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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The inside person doesn't bear scrutiny either. What would this inside person do to pull this off exactly?
It's poker there is no honor in poker. Bluffing is part of the game.
Don't underestimate the power of mental self-sabotage of the innocent.
Even more so given the power dynamics here.
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.
People are jumping to conclusions here.
I would not be surprised if this incident ends up with the guy being charged with theft, or coercion, or whatever the relevant crime is.
How you would react is no where near the standard she would have used.