>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.
And it would also match her banter of "you probably got me".
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.
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.
Also the whole counterpoint hinges on not believing she felt she was calling a bluff which she explicitly called her plays as being.
He was behind and needed an out. So many outs existed he was more likely to win but "high card beats almost flush/straight".
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.
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.