[HN Gopher] After chess, cheating rows rock poker and fishing
___________________________________________________________________
After chess, cheating rows rock poker and fishing
Author : mjirv
Score : 94 points
Date : 2022-10-02 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| jwie wrote:
| The cheating accusations need to be a lot less dramatic. Removing
| cheaters from competitive play isn't a public activity. Magnus
| throwing the chess equivalent of a tantrum in public, and a woman
| being bullied into undoing a lucky win aren't going to solve
| anything.
|
| Unless you catch someone red handed go through channels. Unless
| of course the object is to create a bunch of hype and
| engagement... then I suppose accuse more people of cheating
| without evidence in the noisiest way possible.
| mod wrote:
| Knowing about a cheater and not telling other poker players
| about it is a really good way to destroy your reputation in the
| poker world.
|
| Poker players, in the almost 20 years I've been playing, have a
| pretty standard policy of outing guys who cheat, steal, angle,
| and owe. Particularly in the high stakes world.
|
| The cheating accusations did not originate with the players in
| the game, anyway. Garrett maybe told a story with his eyeballs
| --he's maybe uniquely qualified to do that. But his first
| mention of "cheating" was after it had already blown up, trust
| me.
|
| It was on a livestream, it wasn't a subtle event, and people
| love controversy.
| joekrill wrote:
| All these accusations of cheating without any concrete proof are
| really worrying to me. I've read a few of these threads now, and
| not once have I seen any actual, _real_ , _explicit_ evidence for
| cheating.
|
| It looks very similar to the vote rigging claims we're seeing a
| lot more of recently in the U.S. Don't like the outcome? Just
| blame your opponent of cheating! No need to show any _real_ proof
| - just make up some vague claims of what _could_ have happened!
| And just keep repeating it. And this all seems to working pretty
| well - THAT is the scary thing
|
| Obviously none of this applies in the case of the fisherman, who
| seem to have been caught red-handed.
| [deleted]
| mylons wrote:
| you're insane if you think there's no proof in the chess and
| poker. you have no basis to make the judgement and are yet
| another arm chair expert on HN. Robbi is a liar. she
| embellished her career, and her poker game. there's no way any
| player would give the money back after a "bad" play like that.
| she can't even talk about the hand -- she doesn't remember her
| cards correctly. the list of tells is endless if you have any
| depth of knowledge in the game.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Then show the video of her cheating.
|
| Show the metal detectors, finding a hidden device that
| transmits signals to her, about what the other person's cards
| are.
|
| That is evidence. Nothing that you mentioned is actual
| evidence of cheating.
| mylons wrote:
| a player at the board could be signaling her. she might be
| able to see his cards. she removed a ring after the hand in
| question. why does she have to have a device? why does it
| have to be metal? you're creating a straw man.
|
| if you're in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can't
| explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they
| know anything about that solution?
| stale2002 wrote:
| So then no, you have seen no device giving her signals
| from the outside. You see no accomplis telling her what
| her opponents cards are.
|
| That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the
| person who was giving her signals, and then use the video
| footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed
| at everyone.
|
| Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which
| person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents
| cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video
| evidence.
|
| > why does she have to have a device? why does it have to
| be metal?
|
| I was giving an example of what evidence would actually
| look like.
| mylons wrote:
| i mentioned a potential device. have you even played
| poker before in a casino?
| stale2002 wrote:
| > i mentioned a potential device.
|
| Ok great, have you looked at the device? You say it was a
| ring, then prove it. Show me the picture of the internals
| of the ring, and show me how the ring was giving her
| signals.
|
| Thats evidence. A picture of you opening up the ring, and
| showing a hidden computer or whatever you think the
| cheating ring is doing, is evidence of cheating.
| mylons wrote:
| lol. you've made it clear you're not capable of
| evaluating the situation.
| stale2002 wrote:
| And you are admitting that you can't show evidence.
|
| If you had evidence, you'd have shown it.
|
| So things like a picture of the device giving her answers
| would be evidence.
|
| A video recording of the specific other person in the
| room, giving her info on the other person's cards, would
| be evidence.
|
| And now you just say "lol" proving that you do not have
| actual evidence here.
| mylons wrote:
| i mentioned a slew of ways she could be cheating. all
| you're doing is begging for hard evidence without being
| able to defend or rationalize what happened. this isn't a
| court of law. there's no presumption of innocence.
|
| your responses indicate you've likely never played poker
| at a high level. you may have never even played in a
| casino. what basis do you have to defend this person?
|
| i don't think anyone in poker who won a hand they played
| badly just offered to return the cash. that alone tells
| me everything.
|
| edit: someone also paid for her entry into this game and
| she's an amateur playing with phil ivey and GMan. https:/
| /twitter.com/haralabob/status/1576643133583937537?s=2...
| luckylion wrote:
| > I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I
| seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating.
|
| You usually don't get these with elections either, unless the
| cheaters are lazy and just add 1000 votes in a 100 citizen
| area. Usually, you'll see weird things that are very
| implausible which will lead to investigations, i.e. a perceived
| battle ground state going 99:1 to one side. It's possible,
| there's no clear evidence of cheating (yet), but it's extremely
| unlikely.
| [deleted]
| ransom1538 wrote:
| I think she should hand over her ring over to the casino. The
| one she _removed_ after the amazing call. She isn 't obligated
| to, but, that is so weird to remove a ring under the table - it
| would help stop doubt.
| wsinks wrote:
| https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-
| jad...
|
| So.. is 3:45 the point where people think Robbi smacks the
| table and removes the ring?
|
| It looks to me that the slap just moved the ring to the side.
| At 3:58 There's something that appears to be the red ring
| still on her hand. Not to mention that before that moment, I
| can only make out one ring on her middle finger, and that
| ring band is still on her finger after.
|
| I imagine they'll look into that ring during their
| investigation. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
|
| This is definitely quite the statistical anomaly.
| latortuga wrote:
| The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and
| admitted history of it. Officials literally found weights
| inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
| joekrill wrote:
| > The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and
| admitted history of it.
|
| So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does
| not in _any way_ prove that they 've cheated in this
| particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past.
| Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are
| still pure speculation.
|
| > Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of
| those are in this story.
|
| And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
| mylons wrote:
| statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he's cheating,
| especially against Magnus' style. your comments indicate
| you lack any depth in poker or chess.
| roflyear wrote:
| This isn't true at all.
| mylons wrote:
| Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional
| Magnus openings. He's either the greatest chess player
| alive, (and like Robbi can't even explain his game, and
| admitted to cheating in the past) or he's cheating. i'm
| happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody
| in 5 years in chess.
|
| what evidence do you have for your position?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at
| is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not
| very well informed about chess.
|
| > He's either the greatest chess player alive
|
| Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the
| greatest chess player alive.
| mylons wrote:
| how do you defend Hans, then? you're just doubting what
| i'm saying without substance
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't
| really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think
| it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any
| statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not
| really sure what such evidence would even look like for a
| super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine
| moves.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Would love to see what you are referring to, as I have
| yet to see any convincing case of this.
| stale2002 wrote:
| So then no there has not been any evidence shown of him
| cheating over the board?
| threatofrain wrote:
| > So what?
|
| Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility.
| Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who
| cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised
| that cheating impacts credibility?
|
| In a court of law we might have standards like
| preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday
| human relations everyone is free to develop their own
| theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms
| accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is
| trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your
| trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| > The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and
| admitted history of it.
|
| So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing
| online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the
| board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers
| deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing
| but allegations.
| Pyramus wrote:
| > He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online.
|
| If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and
| they have informed Niemann about it. According to them
| Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he
| admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement.
|
| > How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board
| tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers
| deemed sufficient
|
| Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very
| easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and
| anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds
| between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card
| counting.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| chess.com has a lot of false positives in their cheating
| detection method, and they are in business relationship
| with Carlsen, so any testimony they migth give will
| likely be biased. I am actually very surprised to see so
| many people throwing away any notion of a due process and
| calling for immediate harsh punishment like lifetime ban.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| He's currently 19, and there are apparently more recent
| cheating things per chess.com. This isn't like "he cheated
| long ago and has made amends", it's guy whose cheated
| recently, and whose coach was also banned due to a history
| of cheating was found to be acting and playing suspiciously
| well in recent otb tournaments".
|
| Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're
| making it out to be.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| 16 and 19 is a far greater age difference than it would
| seem by numbers only. Online play and over the board play
| are greatly different too. In sum, we have no hard
| evidence, and many allegations. I'd suggest ignoring
| allegations until we see some more substantial evidence.
| roflyear wrote:
| Not of OTB cheating which is another thing entirely.
| jlportx wrote:
| Niemann has admitted to cheating online on chess.com before
| 2020, like at least 50 other titled players. Niemann has
| denied ever cheating over the board.
|
| After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one
| of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com
| adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that
| pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted
| to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize
| money tournaments.
|
| To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen
| taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in
| Lichess:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g
|
| It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but
| clearly the standards are different online.
|
| chess.com has announced that it will release an additional
| investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online
| company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes
| after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group.
|
| chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with
| Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago.
|
| So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a
| win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that
| chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use".
|
| FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as
| well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.
| greggsy wrote:
| The video is damming
| friedman23 wrote:
| Finding evidence is very difficult. A year or two ago there was
| an infamous case with a man named Mike Postle. There was 0 hard
| evidence of him cheating but his decision making was so
| statistically improbable that the entire poker community is
| _certain_ that he cheated.
|
| These players, especially in poker absolutely need to be
| paranoid or they will be robbed.
|
| At a certain point we are going to need to subject suspicious
| players to cavity searches.
| joekrill wrote:
| > Finding evidence is very difficult.
|
| That doesn't make it right to accuse people of cheating
| without any evidence beyond "well a _normal_ person wouldn't
| have done something like this, so they must be cheating!".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| It's not a Crown court and he's not being accused of a
| crime - it doesn't haven't to be beyond all reasonable
| doubt. If someone's acting weird at your event you can just
| go off your gut if you want to - your event.
| roflyear wrote:
| We're ruining the guys life and career. Magnus has
| nothing beyond "I feel" statements. If he said "I saw him
| messing with something in his pocket" it would at least
| be something. But we don't have that.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements.
|
| It's much more nuanced than this. Magnus said that
| there's more he'd like to say but he'd want Hans'
| permission to speak openly - https://twitter.com/magnusca
| rlsen/status/1574482694406565888
|
| Just because he can't immedially dump all the information
| that he has doesn't mean that he's obliged to keep
| playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| There is a lot of money involved. So I presume there is
| cheating involved, similar to doping.
|
| Also the cheating schemes are hard to understand sometimes.
| Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting
| gretch wrote:
| I see what you are saying and understand the point.
|
| But there should be a balance somewhere.
|
| Lance Armstrong cheated in cycling and won 7 championships. The
| fact that he came out as a cheater later absolutely demolished
| the integrity of the whole sport. And I feel really bad for
| anyone who competed honestly all that time with zero chance of
| getting anything done given that the field is rife is cheaters.
|
| So that extreme is also pretty devastating and chess lovers
| done want chess to fall into that state either
| jurassic wrote:
| Cheating in chess seems somehow worse than what Armstrong
| did. There could be a version of cycling where everybody
| dopes and it becomes a level playing field --- there's still
| strategy in the rides, they still suffer up the climbs, etc.
| Doped athletes are still incredible to watch.
|
| But in chess if you're outsourcing decision-making to the
| algorithm... why even have human players at all?
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I'm amazed people still believe there's such a thing as
| "clean" professional sports. I assume everyone is doping.
|
| I agree with your assessment about Armstrong vs outsourcing
| decision-making. It wouldn't surprise/bother me to find out
| chess players are taking ritalin or whatever to increase
| their focus, but using a computer is troublesome. That
| would be like Armstrong riding an electric bike.
| jstx1 wrote:
| You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking
| for concrete proof which is very different. You can have
| evidence that changes your belief - people acting suspiciously
| their behaviour being consistent with cheating, lying, changing
| their story, having history of doing this in the past - all of
| this is perfectly valid evidence that can change your own
| belief about what's happening, and you should be able to speak
| to speak about it.
|
| Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads
| every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin
| is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until
| we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping
| will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's
| technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well,
| sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin
| directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that
| come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.
| mind-blight wrote:
| I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be
| concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a
| reasonable person that the thing being claimed _may_ have
| happened.
|
| But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims
| of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to
| at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the
| match that it could imply cheating.
|
| Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then
| quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum.
|
| I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves
| we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would
| have taken them besides computer assistance"
| Pyramus wrote:
| I think you are missing the bigger picture here.
|
| The question is not whether Niemann cheated in this
| specific game against Carlsen (he likely didn't) but to
| what extent Niemann has cheated in the past, how (online)
| cheaters should be treated when it comes to over-the-board
| chess and if the chess profession will finally take
| cheating seriously, i.e. introduce anti-cheating measures
| similar to other professional sports or gambling.
|
| As has been stated several times in this thread: Niemann
| has a history of (online) cheating, admitted to it, and
| while doing so likely lied about the extent and recency of
| his (online) cheating.
| parineum wrote:
| > Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then
| quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum.
|
| I'm not a chess expert at all but, from my understanding,
| he is known for some unconventional play. I could see
| Magnus having done a calculation ahead of time of a very
| unconventional opening and, seeing the counter being the
| exact optimal choice, being convinced of cheating.
|
| All that I really know is he has a lot of credibility and
| the person he's accusing does not. I think it's a big story
| because it's dramatic no matter how it turns out.
| joekrill wrote:
| > You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're
| asking for concrete proof which is very different.
|
| There is neither of these, though. There is only people
| speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't
| behave exactly as they were expected to.
|
| > By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we
| examine the coin directly [...]
|
| I never made any such statement or made and indication of
| specific "standards".
|
| We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this
| way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted
| with zero evidence of that.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted
| with zero evidence of that.
|
| I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought
| up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we
| have very different understanding of what's evidence and
| how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of
| talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
| 323 wrote:
| Dumb question, but if she was cheating, where is the information
| sourced from? How could her accomplice see the other player's
| card to pass to her? I never saw this part explained.
| SCAQTony wrote:
| Faith in the athletic sprit of fair play and may the best win
| probably never existed.
|
| "...Anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011,
| in which 57% of competitors admitted doping compared to under 4%
| in WADA test results..."
| https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-s...
|
| "...In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the
| top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been
| caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong
| associations to doping and are suspected cheaters. ..."
| https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-...
|
| "...For a nearly year Serena Williams was allowed 'Therapeutic
| Use Exemptions' (TUEs) which involved LOTS of steroids. Date for
| use/Date given/Substance
|
| _Oct 2010 - Mar 2011 /23 Dec/Hydromorphone _Dec 2010/23
| Dec/Oxycodone _Nov 27-Dec 1 2010 /23 Dec/Methylprednisolone
| _12-19 Mar 2014/13th Mar/Prednisone _21-30 Mar 2014 /2
| Apr/Prednisone _7-21 May 2014/8 May/Prednisone _10-17 Nov 2014 /3
| Dec/Prednisone, Oxycodone _5-10 June 2015/8 Jun/Prednisolone
| https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/tandon-a-closer-look-at...
| sputr wrote:
| Prednisone, that's Medrol right? Wrong kind of steroid. This is
| an imunosupresor that destroys skeletal muscles, bone strength,
| etc.
| berberous wrote:
| Does Prednisone or Oxy really give you a performance boost? I
| feel like if so it's marginal and she really was taking them
| for a medical reason?
| SCAQTony wrote:
| WADA has restrictions on Prednisone: "...Prednisolone &
| prednisone within 10 days of a competition."
| https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/key-
| changes-2022-prohi...
|
| "...Oral corticosteroids reduce the pain and inflammation
| that often occurs with extreme exertion. Athletes have
| reported that corticosteroids help them push through the pain
| of extreme exertion and allow them to recover faster for the
| next event..." https://truesport.org/clean-sport/5-facts-
| about-corticostero...
| alasdair_ wrote:
| I saw the poker event live. I genuinely think she was not
| cheating. She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the
| all-in bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn't much.
|
| Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3, especially as she
| literally said "threes are good, right?" during her
| deliberations.
|
| Cheating in this spot just makes no sense and there has been zero
| evidence to indicate it was anything more than what she said -
| she misread a 4 as a 3.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in
| bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn't much.
|
| That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value is
| estimated based on the opponent's presumed range. In this case
| the EV of the call was extremely negative EVEN IF we assume
| that the all-in was a bluff 100% of the time. Problem is that
| jack high usually doesn't beat a bluff in this scenario. If you
| adjust that 100% to something realistic like 60% or 30% or
| whatnot, it becomes even more severely -EV.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >That's not what it means to make a +EV call. Expected value
| is estimated based on the opponent's presumed range.
|
| My point was that if she was cheating and knew what his cards
| were, there is no range to care about. And even then, it's
| not significantly +EV.
| friedman23 wrote:
| It's extremely +ev to call. If she folds she loses close to
| 35 thousand dollars of ev
|
| edit: closer to 20k, i didn't remember the exact pot size
| mod wrote:
| Your conclusion is correct, and your math is wrong.
|
| She loses her share/EV (47% per the graphics) of the pot
| (41.7k per the graphics) if she folds.
|
| So it's worth more like 20k to call, if she knows his
| exact hand.
| friedman23 wrote:
| I didn't remember the exact pot size. I thought she
| raised 12k into 40k then got raised all in
| mod wrote:
| He bet 10k into 11.7k, she clicked it back to 20k, he
| shoved covering her 129k total to start the turn.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Ah, sorry.
| strangescript wrote:
| She didn't misread her hand. She checked it before calling. She
| was starting to realize she was way over extended with her
| cheat and was trying to find a viable explanation.
|
| Most likely all she knew was she had the better hand at the
| time of his all in via someone spying his hole cards and some
| kind discrete alert system, like a vibration. She just wanted
| to make a play for the cameras but didn't think through how it
| would look.
|
| The intention was most likely for her to get it first, then
| even if he called it would just look like she tried a big
| bluff. Would have looked great for clips and streaming...
| melling wrote:
| "Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had
| been "threatened" - something Adelstein denied."
|
| That's a lot of money to give back
| silisili wrote:
| That's what makes me feel like something is fishy. The dude
| immediately was calling her out, saying all but she cheated.
|
| If she beat him fair and square, any reasonable person would
| call him a sore loser and be happy to have taken his money.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| This logic gives me a very ugly feeling and reminds me of,
| "why didn't you scream? Why didn't you fight?"
|
| A lot of comments in this post are applying the commenter's
| context to her situation when judging her actions.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| All the discussion surrounding cheating allegations these
| past few weeks gave me a very ugly feeling.
|
| I have personally lost all respect for at least two
| communities. Supposedly intelligent people apparently are
| all too ready to turn into a mob too.
| rplst8 wrote:
| Because in poker if you don't play the way people think you
| should play, they get snooty. Especially "pros".
| silisili wrote:
| As a counterpoint, why did the 'pro' go all in on a junk
| hand, then?
| alex_young wrote:
| He didn't go all in, he forced his opponent to go all in.
| He also had a ton of great scenarios at that point which
| were a lot better than a junk hand. It didn't work out,
| and usually that's just chalked up to how things go. Odd
| to get so upset about one hand IMO.
| mod wrote:
| > Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3
|
| Per Robbi herself, " i ran it twice because i didnt think j
| high could be good".
|
| https://youtu.be/9NNKjWscKWo?t=717 (says it at 12:00)
| mod wrote:
| It makes sense if her signal is binary.
|
| "you have the best hand" buzzing in her pocket
|
| Calling with J4 doesn't make sense in any other scenario, so
| it's hard for us to say "well it doesn't make sense to call in
| the flip scenario."
|
| It makes way less sense to call with J4. She did something that
| doesn't make sense.
|
| She also announced that she did not have a pair of threes, out
| loud.
|
| Also for anyone else who wants to watch it, it was
| livestreamed, so it doesn't matter if you watch it live or now.
| [deleted]
| codeflo wrote:
| Just so I get this right, she made a play based on an error,
| and got lucky? I mean, stuff like that happens, and is usually
| a great story. Watching humans play games is exciting precisely
| because we aren't robots.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| No, there's virtually no chance of that happening in this
| case.
| spiderice wrote:
| 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
| agar wrote:
| 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?
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| > 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.
| albedoa wrote:
| > 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_cheati
| ng_...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereus_Poker_Network#2007_c
| hea...
| [deleted]
| 300bps wrote:
| She said a lot of things. Many of them made no sense. For
| example, "I thought you had ace high!" as an explanation for
| why she called him while she had jack high.
|
| It was either a colossally dumb mistake on her part followed by
| implausible explanations or she bet a ton of money somehow
| knowing she had him beat with jack high.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| I think tv cameras and commentators and having tens of
| thousands of people watching you can totally mess with how
| you think when you have just made a mistake for six figures.
|
| Without any actual proof of cheating (especially in this
| terrible spot) my money is on a fuckup.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > Far more likely was she misread J4 as J3, especially as she
| literally said "threes are good, right?" during her
| deliberations.
|
| If you watch the video, you'll see that she knows that she
| doesn't have a 3 - she checks her hand before she calls and
| also a player at the table asks her if she has a 3 and she says
| no. Then afterwards she did an interview in which she explains
| how she thought she had a 3 but that doesn't match what she
| said at the table.
|
| > She was only 47% to win the hand after her call of the all-in
| bet and while the play was marginally +EV, it wasn't much.
|
| It's not marginally +EV to call given the pot odds and she
| doesn't need to know her exact equity to be cheating, she could
| be getting binary "you're good" / "you aren't good" signals
| (and that's much easier to transmit and read without being
| noticed).
|
| The play on the turn is way too ridiculous. The other thing is
| why did she return the money after the hand if she won it
| fairly? Sure, maybe she was intimidated but to me it looked
| like she cheated, she realised that she's in over her head and
| tried to make the whole thing go away by returning the money
| and coming up with a story about the hand she thought she had.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Re: giving the money back
|
| Daniel Negreanu [0] has the opposite read from you:
|
| "The fact that she gave him the money back isn't an admission
| of guilt, but likely the contrary.
|
| A money hungry scumbag cheat isn't likely to give money back
| in that spot.
|
| Felt like she didn't want to deal with conflict and can
| afford it."
|
| [0]https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/157572668111701196
| 8?...
|
| Re: 3 vs 4. I think both the cheaters and the non-cheater
| followers of this story believe that she was rattled and made
| a bad move. Even if she was cheating and KNEW his hand, she
| had no way of knowing that her _Jack-high_ would hold up,
| unless people believe the entire casino is on in it and she
| knows all the cards coming.
|
| If we accept that she was rattled, and stressed, and made a
| rash move, and got away with it, then it's equally believable
| that in the moment she briefly got confused and remembered
| the wrong hand. Memory isn't foolproof, and in the emotional
| decision to decide to call she confused the last 2 hands or
| ipso-facto justified what she could tell was a terrible
| decision but needed to cover up with bravado because the game
| had to continue after this hand.
|
| Once you understand all of the above, it's clear she didn't
| need to cheat to wind up in this position, and in fact it
| makes LESS sense.
| thereare5lights wrote:
| > The other thing is why did she return the money after the
| hand if she won it fairly?
|
| Hm why would a woman when confronted with an enraged man
| threatening her seek to minimize conflict...
| generalk wrote:
| > It's not marginally +EV to call given the pot odds and she
| doesn't need to know her exact equity to be cheating, she
| could be getting binary "you're good" / "you aren't good"
| signals (and that's much easier to transmit and read without
| being noticed). [...] The play on the turn is way too
| ridiculous.
|
| I watched the hand. I've been in that spot. You think you
| have a good read on someone such that your not-great hand may
| actually be best, say, they're chasing an open-ender and your
| high card is good. (Which it would be, barring cards folded
| by other players.) You're nervous, you're facing an all-in
| decision, you know the safe move is to fold and move on, but
| damn all you just can't shake the feeling, and you have to
| gamble.
|
| Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer
| here.
|
| You didn't say this, but I fear that if this were someone
| like Daniel Negraneau monologuing about what to do and
| stating his read aloud ("I'm pretty sure you're chasing. I'm
| probably beat but if you're holding 8 9 I'm beating you right
| now. I'm right aren't I? _sigh_ I call. Show me I 'm beat.")
| then this wouldn't be an issue at all.
|
| > The other thing is why did she return the money after the
| hand if she won it fairly?
|
| "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."[twt]
|
| Shit, if I was in that position, and producers/officials
| pulled me out of the game and put me in a room with my
| opponent where I was accused of cheating and told to return
| the money, damn good chance I'd return it just to make a
| scary situation stop. Maybe you're different, but that
| doesn't mean intimidation doesn't work pretty damn well.
|
| [twt]:
| https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992
| c7b wrote:
| > Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor
| answer here.
|
| I suppose Hanlon's razor is adequate here - "never
| attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
| stupidity".
| gnicholas wrote:
| Did she make predictions this specific? I couldn't hear
| everything that was said in the clip, but I don't remember
| her saying anything this specific.
| generalk wrote:
| Oh no, the stuff I put in quotes was not Robbi speaking
| during the hand, but my imagining of what Neganeau would
| have sounded like in his typical confident chattery
| thinking aloud.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure you're chasing.
|
| Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any
| high flush draw. Let alone value hands (she's drawing dead
| against a 10). So she has to put him specifically on 78
| (which he had), 68 or 67. That makes it more suspicious,
| not less.
|
| The intimidation thing makes sense if you believe her
| story. I can only guess what happened between the two of
| them after the game. I know that I've seen her change her
| own story about the hand that she thought she had. If
| you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't really
| go with their own story about what happened as a reason to
| exonerate them.
| generalk wrote:
| > Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any
| high flush draw.
|
| Fair, there are definitely semi-bluffs that beat J4 here,
| and of course if Garret had a made hand she's toast.
|
| There's also (and I think she says this at some point,
| "purely a bluff-catcher" IIRC) tons of pure air bluffs
| that J4 beats.
|
| I simply do not understand the stance that if a poker
| player makes a call with a crap hand that turns out to be
| good, and then holds up, that she must be cheating. Not
| for nothing, but I have never heard such accusations
| leveled at a male player like this.
|
| > If you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't
| really go with their own story about what happened as a
| reason to exonerate them.
|
| _I_ am not questioning her credibility.
|
| Because there is no reason to.
|
| The only reason anyone thinks she might be cheating is
| because her heads-up opponent angrily accused her of it.
| Not even after a bad beat! After his hand, which was
| never ever the best hand of the two, failed to make any
| of its draws over a river _that was run twice._
|
| I question the credibility of the accusation. Garret has
| every reason to accuse his opponent of cheating,
| especially given that he successfully intimidated Robbi
| into returning his chips, which to me is just insane.
|
| Why the conversation isn't "poker player doesn't catch
| his outs, demands his money back" is beyond me.
| nwienert wrote:
| But again it's not uncommon to believe your opponent is
| chasing a card especially in this case - straight and
| flush draw and the straight is below your top card. If
| it's a straight draw they have, you know you have them
| beat. And going all in pre-river on your draws is the
| main tactic you'd expect to see.
| gregw134 wrote:
| Plus Garrett asked if she had a pair and she said no. Also,
| she went from playing $300 buyin tournaments in March to
| suddenly playing live stream for hundreds of thousands and
| winning $100k two showings in a row.
| Guvante wrote:
| > 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.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| > 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.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >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.
| tux1968 wrote:
| 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.
| Guvante wrote:
| 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".
| tux1968 wrote:
| 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.
| mod wrote:
| 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.
| Guvante wrote:
| 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.
| mod wrote:
| 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.
| Guvante wrote:
| 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".
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| 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?"
| mod wrote:
| > 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.
| Guvante wrote:
| 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.
| mod wrote:
| > 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.
| threatofrain wrote:
| How do you know that threats have been made?
| Guvante wrote:
| 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.
| generalk wrote:
| https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/15757588374658129
| 92
|
| "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."
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Cheating in this spot just makes no sense"_
|
| When there's money involved there will be people who cheat.
|
| Even when there's no money involved, some people will cheat.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| The fact she keeps changing her story is the most intriguing
| aspect of this whole incident, far moreso than any particular
| action in the hand. Why would someone change their story so
| much _after just winning this massive pot_?
| gregw134 wrote:
| Weird thing is she checked her hole cards during the hand. I
| guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but
| difficult to do.
|
| Giving the money back is also a bad look.
|
| The other odd thing is she's a very new player suddenly playing
| some of the biggest stakes in the world, and she's now won
| $100k in back to back appearances, while presumably making
| amateur mistakes like calling $130k with Jack high.
|
| I agree there's no convincing evidence but it's enough to raise
| my suspicions.
| girvo wrote:
| How in the world is giving money back a bad look. I swear
| some of the people here are working backwards from their
| already concluded "she's a cheater" and twisting anything
| they can to fit it. It's wild to see, as someone with zero
| stake in it either way, but a _cheater_ would not give the
| money back when asked.
| noncoml wrote:
| > Giving the money back is also a bad look.
|
| I wouldn't read too much into this, it can be either.
|
| I've given back money during disputes just to avoid drama and
| because I was certain one way or another the money would come
| back to me anyway.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >I guess it's possible to misread your hole cards twice but
| difficult to do.
|
| With TV cameras and thousands of people watching every tiny
| thing you do, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I can buy
| it. I've been in televised card games before and it is so
| easy to make dumb mistakes just because of the pressure of
| the cameras and audience.
| draw_down wrote:
| The poker one doesn't make sense to me in any direction. Even if
| she was cheating and had full knowledge of the other player's
| cards, her call still doesn't make sense. Giving back the money
| to the other player was a really suspicious move though. It seems
| like she mostly just didn't really understand what she was doing.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > her call still doesn't make sense.
|
| It 100% makes sense to call the shove on the turn if you know
| Garett's hole cards. In fact the problem is that it _only_
| makes sense if you know his hole cards.
| deanCommie wrote:
| How??
|
| The hole cards aren't enough - there are more cards coming on
| the table.
|
| Even if you know that your nothing beats his nothing you are
| risking a lot on a small advantage that his nothing won't
| turn into something.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| There is no more betting to go, so it does make sense. You
| are 47% to win but it's +EV because there is already money
| in the pot so the pot odds favor you.
|
| That said, there are far better spots to do this and her
| other plays earlier were less than great.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > How??
|
| After the shove on the turn the pot is $161k, she needs to
| call $109k. She needs 109/(109+161) = 40.3% equity to break
| even. So if she has more than 40.3% equity, she should
| call. If you plug in their cards on the turn into an equity
| calculator, you'll see that she has 54.55% equity (not
| accounting for dead cards like the stream calculation but
| either way it's the same outcome) so it's +EV for her to
| call.
| mod wrote:
| If Garrett turned his hand face up, she makes about 20k by
| calling on the turn.
| bena wrote:
| 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.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > 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.
| mod wrote:
| > 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.
| remote_phone wrote:
| The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely stupid.
| Only people who know very little about poker would claim that.
|
| What is obvious is that the lady made a mistake. If someone were
| helping her cheat, there's no way they would have told her to
| call, especially after the flop.
|
| She was behind the entire hand after the flop, and even after the
| turn she still had a disadvantage. She shouldn't have called it
| at all and there was no reason to even think about it. If she
| were cheating her accomplice would have told her under no
| uncertain terms to fold. Who would advise anyone to make a 6
| figure bet on a coin flip???There's no circumstance under which
| her actions make sense except in the case of her making a
| mistake.
|
| She made a mistake and got lucky, that's all there is.
| gregw134 wrote:
| > The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely
| stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would
| claim that.
|
| Doug Polk is suspicious of cheating here, and Tom Dwan called
| this one of the most suspicious plays he's ever seen.
| csa wrote:
| > The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely
| stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would
| claim that.
|
| A not small number of well-known pros don't think it's so
| simple:
|
| https://preview.redd.it/e4x1y513wer91.png?width=1409&format=...
|
| Most of the pros think it was just a new player who did
| something stupid that she didn't understand, having seen that
| at the table many times before. I don't think that's an
| unreasonable take.
|
| That said, she has several other issues that need to be
| addressed beyond making that specific hero call.
| mod wrote:
| > Most of the pros think [she didn't cheat]
|
| I don't have that impression. I follow about 100 pros on SM.
| csa wrote:
| That may be true.
|
| I'm just basing it on what I've read on Twitter.
|
| I have not read a random sample.
|
| There are plenty pros (as shown in the linked list) who are
| not convinced more than 50% that she cheated.
|
| Given the circumstances, I doubt there will be a smoking
| gun unless someone confesses. As such, I think it's really
| tough to fully rule out either side of the discussion.
| mod wrote:
| I agree it's way up for debate, there's no consensus
| among pros, or anyone besides people with political
| agendas.
|
| I also doubt this will resolve, it's going to be the next
| Postle scenario.
| bombcar wrote:
| Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One bad
| call on one hand is nothing compared.
| csa wrote:
| > Postle at least had acres and acres of evidence. One
| bad call on one hand is nothing compared.
|
| It's way more than one hand.
|
| 1. She used a time bank chip to tank a turn bet by
| Garrett when she had J8 (no pair no draw -- same J-high
| situation) against Garrett's made full house. In that
| case, there was an over or two on the board, so it was
| even more ridiculous to
|
| 2. Her changing story is not a good look. It could be
| because she was lying. It could be because she had no
| idea what she was doing and was just making up poorly-
| constructed possible explanations on the fly.
|
| 3. If you've ever played poker at a competitive level,
| her reaction when she makes an absolutely super thin hero
| call and is good and just sort of smiles is different
| than every other hero call I've ever seen. It's super
| suspicious. To be fair, she could have been on something
| (Xanax?), so that's a possible explanation.
|
| 4. She played really tight the other two sessions she
| played on HCL. Why was she all of a sudden including
| super thin value calls for this session? There are many
| good possible explanations, but someone deviating this
| much from their normal strategy _and be right both times_
| is suspicious.
|
| 5. Her undisclosed backer who was also at the table
| mouthed something to her during the session. What was
| that about? I was super suspicious, but could just be
| something simple.
|
| I mean, a simple explanation is that she is a relatively
| wealthy person who was on a heavy dose of Xanax, and she
| was tired of getting bullied by Garrett (a top notch
| pro). She made a stand at a relatively random time, and
| she happened to be right. If that was her story, no one
| would bat an eye.
|
| But she's going with various whackadoodle stories that
| don't really make much sense unless you start engaging in
| some random theorycrafting like she's a narcissist who
| can't admit that she had no idea what she was doing
| (possible, but who are we to say?).
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| > The cheating claims for the poker example are absolutely
| stupid. Only people who know very little about poker would
| claim that.
|
| Well, I can offer a counter-example that proves you wrong. I
| played professionally for a decade (so I'm not a person who
| "knows very little about poker") and I am claiming that she's
| cheating. I would be very confident making this claim based on
| her turn call alone, but when you add in the contradictory
| follow up explanations and the fact that she RETURNED THE
| CHIPS, I'd rate her cheating at >99% probability.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Daniel Negreanu [0] has the opposite read from you:
|
| "The fact that she gave him the money back isn't an admission
| of guilt, but likely the contrary.
|
| A money hungry scumbag cheat isn't likely to give money back
| in that spot.
|
| Felt like she didn't want to deal with conflict and can
| afford it."
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/15757266811170119
| 68?...
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Some people are easier to bully than others.
|
| I paid for college partly through poker. Early in my career I
| used speech play to tilt a guy and get him to call when he
| shouldn't, winning a big pot.
|
| The guy was furious and cornered me afterwords, yelling "we
| don't do that here. You better give me my fucking money
| back!" And so on.
|
| I was 19 and not used to defending myself against angry adult
| men and I gave him the money back, despite definitely not
| having to.
|
| I wouldn't do that now, but if you have a loud angry man
| yelling at you, it's definitely possible to just want it to
| stop.
|
| (And I'm six two and was heavy into martial arts at the
| time.)
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Why does her returning the chips matter? Are you not familiar
| with how chronic cheaters operate in pretty much any other
| field?
|
| From fighting games to Donkey Kong to fishing to whatever
| else you can think of, people that chronically cheat often
| have the mentality to double down and/or muddy the fields to
| try and disprove that they're cheating. Because the best
| counter to any sort of cheating accusation is to never fold.
| This is even when they're explicitly countered with hard
| evidence of the cheat.
| mod wrote:
| How do you equate "giving the money back" with "doubling
| down"?
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I didn't? I said that a cheater isn't going to give the
| money back because they're never going to do anything
| that makes them look like they're giving up.
| friedman23 wrote:
| > Only people who know very little about poker would claim that
|
| At least half of the best professionals in the world believe
| she cheated.
|
| This is why poker is a great game. People like you that presume
| to understand poker very well and are so confident in what they
| believe. Please keep playing.
|
| And btw, I'm 50/50 on her cheating or not. It would be
| extremely simple to cheat in this environment.
| mod wrote:
| As an ex-professional player and a software engineer, gotta
| agree here. There have actually been proofs-of-concept for
| reading cards off these RFID tables. It's not hard to believe
| someone improved on that technology and put it all together
| with a buzzer in her pocket saying "you have the best hand."
|
| Agree that these levels of bold, decisive claims are signals
| about what makes poker a great game.
|
| Nobody has near enough evidence to be sure. I think the play
| is incredibly suspect, and I think I've met many players at
| the tables stupid enough to make it. It's not common, but
| they exist and keep playing.
|
| What is exceptionally stupid are the guys saying "it would be
| a mistake to call here if you were cheating" while still
| believing "she called with J4 because she's really bad."
| Their logic requires her to make a (massive) mistake with J4,
| but assumes she wouldn't make a much more nuanced mistake
| doing an EV calculation.
|
| I personally think if there was cheating involved, it was a
| binary signal ("you have the best hand") and she's too dumb
| to understand the implications of calling with J4 in the
| spot.
| draw_down wrote:
| dylan604 wrote:
| "Lew ended up returning Adelstein his chips, saying she had been
| "threatened" - something Adelstein denied."
|
| This seems like a very suspect thing to do in my opinion. The
| threats must have been very specific and meaningful for me to
| even consider returning chips that I was claiming to have fairly
| won. Returning them just seems like a guilty move.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| I disagree. A cheater would desperately attempt to latch on to
| anything they can to show they are not a cheater. So they would
| generally refuse even more to give back any money and just
| repeat the "not cheating" mantra ever more and more-- and would
| definitely never give back the money that they cheated so hard
| to get... just my opinion. The fact that she gives back the
| money (and I see no reason to disbelieve that she was likely
| cornered and intimidated in the hallway) shows that she's not
| really that concerned about it and doesn't really even care
| that much. A cheater would be grasping on to those chips at all
| costs/odds.
| jstx1 wrote:
| Unless you're bad at cheating and get caught and then panic.
| Not everyone has the personality to double down.
| late2part wrote:
| I've probably played around 10k hours of poker.
|
| On the one hand, crazy shit happens all the time, and folks
| win by sucking out or by insane bluffs.
|
| On the other hand, it's not considered honorable to win by
| mistake. Winning by catching a 3% is luck - but just
| screwing up isn't cool.
|
| So, even though $130k (or whatever it was) seems like a lot
| of money - there is honor among (some/most) poker players,
| so it seems totally honorable to me that she gave him the
| money, as she doesn't feel she deserves it.
|
| I don't know how she would have cheated. Maybe she did but
| it doesn't seem to me like she did.
| jstx1 wrote:
| The honor thing doesn't play - she doesn't claim that she
| won by mistake. She claimed that
|
| 1) she thought he had ace high (still doesn't make sense
| to call with j high)
|
| 2) she thought she had a 3 (that's when she changed her
| story after the game)
|
| > I don't know how she would have cheated.
|
| It's a streamed game, there's an RFID system that reads
| everyone's cards. You don't need magic to cheat, you just
| need an inside person.
| [deleted]
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The RFID only works at a few millimeters distance. It's
| useless when trying to read a deck of cards since you'd
| get multiple responses and would be unable to determine
| the order of cards.
|
| The inside person doesn't bear scrutiny either. What
| would this inside person do to pull this off exactly?
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely to
| lose. So she would also need to know the next cards to be
| played. It seems even less likely the house or dealer are
| in on it. How would RFID know the top cards yet to come?
| They are still in the deck.
| jstx1 wrote:
| > At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely
| to lose.
|
| This is based on the equity shown on the stream which
| takes into account the dead cards, if you only know the
| board and their hole cards, she has 54.55% equity. Either
| way she should call because she needs 40.3% equity to
| break even (109/(109+161)), any equity more than that is
| a call and she doesn't need to know what cards will come
| for that call to be profitable.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Admitedly, I have zero experience of this level of cheating,
| so I honestly don't know what someone would do. However,
| "from the movies" (ha!) professional cheaters expect to be
| caught on occasion and consider it cost of doing business.
| For cards, I'm thinking about Rounders as an example.
| Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, right?
| thereare5lights wrote:
| Woman is confronted by an enraged man threatening her with the
| "crazy eyes".
|
| How you would react is no where near the standard she would
| have used.
| dylan604 wrote:
| sadly, yes, this is something I did not consider.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| This sort of attitude is how people are wrongly convicted. A
| person's behaviour can reflect any number of things. Where is
| there any actual hard evidence of cheating? Or even a
| _practical_ explanation of how it could be done.
|
| Personally, I feel guilty when I'm (wrongly) accused of
| something merely if it's possible that I could have done it. It
| makes no sense but that's how my mind works. If it were up to
| you I'd be convicted every time.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm just saying it looks like a guilty move that would beg
| for more investigating, so that someone would be convicted on
| the looks of guilt.
|
| People are jumping to conclusions here.
| mellosouls wrote:
| It's also the sort of thing somebody in a panic or under severe
| stress _just because of the pressure of the spotlight and the
| thought of being thought dishonest_ might do.
|
| Don't underestimate the power of mental self-sabotage of the
| innocent.
|
| Even more so given the power dynamics here.
| toomanyrichies wrote:
| Coming soon to ProductHunt- Faraday underpants.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Check out 'Mike postle' in the poker world - he was accused of
| cheating based on hundreds of hours worth of evidence but no
| actual proof, the evidence was substantial enough to basically
| prove guilt beyond doubt.
|
| The current poker drama doesn't offer enough evidence to prove or
| disprove anything. I think largely the poker world is addicted to
| drama, unsure if the objective is to remain in the media or just
| because drama sells.
| aml183 wrote:
| Adelstein is one of the best poker cash players in the world. He
| has a sterling reputation in the community and to my knowledge
| has never made an accusation like that before.
|
| If you play poker, that call was either the greatest hero call of
| all or extremely suspect.
|
| There is absolutely no reason to call in that spot considering
| the fact that many bluffs could be ahead of her hand such as AcXc
| for a flush draw.
|
| Furthermore, she was backed in that game meaning that she doesn't
| have the money to play in it. Who is backing you if you are
| calling over $100K pots with Jack high.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I think the only reason this drama is going around is because of
| the chess drama. It's in the zeitgeist and it's good clickbait
| right now. It's made clear by articles like this that are using
| the chess drama to make their article interesting, including an
| even more tenuous link to some fishing drama.
|
| Go back an hour in the footage, and she's calling with Jack high
| on a KQK board against the same player, and she calls for extra
| time before eventually folding a bet on the river when she still
| has Jack high. It's apparently not unlike her to be trying to
| catch bluffs with hands that lose to the bluff. She's new to
| poker and playing against sharks on TV. She's nervous and
| embarrassed and doing and saying things that don't make sense.
| bombcar wrote:
| Playing jacks is exactly what you'd expect from a player who
| hasn't memorized all the odds.
|
| Especially since it works sometimes, it can become a huge trap.
| neaden wrote:
| I think the fish one, with the dramatic reveal of the first
| weight followed by the absurdity of pulling more weights and
| fish fillets out all while an angry crowd gathers around would
| have been a sensation no matter what. I agree with you on the
| poker though.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| The fish one went viral on its own. It's been on the front page
| of Reddit in one sub or another for a couple days.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > Local media report that the [fishing] pair were disqualified as
| winners at an event last year, because one of them failed a
| polygraph test.
|
| wtf? That is definitely not how to use a polygraph. First off,
| why would you ever submit to that? Second, they are notoriously
| questionable, and something tells me the fishing championship
| didn't get the world's leading expert to run it.
| yumswiss wrote:
| How do you even check if someone has a wireless vibrating device?
| 323 wrote:
| X-Ray person, X-Ray all items on person.
| friedman23 wrote:
| Let me give you all a quick crash course in poker exploitation.
| Exploitation is taking advantage of inaccuracies in the other
| player's strategy to maximize the amount of money you win.
|
| When you bet or raise in poker you need to do this action with
| some combinations of hands that are good (we refer to these as
| value hands) and some combinations of hands that are bad (we
| refer to these as bluffs).
|
| If you ever have too many value hands the opponent can exploit
| your strategy by folding all hands that are worse than your value
| hands. If you ever have too many bluffs the opponent can exploit
| your strategy by calling with _all_ hands that beat your bluffs.
|
| The problem with this J hi call is that it does not beat the
| majority of Garrett's bluffs. In this situation Garrett has at
| most 2 combinations of hands that are worse than J hi, those
| hands also have 50% chance of winning due to half the deck
| improving them on the river vs J hi. In this situation Garrett
| could have three of a kind, a single pair, a full house, or maybe
| just Ace hi (which beats J hi).
|
| So this call is terrible, even if "you have a read".
|
| So the only explanation is that she's extremely stupid or
| cheating. Both explain the shifting story for why she called
| because nobody wants to admit they are dumb and they definitely
| don't want to admit to cheating.
|
| edit: She could also just have poor emotional regulation under
| pressure which compelled her to call despite knowing it's bad.
| mod wrote:
| I think one of the best arguments that she didn't cheat is that
| it requires a lot more.
|
| Option 1: She didn't cheat and made an incredibly bad play
| because she's very stupid.
|
| Option 2: She did cheat and she made an incredibly bad play
| because she's basically showing off that she's cheating, which
| makes her very stupid.
|
| So option 1 requires that she's really stupid, and option 2
| requires that she's really stupid AND she cheated, making
| option 1 more likely.
|
| That being said, it ignores a lot of the poker nuance. That's
| going to be lost on the discussion here, unfortunately, in
| spite of your comment.
|
| I've long found you can't have any serious poker discussion
| here.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The future is full body x-rays or large magnetic fields that will
| kill your if you have metal in you.
| scombridae wrote:
| The chess world is loving Niemann right now, but even more so
| Carlsen for his high-profile indignation. P.T. Barnum's chestnut
| about bad publicity applies most to "sports" desperately seeking
| spectators.
| neaden wrote:
| The fishing one is the outlier, since in that case th cheaters
| were caught red handed in dramatic fashion in front of a crowd.
| With the chess and poker it's much less clear if anything
| happened and what to do about it.
| gunshai wrote:
| I know this is HN, but that guy yelling
|
| "WE GOT WEIGHTS!" felt out of a movie. Those dudes were MAD.
| owlninja wrote:
| Rightfully so, those tournaments have very large buy-ins and
| the cash + prize rewards are pretty great. I get the feeling
| many other contestants thought they were cheating in previous
| wins, I am surprised they don't have more advanced measures
| for detecting cheating. I've seen some people comment that
| the eyeball test on some of those fish's weights was
| laughable.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I couldn't quite understand but it looked like the cheater
| just stood there and witnessed the revelation unfolding
| without saying anything in confession or in his defense.
| neaden wrote:
| Probably the best move, I mean what can you say? An
| immediate apology isn't going to be credible and you can't
| really claim innocence at all.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| I would expect him to just leave
| neaden wrote:
| I would want to stay near the authority figure and on
| camera if I had that many people that mad at me.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-02 23:01 UTC)