re: The craziest/best poker call I've ever seen (270k pot)

quote:

---

I asked this question earlier, is there any evidence the woman cheated throughout the session? One hand is one hand, if she was cheating you’d have hours of tape to analyze to see if she was playing as if she knew something.

---

She’s only played on the stream 3 times. There’s 36 hands that berkey and his crew were supposed to be analyzing last night.

quote:

---

There’s a lot of poker ignorance in this thread

---

It's funny, reading the OT, you know a lot of people are full of shite. It's not until there's a thread about something you know in depth that the OT really shines.

quote:

---

That's not a lucky call, it was an idiotic call. Not even the worst of the worst poker player would make that call. It makes absolutely no sense.

---

Sometimes that works because you don’t expect it.

quote:

---

No this was the point the announcer made. Earlier she had made a call drawing dead. Obviously if you're cheating in any way you don't make a call like that. Now of course you could do it to look legit later on.

---

That’s what I’m asking, how was she doing overall?
If you are going to cheat wouldn’t you do it on s hand where you were better than a coin flip to win?

I need someone to explain to me how she could have cheated the hand. It seems, after reading some of this thread(not reading all 23) the reasoning is no one in their right mind would have made that call, therefore cheating. I want to know specifically how could she? Wouldn’t she have to know the cards coming to win? It seems the only way for her to win was very specific cards. I don’t doubt she was cheating, I just don’t understand how.

I’ve read 23 pages and come to the conclusion there are 2 possible scenarios.

1. She won because she got lucky and he lost because he thinks everyone there can play. She quite literally had no idea how bad the odds were for her and she was going with her gut. Simple as that and I actually thought this was the most plausible. Now, I’m not sure because…..

2. The show is rigged. Her purpose there is to show her tits and lose money to the pros. He knows this, she knows this, or, at least he thinks he knows this.

The tell was when she gave him back the money. Why would someone do that? If you won it fair and square why would you? No, make them prove you cheated. Except, she didn’t win fair and square.

She said she gave it back “for the sake of the show”. It was never her money to begin with. Remember, she is there to show her tits and lose money - the shows money. He is wise to the scheme, he knows how the show works. Problem is she had an improbable win on bets that made no logical sense. She has been winning too much. My guess is she won some other crazy hands too. She actually alluded to this when talking to another player saying she did the same thing to him the day earlier.

So, now he is sitting there looking back, contemplating how the sacrificial lamb to the game - little miss show your tits and lose some money- is now beating them. And now he is pissed because he has came to the same conclusion, the show/game is rigged.

quote:

---

Not picking on you cssamerican, but it just seems strange for people who have no idea why this is insanity to have an opinion. That’d be like me going into a chess cheating thread and giving my opinion on why MC thinks he was cheated by Hans.

And the people that say she 100% cheated or she’s 100% innocent are the worst

---

I’m not saying she’s innocent or guilty, I’m just saying I’ve seen people do dumb stuff while on tilt, so it’s possible that’s all this was. It’s also possible it was something else.

BTW, I’m pretty confident Hans cheated. His moves correlate to stockfish at a rate that defies believability, and he has a history of cheating in the past. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

quote:

---

My biggest problem and I see this with coaching too, is that they expect everyone to play with the same realm of strategy and to go outside of it and pull off something like that is sacrilegious. Man just play and if someone does something unconventional tip your hat and move on and maybe don’t think so much in the box.

---

This isn’t simply deviating from optimal, this is a call that’s so far out there, it seems as though she had information aiding her in making the call. That’s why there’s so much controversy

quote:

---

She never made a BET.

---

Technically she did raise the turn before calling the 3bet.

The rest I agree with.

Very few people understand the game apparently on the OT. It's too bad, I wish they would play.