Hacker News Reader

> 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

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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".

The problem with the cheating is that it requires her to be (1) smart enough to not get caught cheating in a high stakes poker game and (2) dumb enough to cheat in a ridiculously obvious way. Those seem mutually contradictory. If you can pull off the cheat you'd be smart enough to cheat in a less obvious way.

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.

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.

If she didn't say anything like this, I guess I don't understand why you said you "fear" that this wouldn't be happening if Negraneau had made the same moves and had narrated precisely what cards he put his opponent on.

My sense is that the different reaction would be because of the narration, not the identity of the player (though it would also make sense that a player with a decade(s) long reputation would be given more deference than a newer player).

Daniel Negreanu is a player who is renowned for making insane reads like the GP is roleplaying, narrating them live. GP is—I believe—saying that if Negreanu had made the same play and narrated it this way, nobody would have batted an eye.

I think the reality is she just made a shitty decision in the moment that happened to play out well. Anyone who's played poker long enough has done the same dozens of times.

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/1575726681117011968?...

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.

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.

> 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.

>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.

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".

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?"

There needs to be more evidence of cheating then "no one calls with Jack crap" (they totally do), "she had the better had" (she did not unless she knew the deck which requires way more evidence than presented), "the pot odds were good" (which any player would know was true if their opponent didn't pair up or have a better high card), or "flustered player who just won $130k on a bad call is flustered".

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.

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.

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.

I never claimed it was good play, just that it is believable play.

Also the whole counterpoint hinges on not believing she felt she was calling a bluff which she explicitly called her plays as being.

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.

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".

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.

The hole cards were known. I'm not sure that the cards in the deck that were still to come were known by anyone. They use RFID tags and I doubt there is a reader on the planet that can pick out the exact order of 40+ un-powered tags stacked on top of each other.

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.

How do you know that threats have been made?

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.

https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992

"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."

> 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.

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.

> 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.

"I wouldn't do that" isn't the bar here. "No one would do that" is.

Unless you can claim you haven't seen a huge bet on Jack Shit then that isn't sufficient evidence of cheating.

> 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.

> 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…