Poker bro accuses woman of cheating, without evidence, after she wins big hand. She gives him his money back to avoid trouble

There’s also the weird format to affect it. There’s no audience for reality TV where reality TV stars make sober, reasonable bets

The surprising thing here is the all in bet wasn’t at a producer’s direction

2 Likes

I don’t think we can say that. Given the cards in that moment, yes. But as she explained (which few people seemed to listen to) she read him. Even though he was on a flush draw, she might have read a pure bluff, given his previous play.

Half of the other players at the table praised her when she won the hand. I got the impression that, rather then thinking she was cheating, they were happy that someone called Poker Bro’s bullshit; literally.

16 Likes

Thanks - I was wondering the same thing. Wasn’t his hand also dog crap? When you are watching and seeing the odds (which at 53/47 don’t seen that different to me - events rated at -6 happen all the time) you might say she’s making a bad call but how could he have known that. He seems like a bully that’s pissed his bullying didn’t work this time.

Seems ridiculous to investigate her for cheating. If you’re going to do that you need to investigate him as well right just to spread the fud around.

5 Likes

She should have given him 5 dollars to go get her a sandwich and then called him ‘buttercup’ just to piss him off more.

6 Likes

My understanding is that they are investigating the entire incident, including the cornering of her by Adelstein and the producer. If I were a betting woman … well, I do play poker … I’d bet absolutely nothing happens. They will find no evidence of cheating, and they’ll also decide that she wasn’t coerced into giving him his money back. Which is bullshit.

I’m going to say one last thing about this entire thing. If you play poker professionally (or even as an amateur if you play a lot), you want people to make bad calls. You want people to make the wrong statistical decision. That’s where you make the big bucks. Yes, it means that sometimes, you’re going to lose and it’s going to piss you off because you “should have won”. But you have to look at the big picture and realize that, if the math is on your side, in the long run you’re going to win way more of these than you lose. If I have a good hand and I think someone is chasing a flush, I want to bet enough that the right move is for them to fold…and then I want them to make the wrong decision and call anyway. He shouldn’t be mad she called. He should be ecstatic.

8 Likes

For all we know the judge establishing whether or not she was a cheat was the same guy who was tournament director for that fishing thing, and was prepared to use the same technique to see if she had any hidden cards…

1 Like

Yup, that’s why I don’t really understand the severity of his reaction, someone who’s fluent in math and probabilities should know that a strategy of winning in the long run means occasionally losing marginal hands as a matter of course.

3 Likes

Yes, exactly. She wasn’t ‘avoiding trouble’ as it says in the headline; she was judging the risk of being a victim of violent crime and chose the conservative option.

Avoiding trouble makes it sound like her behavior would have made her the scofflaw. Instead, it was the exact opposite: she was trying to avoid being hurt or killed.

20 Likes

I mean unless there was info that I’m missing, she could have had the third 10 and just been slow playing it. I do that with aggressive players because I play very conservatively; I’m a bad bluffer.

4 Likes

coke pouring GIF

8 Likes

Episode 5 Drinking GIF by The Bachelor

10 Likes

I know about as much of poker as I do chess, which is to say I know the rules of gameplay and that’s about it. I have a poor head for odds and statistics.

So, every so often I get badgered into playing a money game at some gathering or another, at some point win a bunch of someone’s money, and then get screamed at for an hour because I won by doing one or more things that (apparently) “sent the wrong signals”, supposedly messed up players who came after me, or other things of that nature.

In general I find habitual gamblers to be wound a little too tightly and very unclear on the difference between things they can affect and things beyond their control.

7 Likes

It sounds a lot like fencing. People can spend years, decades, studying the manuals, practicing in a scholia, testing their skills against their peers, and then lose in a bout against a rank beginner who doesn’t know you should parry quarte after a closed beat and feint.

If it were real sword fighting, then the beginner should have a short life expectancy. But in this bout, he won because he did something dumb and unexpected and got lucky. It happens.

9 Likes

Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon

17 Likes

This is probably true of a lot of games and sports, now that you mention it. Settlers of Catan has this problem- if one or two players are newbies, they will mess up winning strategies by playing “incorrectly” (missing cues for what other players are planning, and missing the card-stockpiling gambits due to ignorance of the deck contents). This generally results in someone winning who would have come in second if all players were experienced. It can be genuinely frustrating if you’re the best player at the table because you can see what #2 is doing and nobody stops them, but you can’t without giving up your own position. If all players are experienced, you can count on others to “load balance” certain behaviours and check runaway tactics so you don’t have to worry about it.

7 Likes

So sometimes, even being the best player won’t guarantee you a win. Kind of small-minded to blame the people who did win by doing things you think of as “wrong”. If they managed to win, it was a winning strategy, even if an unconventional one.

6 Likes

Oh don’t get me wrong- I don’t mean to blame anyone there. Absolutely, winning is winning and they’re within the rules! You have to adjust your strategy based on the skill level of the other players. It’s just another interesting (I think) example of how experts all play a certain way based on how other experts play, so a person coming out of left field can really disrupt it.

12 Likes

So very this. Why hasn’t that nanowit been banned?

cwaa

12 Likes

A perfectly normal reaction to a woman winning a game that is only for mens… /s

30 Likes

Here’s an idea for all those defenders of masculine poker prowess, if this isn’t cricket (to use a british idiom for not following the spirit of the law), make a fucking rule banning it… so then everyone can just play the odds on the cards they’re dealt, and nothing like emotion or guessing will ever disgrace a poker table again…

8 Likes