Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiderice | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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?

> 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...

> 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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com