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
8 Likes
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
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?
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
21 Likes
19 Likes
I wish I could say I was shocked, but these assholes can handle the slightest criticism or loss of face…
17 Likes
I’m not defending this jackass, but it’s generally accepted that Mike Postle cheated over the course of months with the assistance of someone inside Stones’ casino in their streamed games, because of the RFID cards. It’s not a ridiculous assertion in general terms, since it’s happened, but doing so on the basis of one hand is completely ridiculous.
3 Likes
Yeah, he had a shot at a straight or a flush, but it was far from a sure thing. He should have known better.
4 Likes
