Heck, it sounds like she might have been thinking “I’m probably going to lose, but if I do this one weird thing I have a better chance of winning than if I just give it to him.” Like winning the lottery the odds were small, but she won. To call it cheating because it was unexpected and unusual was a dick move. People doing things that don’t make sense to others happens all of the time.
14 Likes
I got much the same sense as you, and listening to the announcers go crazy about it struck me as funny. Like, they have these “unwritten rules” about what you’re SUPPOSED to do in such and such a situation and it blew their minds someone wouldn’t do what they thought best. She said “screw it” and just played the hand out because of sunk cost fallacy and knowing a bit about her opponents own use of bluffing to win hands. And it paid off for her. No cheating involved at all, just committing to a course of action despite the judgement of the so-called experts. Sometimes you take a chance and gamble… and isn’t that what poker ultimately is?
Shame he was such a spoilsport about it and couldn’t admit he got bested.
17 Likes
You know, a lot of people are focusing on the fact that her call of the all-in bet was a bad call (and it was, statistically), but no one is pointing out that Adelstein’s all-in push was not a bet based on math. It was based on him reading that she didn’t have anything. The numbers on the screen showed that he had a 53% chance of winning, but he didn’t know that. For all he knew, she could have had a pair at that point, in which case she would have been the favorite, and he, statistically, would have been making a bad bet. He was trying to bully her into folding, which is a perfectly allowable and common poker strategy. You often see people betting this way, but it’s not based on math. The math play here would have been for him to call and see another card. Neither of them were betting based on math and statistics. They were both playing on emotion and reading their opponent. Did she make a bad call? Yeah, she did, and I think nearly everyone who has played very much Texas Hold Em at all would say that. But people make bad calls all the time and win the hand. I’ve made bad calls and got lucky and won hands. And I’ve had people get mad at me at the table, but no one has ever accused me of cheating. They’ve just accused me of playing bad and getting lucky, which does annoy a certain subset of poker bros (see nearly any video of Phil Hellmuth) If a 6, 7, 8, J, or any club hits the turn or the river, Adelstein wins and this story doesn’t exist. The production company behind this tournament is investigating the entire incident. The funny part of that is that they’re hiring an outside investigative firm to do it, and that firm has said they may use polygraph tests. They’re going to try to use a lie detector test. On people who literally lie for a living. You can’t make this shit up.
ETA: I meant to say, after my statement about him winning if a 6, 7, 8, J, or any club hit, is that even if she somehow knew what cards he had, she had no way of knowing what cards were coming next. If she were cheating, she was cheating for a 47% chance of winning. That wouldn’t be very smart cheating. She wasn’t cheating.
22 Likes
This whole thing is absurd to me. I’m not a math person and I’ve only ever played poker casually, but isn’t the entire point of poker that you’re playing your cards and your opponent. I’ve had shitty hands that I’ve won by observing a tell and I’ve lost good hands on an unlucky river. I never once accused anyone of cheating when I lost.
21 Likes
Man, this whole thing is crazy to me. Tell me poker players don’t understand statistics without telling me. She’s still going to win almost half the time in that scenario. So, no, don’t listen to the experts who insist you must play “this way” or else you’re bad, and a cheater, and they’ll bully you into turning over your winnings. That’s how THEY win, by bullying, not by actually playing the odds. His “all in bet” was a bully tactic, because he had a shit hand and BARELY a better chance of winning. And his tactic failed, and that’s what upsets him. She didn’t do what he wanted her to do, she did what SHE wanted.
There are no “bad bets.” There are winning bets and losing ones, that’s it. She won, so it was an excellent bet. Professional poker is a joke because of these sorts of attitudes.
21 Likes
Is it bad of me to wish social media “influencers” would abandon stuff like Instagram and Tik Tok in favor chasing poker winnings? /S
9 Likes
This basically how I win at poker, when I do; I do wild and unpredictable things because I am a bad poker player. Nonsensical behavior is something I really excel at. The truly sad thing, however is that in this instance, didn’t she give money back because she was scared of him?? That shit is so messed up. Eff this guy.
11 Likes
Yes, but, to be fair, it is a call you would not normally see at this level of professional poker. At your local casino at a $2/$5 table on a Friday night, sure, but not at the pro level. It’s an odd call. If she had A high, or a small pair, no one would be raising an eyebrow. She correctly read her opponent as being on a draw rather than actually having anything. The problem is that she didn’t have anything either, and her nothing was J high, which is a pretty weak hand to call a bluff with. Again, I definitely think she wasn’t cheating. She just made a bad call.
I want to add another thing. While I’ve never seen a call like this in televised pro poker, I have seen other bad calls and bad raises and bad folds in televised pro poker. They happen all the time. Sometimes, they’re even praised. YouTube recently recommended a highlight video of some amateur playing against pros who folded pocket aces, and the tone of the video made it clear they were celebrating the move, when, if you watch it, was as stupid a fold as this was a call, even though it worked out in the folder’s favor. I don’t know how this is going to play out, but it’s all bullshit.
4 Likes
My earlier mention of this got gobbled in clean up, so re-posting. Anyone thinking the woman in this scenario was playing poorly or “being stupid” isn’t taking into account the gender dynamics of poker, which, at these levels, is 97% men.
Maria Konnikova wrote about it in her book, “The Biggest Bluff.” From the review:
Konnikova endures the harassment, the terrible name-calling and condescension and idiocy, turning the tables with her knowledge again, including a study that shows men are 6 percent more likely to try to bluff women in a hand, which prompts Konnikova to realize they will fold more often, too, if she plays more erratically — if she raises, check-raises and three-bets.
So, given that they had near equal odds on that hand, and that men are more likely to bluff women, or fold if the women play erratically, she was actually playing it pretty smart, whether she intended to or not. 
It’s infuriating that she was bullied into giving him money. 
29 Likes
They both had shit hands and they both did impulsive things with those shit hands. It’s bizarre that anyone is questioning her thinking without also questioning his. Oh, wait, it’s not bizarre. It’s patriarchy.
26 Likes
Right? He was “playing the hand perfectly” to bluff the pot up to over $200k with a crummy hand, but somehow she was an idiot for calling that bluff with a slightly less crummy hand.
32 Likes
For anyone thinking she shouldn’t have given the money back, don’t forget how vulnerable she is here. Bros like this are dangerous when they feel slighted for any reason, and I’m sure she knows this. Not just in the moment, but afterwards. She’d get threats from all the bro poker fans in the world (which are legion) and they might decide she’s the next GamerGate-esque target who’s life needs ruining now. Giving the money back defused the situation and was a wise self-preservation move, if you ask me.
25 Likes
The whole tone here makes me think of research about men and women in conversation: when balanced mixed-gender groups are in conversation, if women do something like 30% or more of the speaking, the men perceive the women as “dominating” the conversation.
It feels like it closely parallels the logic of “Men bluff more because women can’t do good bluff play, so when a woman bluffs successfully she must be cheating.”
Seems like a natural tactic to take on in a game where you’re trying to exploit an opponent’s biased and predictable behavior to gain an advantage.
16 Likes
Oh yeah. I have experienced that gender dynamic in poker first hand, often to my benefit…temporarily. Usually, after about an hour at the table, the guys there decide I actually understand how to play and that goes away. But it’s definitely real.
7 Likes
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
