with J4 because she's really bad." Their logic requires her to make a (massive) mistake with J4, but assumes she wouldn't make a much more nuanced mistake doing an EV calculation.
I personally think if there was cheating involved, it was a binary signal ("you have the best hand") and she's too dumb to understand the implications of calling with J4 in the spot.
Agree that these levels of bold, decisive claims are signals about what makes poker a great game.
Nobody has near enough evidence to be sure. I think the play is incredibly suspect, and I think I've met many players at the tables stupid enough to make it. It's not common, but they exist and keep playing.
What is exceptionally stupid are the guys saying "it would be a mistake to call here if you were cheating" while still believing "she called with J4 because she's really bad." Their logic requires her to make a (massive) mistake with J4, but assumes she wouldn't make a much more nuanced mistake doing an EV calculation.
I personally think if there was cheating involved, it was a binary signal ("you have the best hand") and she's too dumb to understand the implications of calling with J4 in the spot.
> It's not hard to believe someone improved on that technology and put it all together with a buzzer in her pocket saying "you have the best hand."
What bears repeating here is that this would not have helped in her situation. She at no point prior to making a seemingly outrageous call had the best hand. That's what makes it so unconvincing that she would be cheating to me. The odds were completely against her and cheating would have required knowing what card/cards were going to come up on the river.
What bears repeating here is that this would not have helped in her situation. She at no point prior to making a seemingly outrageous call had the best hand. That's what makes it so unconvincing that she would be cheating to me. The odds were completely against her and cheating would have required knowing what card/cards were going to come up on the river.
I'm not sure what you mean. She had the best hand at every point, before and after the outrageous call.
The odds were not against her, they were in her favor.
The odds were not against her, they were in her favor.
All the men commentating on this situation are missing the perceived sexism dynamic at the table. She clearly believed he was full of shit and wanted to call him out on it. Her statements about "bluff catcher" align with this. It was a stupid play that had no rational basis, but she did it based on an emotional read of him not an assessment of the realistic value of her hand. And she got lucky.
In amateur games I see this type of behavior all the time. To me all it says is that she's a noob in the world of pro poker. Playing against irrational opponents is hard, hence "beginner's luck".
In amateur games I see this type of behavior all the time. To me all it says is that she's a noob in the world of pro poker. Playing against irrational opponents is hard, hence "beginner's luck".
Let me give you all a quick crash course in poker exploitation. Exploitation is taking advantage of inaccuracies in the other player's strategy to maximize the amount of money you win.
When you bet or raise in poker you need to do this action with some combinations of hands that are good (we refer to these as value hands) and some combinations of hands that are bad (we refer to these as bluffs).
If you ever have too many value hands the opponent can exploit your strategy by folding all hands that are worse than your value hands. If you ever have too many bluffs the opponent can exploit your strategy by calling with all hands that beat your bluffs.
The problem with this J hi call is that it does not beat the majority of Garrett's bluffs. In this situation Garrett has at most 2 combinations of hands that are worse than J hi, those hands also have 50% chance of winning due to half the deck improving them on the river vs J hi. In this situation Garrett could have three of a kind, a single pair, a full house, or maybe just Ace hi (which beats J hi).
So this call is terrible, even if "you have a read".
So the only explanation is that she's extremely stupid or cheating. Both explain the shifting story for why she called because nobody wants to admit they are dumb and they definitely don't want to admit to cheating.
edit: She could also just have poor emotional regulation under pressure which compelled her to call despite knowing it's bad.
When you bet or raise in poker you need to do this action with some combinations of hands that are good (we refer to these as value hands) and some combinations of hands that are bad (we refer to these as bluffs).
If you ever have too many value hands the opponent can exploit your strategy by folding all hands that are worse than your value hands. If you ever have too many bluffs the opponent can exploit your strategy by calling with all hands that beat your bluffs.
The problem with this J hi call is that it does not beat the majority of Garrett's bluffs. In this situation Garrett has at most 2 combinations of hands that are worse than J hi, those hands also have 50% chance of winning due to half the deck improving them on the river vs J hi. In this situation Garrett could have three of a kind, a single pair, a full house, or maybe just Ace hi (which beats J hi).
So this call is terrible, even if "you have a read".
So the only explanation is that she's extremely stupid or cheating. Both explain the shifting story for why she called because nobody wants to admit they are dumb and they definitely don't want to admit to cheating.
edit: She could also just have poor emotional regulation under pressure which compelled her to call despite knowing it's bad.
I think one of the best arguments that she didn't cheat is that it requires a lot more.
Option 1: She didn't cheat and made an incredibly bad play because she's very stupid.
Option 2: She did cheat and she made an incredibly bad play because she's basically showing off that she's cheating, which makes her very stupid.
So option 1 requires that she's really stupid, and option 2 requires that she's really stupid AND she cheated, making option 1 more likely.
That being said, it ignores a lot of the poker nuance. That's going to be lost on the discussion here, unfortunately, in spite of your comment.
I've long found you can't have any serious poker discussion here.
Option 1: She didn't cheat and made an incredibly bad play because she's very stupid.
Option 2: She did cheat and she made an incredibly bad play because she's basically showing off that she's cheating, which makes her very stupid.
So option 1 requires that she's really stupid, and option 2 requires that she's really stupid AND she cheated, making option 1 more likely.
That being said, it ignores a lot of the poker nuance. That's going to be lost on the discussion here, unfortunately, in spite of your comment.
I've long found you can't have any serious poker discussion here.
The cheating accusations need to be a lot less dramatic. Removing cheaters from competitive play isn’t a public activity. Magnus throwing the chess equivalent of a tantrum in public, and a woman being bullied into undoing a lucky win aren’t going to solve anything.
Unless you catch someone red handed go through channels. Unless of course the object is to create a bunch of hype and engagement… then I suppose accuse more people of cheating without evidence in the noisiest way possible.
Unless you catch someone red handed go through channels. Unless of course the object is to create a bunch of hype and engagement… then I suppose accuse more people of cheating without evidence in the noisiest way possible.
Knowing about a cheater and not telling other poker players about it is a really good way to destroy your reputation in the poker world.
Poker players, in the almost 20 years I've been playing, have a pretty standard policy of outing guys who cheat, steal, angle, and owe. Particularly in the high stakes world.
The cheating accusations did not originate with the players in the game, anyway. Garrett maybe told a story with his eyeballs--he's maybe uniquely qualified to do that. But his first mention of "cheating" was after it had already blown up, trust me.
It was on a livestream, it wasn't a subtle event, and people love controversy.
Poker players, in the almost 20 years I've been playing, have a pretty standard policy of outing guys who cheat, steal, angle, and owe. Particularly in the high stakes world.
The cheating accusations did not originate with the players in the game, anyway. Garrett maybe told a story with his eyeballs--he's maybe uniquely qualified to do that. But his first mention of "cheating" was after it had already blown up, trust me.
It was on a livestream, it wasn't a subtle event, and people love controversy.
Check out ‘Mike postle’ in the poker world - he was accused of cheating based on hundreds of hours worth of evidence but no actual proof, the evidence was substantial enough to basically prove guilt beyond doubt.
The current poker drama doesn’t offer enough evidence to prove or disprove anything. I think largely the poker world is addicted to drama, unsure if the objective is to remain in the media or just because drama sells.
The current poker drama doesn’t offer enough evidence to prove or disprove anything. I think largely the poker world is addicted to drama, unsure if the objective is to remain in the media or just because drama sells.
Adelstein is one of the best poker cash players in the world. He has a sterling reputation in the community and to my knowledge has never made an accusation like that before.
If you play poker, that call was either the greatest hero call of all or extremely suspect.
There is absolutely no reason to call in that spot considering the fact that many bluffs could be ahead of her hand such as AcXc for a flush draw.
Furthermore, she was backed in that game meaning that she doesn’t have the money to play in it. Who is backing you if you are calling over $100K pots with Jack high.
If you play poker, that call was either the greatest hero call of all or extremely suspect.
There is absolutely no reason to call in that spot considering the fact that many bluffs could be ahead of her hand such as AcXc for a flush draw.
Furthermore, she was backed in that game meaning that she doesn’t have the money to play in it. Who is backing you if you are calling over $100K pots with Jack high.
The future is full body x-rays or large magnetic fields that will kill your if you have metal in you.
> Local media report that the [fishing] pair were disqualified as winners at an event last year, because one of them failed a polygraph test.
wtf? That is definitely not how to use a polygraph. First off, why would you ever submit to that? Second, they are notoriously questionable, and something tells me the fishing championship didn’t get the world’s leading expert to run it.
wtf? That is definitely not how to use a polygraph. First off, why would you ever submit to that? Second, they are notoriously questionable, and something tells me the fishing championship didn’t get the world’s leading expert to run it.
> the fishing championship didn’t get the world's leading expert to run it.
That would actually make the results less reliable, not more.
Polygraphs are good at two things: interrogation, which is basically hitting the subject's knowledge-tree with a stick and seeing what falls out, with the polygraph giving a crude estimate of where to aim for more information. And legitimization, pretending that the interrogation 'produced' some specific result (interrogation does not work that way) to trick people into thinking that result is true.
Interrogation is mostly useless (you might get information about how they (may have) cheated, but that's worth less than nothing unless you can verify it against real evidence), and legitimization makes your beliefs wronger than they were to begin with, because you no longer know that you don't know things.
That would actually make the results less reliable, not more.
Polygraphs are good at two things: interrogation, which is basically hitting the subject's knowledge-tree with a stick and seeing what falls out, with the polygraph giving a crude estimate of where to aim for more information. And legitimization, pretending that the interrogation 'produced' some specific result (interrogation does not work that way) to trick people into thinking that result is true.
Interrogation is mostly useless (you might get information about how they (may have) cheated, but that's worth less than nothing unless you can verify it against real evidence), and legitimization makes your beliefs wronger than they were to begin with, because you no longer know that you don't know things.
This reminded me of a fascinating article about cheating in bass fishing that came out a while back. I had no idea how big cheating in fishing is!
https://sdfish.com/general/dark-secret-americas-big-bass-gur...
https://sdfish.com/general/dark-secret-americas-big-bass-gur...
The chess world is loving Niemann right now, but even more so Carlsen
for his high-profile indignation. P.T. Barnum's chestnut about bad
publicity applies most to "sports" desperately seeking spectators.
Dumb question, but if she was cheating, where is the information sourced from? How could her accomplice see the other player's card to pass to her? I never saw this part explained.
She's financially backed by someone else who was at the table. He could have seen the other cards.
But the more likely route was some sort of compromised computer system. The cards in these televised games have RFID to allow the show to know what everyone has. Like any computer system, that could have been compromised in some way. There's a lot of money on these tables, enough to make it worth a lot of effort to cheat.
But the more likely route was some sort of compromised computer system. The cards in these televised games have RFID to allow the show to know what everyone has. Like any computer system, that could have been compromised in some way. There's a lot of money on these tables, enough to make it worth a lot of effort to cheat.
This event was televised but I font know uue they use delay or other systems to keep it honest. But from TV they show and tell everyone's cards so it's interesting for the viewers :)
How do you even check if someone has a wireless vibrating device?
X-Ray person, X-Ray all items on person.
And then place persons in Faraday cage underground.
Throw them in water and see if they float like a duck!
…or look like they’re being zapped.
…or look like they’re being zapped.
Coming soon to ProductHunt- Faraday underpants.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
That said, there are far better spots to do this and her other plays earlier were less than great.
If Garrett turned his hand face up, she makes about 20k by calling on the turn.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> because her hand is better than his at every single point.
That's the point that hits me every time. It really seems like his claim is that her cards are shit and the hands she can make are marginal at best and he put her all in. So that should tell her his hand is better and she should fold. But she doesn't, she calls. And from here that makes him believe she has a hand already. But she doesn't, she has Jack high. To his 8 high.
So his hand isn't better, he's trying to not go to the river and have to find out if he actually has a hand. He's essentially lambasting her for also having nothing but less nothing than him.
She chooses the wrench because, fuck him, that's why.
That's the point that hits me every time. It really seems like his claim is that her cards are shit and the hands she can make are marginal at best and he put her all in. So that should tell her his hand is better and she should fold. But she doesn't, she calls. And from here that makes him believe she has a hand already. But she doesn't, she has Jack high. To his 8 high.
So his hand isn't better, he's trying to not go to the river and have to find out if he actually has a hand. He's essentially lambasting her for also having nothing but less nothing than him.
She chooses the wrench because, fuck him, that's why.
> 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.
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.
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.
He only freaked out (okay, his eyes did) when he saw her actual hand.
"Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had been "threatened" - something Adelstein denied."
This seems like a very suspect thing to do in my opinion. The threats must have been very specific and meaningful for me to even consider returning chips that I was claiming to have fairly won. Returning them just seems like a guilty move.
This seems like a very suspect thing to do in my opinion. The threats must have been very specific and meaningful for me to even consider returning chips that I was claiming to have fairly won. Returning them just seems like a guilty move.
I disagree. A cheater would desperately attempt to latch on to anything they can to show they are not a cheater. So they would generally refuse even more to give back any money and just repeat the “not cheating” mantra ever more and more— and would definitely never give back the money that they cheated so hard to get… just my opinion. The fact that she gives back the money (and I see no reason to disbelieve that she was likely cornered and intimidated in the hallway) shows that she’s not really that concerned about it and doesn’t really even care that much. A cheater would be grasping on to those chips at all costs/odds.
Unless you're bad at cheating and get caught and then panic. Not everyone has the personality to double down.
I've probably played around 10k hours of poker.
On the one hand, crazy shit happens all the time, and folks win by sucking out or by insane bluffs.
On the other hand, it's not considered honorable to win by mistake. Winning by catching a 3% is luck - but just screwing up isn't cool.
So, even though $130k (or whatever it was) seems like a lot of money - there is honor among (some/most) poker players, so it seems totally honorable to me that she gave him the money, as she doesn't feel she deserves it.
I don't know how she would have cheated. Maybe she did but it doesn't seem to me like she did.
On the one hand, crazy shit happens all the time, and folks win by sucking out or by insane bluffs.
On the other hand, it's not considered honorable to win by mistake. Winning by catching a 3% is luck - but just screwing up isn't cool.
So, even though $130k (or whatever it was) seems like a lot of money - there is honor among (some/most) poker players, so it seems totally honorable to me that she gave him the money, as she doesn't feel she deserves it.
I don't know how she would have cheated. Maybe she did but it doesn't seem to me like she did.
The honor thing doesn't play - she doesn't claim that she won by mistake. She claimed that
1) she thought he had ace high (still doesn't make sense to call with j high)
2) she thought she had a 3 (that's when she changed her story after the game)
> I don't know how she would have cheated.
It's a streamed game, there's an RFID system that reads everyone's cards. You don't need magic to cheat, you just need an inside person.
1) she thought he had ace high (still doesn't make sense to call with j high)
2) she thought she had a 3 (that's when she changed her story after the game)
> I don't know how she would have cheated.
It's a streamed game, there's an RFID system that reads everyone's cards. You don't need magic to cheat, you just need an inside person.
[deleted]
At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely to lose. So she would also need to know the next cards to be played. It seems even less likely the house or dealer are in on it. How would RFID know the top cards yet to come? They are still in the deck.
True - but what a hero call if right!
> At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely to lose.
This is based on the equity shown on the stream which takes into account the dead cards, if you only know the board and their hole cards, she has 54.55% equity. Either way she should call because she needs 40.3% equity to break even (109/(109+161)), any equity more than that is a call and she doesn't need to know what cards will come for that call to be profitable.
This is based on the equity shown on the stream which takes into account the dead cards, if you only know the board and their hole cards, she has 54.55% equity. Either way she should call because she needs 40.3% equity to break even (109/(109+161)), any equity more than that is a call and she doesn't need to know what cards will come for that call to be profitable.
The RFID only works at a few millimeters distance. It's useless when trying to read a deck of cards since you'd get multiple responses and would be unable to determine the order of cards.
The inside person doesn't bear scrutiny either. What would this inside person do to pull this off exactly?
The inside person doesn't bear scrutiny either. What would this inside person do to pull this off exactly?
> On the other hand, it's not considered honorable to win by mistake. Winning by catching a 3% is luck - but just screwing up isn't cool.
It's poker there is no honor in poker. Bluffing is part of the game.
It's poker there is no honor in poker. Bluffing is part of the game.
Admitedly, I have zero experience of this level of cheating, so I honestly don't know what someone would do. However, "from the movies" (ha!) professional cheaters expect to be caught on occasion and consider it cost of doing business. For cards, I'm thinking about Rounders as an example. Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, right?
It's also the sort of thing somebody in a panic or under severe stress just because of the pressure of the spotlight and the thought of being thought dishonest might do.
Don't underestimate the power of mental self-sabotage of the innocent.
Even more so given the power dynamics here.
Don't underestimate the power of mental self-sabotage of the innocent.
Even more so given the power dynamics here.
This sort of attitude is how people are wrongly convicted. A person's behaviour can reflect any number of things. Where is there any actual hard evidence of cheating? Or even a practical explanation of how it could be done.
Personally, I feel guilty when I'm (wrongly) accused of something merely if it's possible that I could have done it. It makes no sense but that's how my mind works. If it were up to you I'd be convicted every time.
Personally, I feel guilty when I'm (wrongly) accused of something merely if it's possible that I could have done it. It makes no sense but that's how my mind works. If it were up to you I'd be convicted every time.
I'm just saying it looks like a guilty move that would beg for more investigating, so that someone would be convicted on the looks of guilt.
People are jumping to conclusions here.
People are jumping to conclusions here.
Why is it guilty? Someone acts awkward after winning a hand and the answer, or even suggestion, is cheating? Why? That all the skips that she's a woman and the guy who lost was salty as hell and had a menacing attitude.
I would not be surprised if this incident ends up with the guy being charged with theft, or coercion, or whatever the relevant crime is.
I would not be surprised if this incident ends up with the guy being charged with theft, or coercion, or whatever the relevant crime is.
Woman is confronted by an enraged man threatening her with the “crazy eyes”.
How you would react is no where near the standard she would have used.
How you would react is no where near the standard she would have used.
sadly, yes, this is something I did not consider.
Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3, especially as she literally said “threes are good, right?” during her deliberations.
Cheating in this spot just makes no sense and there has been zero evidence to indicate it was anything more than what she said - she misread a 4 as a 3.