Hacker News Reader

Comment by bena | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com