Hacker News Reader

Comment by Guvante | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

>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.

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".

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.

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 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.

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".

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

How do you know that threats have been made?

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.

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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com