Poker stuff

[JasonEvans]

This is almost certainly the most insane call I have ever seen. It is absolutely inexplicable. Even if she thought he was bluffing, she still cannot call.

But, she did. Have a look and try not to leave your jaw on the floor...


Many people think she was cheating. Would love to hear from opinions from others here. Daniel Negreanu says she just got flustered and accidentally called. I think she probably cheated and had someone feeding her signals about the hands.

[ClemmonsDevil]

This is almost certainly the most insane call I have ever seen. It is absolutely inexplicable. Even if she thought he was bluffing, she still cannot call.

But, she did. Have a look and try not to leave your jaw on the floor...


Many people think she was cheating. Would love to hear from opinions from others here. Daniel Negreanu says she just got flustered and accidentally called. I think she probably cheated and had someone feeding her signals about the hands.

Be a weird hand to cheat on because of how bad a hand it is though.

[SouthernDukie]

Well, it does say "Hustler Casino" in the top right corner. It sure makes sense that she cheated. Either that or she had a mini-stroke and lost all her poker senses in that moment. But truth be told, I thought both of them got a bit crazy on the turn.

Edit: He wasn't that crazy to go all in. I wasn't paying attention.

[JasonEvans]

Be a weird hand to cheat on because of how bad a hand it is though.

She had a small, about 54% - 46% advantage, when she made the call... at least that is what I have read about it. He needed a club or a 6/7/8/J to win. If you were cheating and knew both hands, you would probably make that call.

[ClemmonsDevil]

She had a small, about 54% - 46% advantage, when she made the call... at least that is what I have read about it. He needed a club or a 6/7/8/J to win. If you were cheating and knew both hands, you would probably make that call.

My assumption is that is a tell you are cheating though. Although maybe she is a moron AND cheating. It's in play.

[Skydog]

I've read a lot about it and I don't think anyone knows for sure what was going on. Her cheating makes little sense but also her calling and explanations for calling make little sense. So anyone who claims they know what is going on is fooling themselves.

Arguments against her cheating:

She is a very wealthy whale who doesn't care about the money. It makes no sense to cheat on a live stream seen by 10's of thousands and risk your reputation for money that is essentially fun money. In fact wealthy enough that when badgered by the guy she called she offered him his 100k back and he accepted it.

Her play throughout the session was bad, not what you would see from someone who knew other players cards.

This was a terrible hand to cheat on. She was still only a coinflip to win after she called so her expected win from calling wasn't that much better than folding. Calling his shove just allowed her to keep her 50% equity in the 40k pot, so it the call was worth about 20k in EV, which isn't much at all at these stakes.

Her claim that she misread her hand and thought she had J3 (giving her a pair of 3's) has some credibility because she had been dealt J3 the hand before. It is not uncommon for poker players to make that mistake, especially when the successive hands are so similar.

Arguments for her cheating:

The call. If she really thought she had a pair of 3's it's a hero call (although not horrible, see below). If she knew she only had J hi it is a legendary hero call (but horrible, see below).

Her inconsistent statements. At some points she made it sound like she thought she had a pair of 3's, at other points it sounded like she knew she had just jack high. At one point, after acknowledging her J high hand she said she called because she knew he was bluffing and put him on A high. Why would she call A high with J high?


Attempt to resolve contradictions:

Her changing story - players who make loose calls and are getting berated (or the stare of death in this case) are prone to make us shix to justify their calls. So they think fast and say "well I had blockers" etc so they don't look as bad. Also it is very likely she was flustered. This was her first foray into stakes this high and she knew her play was being viewed live around the world. Although she was an experienced poker player, she was in over her head with these pros. Hell Phil Ivey was playing at the table.

Her call - The board was ThTc9c3h the betting went Garrett 10k, Robbi 20k, Garrett puts her all in for her remaining 109k. What hands are going to push all in here? Very unlikely a T would because that will fold out all weaker hands like 88, JJ, flush draws and straight draws. You want those hands to call you - so why bet so much to force a fold. So this play looks very much like someone wanting you to fold. The most likely hands to do this are flush draws, straight draws and especially combo draws (flush and straight draws). This is a very drawy board - it has TWO possible flush draws and the obvious straight draw using T9. The best candidates for Garrett are QcJc, Jc8c, 8c7c. Since Robbie had the Jc, Garrett could only have the last one, 8c7c, which he did. But the problem with that thinking is that he could also have something like KcQc that would give him a flush draw, a gut shot straight draw and two overcards and her J high would be no good. He also could be betting a T real big to make it look like a bluff, using some reverse psychology. So bottom line is his range is mostly clubs and straight draws, but with some made hands in there and some draws that have J high crushed.

So in evaluating her call have to consider two possibilities:

1. She honestly thought she had J3, so a pair of 3's. Well on a board like TTc9c3 and someone makes a really big bet they often have draws and a pair of 3's is an excellent bluff catcher for these hands. Garrett had been caught bluffing a lot earlier and she got suspicious and wanted to make a stand. A call with a pair of 3's isn't bad against hyper aggressive players like Garrett.

2. She knew she only had J high. Now she can only call if she puts him on exactly 87, likely 8c7c. While that hand would indeed bet like this a lot of time it is a small portion of his range of cards. That is a highly optimistic call, otherwise known as a terrible call.

I can't tell from her conversation if she really thought she had a J3, or under pressure momentarily thought she had J3, or if she knew she was calling with J high the whole time.

My guess is she isn't cheating. Cheating in this situation takes a LOT of preparation, is risky as hell, and she doesn't need the money. Besides why not cheat on a hand where you call the river knowing you are good instead of calling a turn where you are still 50% to lose? The cheating makes no sense. I think it is much more likely that she is a bad player who didn't like being pushed around and convinced herself to make an extremely loose call. And then tried to justify it later.

Also I think Garrett was wrong for assuming she was cheating and pressuring her to give the $ back and she was wrong to give it back. When you play with whales you expect mistakes and terrible calls, so grow up and live with it. Besides Garrett wouldn't have given her $ back if he won both run outs. So by getting his $ back only when he loses he is free rolling her. I understand his suspicion but he is a big time pro - be sure before you go accuse someone of cheating.

[Skydog]

She had a small, about 54% - 46% advantage, when she made the call... at least that is what I have read about it. He needed a club or a 6/7/8/J to win. If you were cheating and knew both hands, you would probably make that call.

You would make that call if there was zero chance of getting caught. But it is a terrible call to risk getting caught on. Save that for river calls where you know you will win 100k+.

[mr. synellinden]

I've read a lot about it and I don't think anyone knows for sure what was going on. Her cheating makes little sense but also her calling and explanations for calling make little sense. So anyone who claims they know what is going on is fooling themselves.

Arguments against her cheating:

She is a very wealthy whale who doesn't care about the money. It makes no sense to cheat on a live stream seen by 10's of thousands and risk your reputation for money that is essentially fun money. In fact wealthy enough that when badgered by the guy she called she offered him his 100k back and he accepted it.

Her play throughout the session was bad, not what you would see from someone who knew other players cards.

This was a terrible hand to cheat on. She was still only a coinflip to win after she called so her expected win from calling wasn't that much better than folding. Calling his shove just allowed her to keep her 50% equity in the 40k pot, so it the call was worth about 20k in EV, which isn't much at all at these stakes.

Her claim that she misread her hand and thought she had J3 (giving her a pair of 3's) has some credibility because she had been dealt J3 the hand before. It is not uncommon for poker players to make that mistake, especially when the successive hands are so similar.

Arguments for her cheating:

The call. If she really thought she had a pair of 3's it's a hero call (although not horrible, see below). If she knew she only had J hi it is a legendary hero call (but horrible, see below).

Her inconsistent statements. At some points she made it sound like she thought she had a pair of 3's, at other points it sounded like she knew she had just jack high. At one point, after acknowledging her J high hand she said she called because she knew he was bluffing and put him on A high. Why would she call A high with J high?


Attempt to resolve contradictions:

Her changing story - players who make loose calls and are getting berated (or the stare of death in this case) are prone to make us shix to justify their calls. So they think fast and say "well I had blockers" etc so they don't look as bad. Also it is very likely she was flustered. This was her first foray into stakes this high and she knew her play was being viewed live around the world. Although she was an experienced poker player, she was in over her head with these pros. Hell Phil Ivey was playing at the table.

Her call - The board was ThTc9c3h the betting went Garrett 10k, Robbi 20k, Garrett puts her all in for her remaining 109k. What hands are going to push all in here? Very unlikely a T would because that will fold out all weaker hands like 88, JJ, flush draws and straight draws. You want those hands to call you - so why bet so much to force a fold. So this play looks very much like someone wanting you to fold. The most likely hands to do this are flush draws, straight draws and especially combo draws (flush and straight draws). This is a very drawy board - it has TWO possible flush draws and the obvious straight draw using T9. The best candidates for Garrett are QcJc, Jc8c, 8c7c. Since Robbie had the Jc, Garrett could only have the last one, 8c7c, which he did. But the problem with that thinking is that he could also have something like KcQc that would give him a flush draw, a gut shot straight draw and two overcards and her J high would be no good. He also could be betting a T real big to make it look like a bluff, using some reverse psychology. So bottom line is his range is mostly clubs and straight draws, but with some made hands in there and some draws that have J high crushed.

So in evaluating her call have to consider two possibilities:

1. She honestly thought she had J3, so a pair of 3's. Well on a board like TTc9c3 and someone makes a really big bet they often have draws and a pair of 3's is an excellent bluff catcher for these hands. Garrett had been caught bluffing a lot earlier and she got suspicious and wanted to make a stand. A call with a pair of 3's isn't bad against hyper aggressive players like Garrett.

2. She knew she only had J high. Now she can only call if she puts him on exactly 87, likely 8c7c. While that hand would indeed bet like this a lot of time it is a small portion of his range of cards. That is a highly optimistic call, otherwise known as a terrible call.

I can't tell from her conversation if she really thought she had a J3, or under pressure momentarily thought she had J3, or if she knew she was calling with J high the whole time.

My guess is she isn't cheating. Cheating in this situation takes a LOT of preparation, is risky as hell, and she doesn't need the money. Besides why not cheat on a hand where you call the river knowing you are good instead of calling a turn where you are still 50% to lose? The cheating makes no sense. I think it is much more likely that she is a bad player who didn't like being pushed around and convinced herself to make an extremely loose call. And then tried to justify it later.

Also I think Garrett was wrong for assuming she was cheating and pressuring her to give the $ back and she was wrong to give it back. When you play with whales you expect mistakes and terrible calls, so grow up and live with it. Besides Garrett wouldn't have given her $ back if he won both run outs. So by getting his $ back only when he loses he is free rolling her. I understand his suspicion but he is a big time pro - be sure before you go accuse someone of cheating.

I must spread some comments. But outstanding post - great analysis.

[Skydog]

I must spread some comments. But outstanding post - great analysis.

Awwww…. shucks. (blushes)

[YmoBeThere]

The video is no longer viewable, so was she cheating or not?

I mean this isn't a fishing tournament.

[Jeffrey]

The video is no longer viewable, so was she cheating or not?

Did she graduate from UNC?

[Skydog]

Did she graduate from UNC?

Lol!

[Skydog]

The video is no longer viewable, so was she cheating or not?

I mean this isn't a fishing tournament.

Poker community split. The top pros all think she cheated because they can’t imagine anyone making such a stupid call. The rest of us … understand.

[YmoBeThere]

Okay, has everyone seen all the Sturm und Drang in the chess world?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...y-hans-niemann

A Conspiracy Theory About Anal Beads Is Only The Beginning Of A Chess Cheating Allegation

Cheating allegations and anal bead jokes are rocking the chess world.


[IMG]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2022-01/31/19/user_images/fcf28490ecfd/kelseyweekman-v2-2281-1643658723-10_large.jpg?downsize=60:*&output-format=jpg&output-quality=auto[/IMG]
Kelsey WeekmanBuzzFeed News Reporter

[bundabergdevil]

Okay, has everyone seen all the Sturm und Drang in the chess world?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...y-hans-niemann

A Conspiracy Theory About Anal Beads Is Only The Beginning Of A Chess Cheating Allegation

Cheating allegations and anal bead jokes are rocking the chess world.


[IMG]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2022-01/31/19/user_images/fcf28490ecfd/kelseyweekman-v2-2281-1643658723-10_large.jpg?downsize=60:*&output-format=jpg&output-quality=auto[/IMG]
Kelsey WeekmanBuzzFeed News Reporter

A theory that deserved to be flush-ed, if I ever heard one.

[Acymetric]

Poker community split. The top pros all think she cheated because they can’t imagine anyone making such a stupid call. The rest of us … understand.

They should try playing a few hands of poker with me. Might open their eyes to some new possibilities.

[mr. synellinden]

Here is (behind a paywall) an LA Times piece on the controversy - including an interview with Lew.

[Kdogg]

Here is (behind a paywall) an LA Times piece on the controversy - including an interview with Lew.

I have an understanding of the mechanics of poker but not the psychology aspects. If you were cheating (with or without outside help) why would you do it with just a bad hand? Wouldn’t you slow play it with at least decent cards to avoid suspicion? Of course her not pressing charges against the employee that took $15,000 from her stack doesn’t look good.

[mr. synellinden]

I have an understanding of the mechanics of poker but not the psychology aspects. If you were cheating (with or without outside help) why would you do it with just a bad hand? Wouldn’t you slow play it with at least decent cards to avoid suspicion? Of course her not pressing charges against the employee that took $15,000 from her stack doesn’t look good.

While I would read Skydog's excellent analysis above, it is possible that she is a bad cheater. However, I think for the reason you cited it's more likely that she is just a bad poker player or she had a momentary lapse and forgot her cards (or both).