Man Alleging Poker Cheating Demands Better Security in Livestreamed Games (msn.com) 102
Last week the Los Angeles Times published a sympathetic portrait of Robbi Jade Lew, the woman facing unproven allegations of cheating in a high-stakes poker match.
This week the newspaper profiled the man making those accusations — Garrett Adelstein, known "as an affable guy who is known for taking even big losses in stride." "Garrett would have reacted normally if his opponent made a good, even heroic, call that cost him $100,000," said Jennifer Shahade, a pro poker player and chess champion. "I think the initial hand, the call and the situation would be suspicious under any circumstances, any gender."
In the profile we learn that Adelstein has 14 years of experience as a professional poker, and is "one of the game's best and most profitable high-stakes cash players, known to viewers of popular casino broadcasts for his loose-aggressive style of no-limit hold 'em and his willingness to buy in for enormous sums of money, bringing as much as $1 million to the table....
"On Sept. 29, Adelstein made the biggest bet of his life: risking his well-respected reputation, and possibly his poker career, when he accused rookie player Robbi Jade Lew of cheating in a $269,000 hand against him on Hustler Casino Live..." Adelstein, 36, hasn't played poker since. Whereas he once spent much of his time studying optimal strategy, reviewing past hands and appearing on streams from Hustler Casino in Gardena and Bicycle Casino in Bell Gardens, he is now hyper-focused on conducting his own investigation to prove his case. In a more than four-hour interview from his Manhattan Beach home on Tuesday, Adelstein said he was "extremely confident" that he was the target of a cheating ring involving not just Lew but other players and at least one member of the show's production crew. Lew, 37, denied the allegation, which she called "defamatory."
The drama has left Adelstein uncertain when he'll return to the poker table.... Adelstein says he has been cheated before. When he was 26, he was invited to a home game where he bought in for $100,000.... Adelstein said, he laid out his suspicions about the intricacies of the operation to the host and a business partner, and said he would go public with what happened. "They offered me a deal where they would refund me my money in exchange for my silence," he said. "And then they paid me in six installments, once a month, for a six-month period."
The incident, which he relayed on a poker podcast last year, showed Adelstein the darker side of poker and left him cautious.
He never played in a high-stakes home game with strangers again, choosing to exclusively play in casinos, where he reasoned cheating would be less likely. Still, "I'm always looking out for it," he said. "I'm not the world's most trusting guy when it comes to poker."
The article notes how major poker sites were busted 15 years ago for "superuser" accounts with cheating privileges — and a 2019 lawsuit in which dozens of pros sued a player and gambling hall accused of leaking info from the RFID-tagged cards uesd in their livestreams. "When it comes to stream security and these types of games, as professionals we're obviously always on the lookout so it doesn't happen again," poker player Matt Berkey said of the aftermath. "Garrett's one of the biggest players who plays on stream, so he himself is more of a potential target."
"Hustler Casino Live," the streaming show that hosted the now-infamous Sept. 29 game, also uses RFID playing cards. Since its first show aired in August 2021, it has become the world's most-watched poker stream, combining the drama of the game with huge amounts of cash, poker's top players, celebrities and other colorful personalities. "Hustler Casino Live" now has more than 1 million monthly unique viewers and 185,000 subscribers.
The show's games are streamed five days a week on a delay of one to four hours to prevent information from being passed to players live. But now its stream security has been called into question, with players saying tighter protocols need to be implemented. They've raised concerns over the number of employees who had access to the control room where hole cards were being monitored, and a few have said the stream should temporarily shut down while the investigation is ongoing....
"I thought that streamed poker was, at least by comparison to the other options, one of the last safe havens," Adelstein said. "And at this point, I have so little faith in that...."
"Live at the Bike," on which Adelstein has played several times, has been hitting him up since Sept. 29 in the hopes that he will join its stream. But he says he's not in the right headspace for it.
"There's I guess a world in the next several weeks or months where maybe I'm able to process this and want to play a poker game. But at the moment, that's not how I feel," he said.
"I'm not playing poker on a stream again unless I see tangible, noticeable, measurable differences in livestream security," he continued. "That's for my own benefit and it's for the benefit of the poker community at large."
This week the newspaper profiled the man making those accusations — Garrett Adelstein, known "as an affable guy who is known for taking even big losses in stride." "Garrett would have reacted normally if his opponent made a good, even heroic, call that cost him $100,000," said Jennifer Shahade, a pro poker player and chess champion. "I think the initial hand, the call and the situation would be suspicious under any circumstances, any gender."
In the profile we learn that Adelstein has 14 years of experience as a professional poker, and is "one of the game's best and most profitable high-stakes cash players, known to viewers of popular casino broadcasts for his loose-aggressive style of no-limit hold 'em and his willingness to buy in for enormous sums of money, bringing as much as $1 million to the table....
"On Sept. 29, Adelstein made the biggest bet of his life: risking his well-respected reputation, and possibly his poker career, when he accused rookie player Robbi Jade Lew of cheating in a $269,000 hand against him on Hustler Casino Live..." Adelstein, 36, hasn't played poker since. Whereas he once spent much of his time studying optimal strategy, reviewing past hands and appearing on streams from Hustler Casino in Gardena and Bicycle Casino in Bell Gardens, he is now hyper-focused on conducting his own investigation to prove his case. In a more than four-hour interview from his Manhattan Beach home on Tuesday, Adelstein said he was "extremely confident" that he was the target of a cheating ring involving not just Lew but other players and at least one member of the show's production crew. Lew, 37, denied the allegation, which she called "defamatory."
The drama has left Adelstein uncertain when he'll return to the poker table.... Adelstein says he has been cheated before. When he was 26, he was invited to a home game where he bought in for $100,000.... Adelstein said, he laid out his suspicions about the intricacies of the operation to the host and a business partner, and said he would go public with what happened. "They offered me a deal where they would refund me my money in exchange for my silence," he said. "And then they paid me in six installments, once a month, for a six-month period."
The incident, which he relayed on a poker podcast last year, showed Adelstein the darker side of poker and left him cautious.
He never played in a high-stakes home game with strangers again, choosing to exclusively play in casinos, where he reasoned cheating would be less likely. Still, "I'm always looking out for it," he said. "I'm not the world's most trusting guy when it comes to poker."
The article notes how major poker sites were busted 15 years ago for "superuser" accounts with cheating privileges — and a 2019 lawsuit in which dozens of pros sued a player and gambling hall accused of leaking info from the RFID-tagged cards uesd in their livestreams. "When it comes to stream security and these types of games, as professionals we're obviously always on the lookout so it doesn't happen again," poker player Matt Berkey said of the aftermath. "Garrett's one of the biggest players who plays on stream, so he himself is more of a potential target."
"Hustler Casino Live," the streaming show that hosted the now-infamous Sept. 29 game, also uses RFID playing cards. Since its first show aired in August 2021, it has become the world's most-watched poker stream, combining the drama of the game with huge amounts of cash, poker's top players, celebrities and other colorful personalities. "Hustler Casino Live" now has more than 1 million monthly unique viewers and 185,000 subscribers.
The show's games are streamed five days a week on a delay of one to four hours to prevent information from being passed to players live. But now its stream security has been called into question, with players saying tighter protocols need to be implemented. They've raised concerns over the number of employees who had access to the control room where hole cards were being monitored, and a few have said the stream should temporarily shut down while the investigation is ongoing....
"I thought that streamed poker was, at least by comparison to the other options, one of the last safe havens," Adelstein said. "And at this point, I have so little faith in that...."
"Live at the Bike," on which Adelstein has played several times, has been hitting him up since Sept. 29 in the hopes that he will join its stream. But he says he's not in the right headspace for it.
"There's I guess a world in the next several weeks or months where maybe I'm able to process this and want to play a poker game. But at the moment, that's not how I feel," he said.
"I'm not playing poker on a stream again unless I see tangible, noticeable, measurable differences in livestream security," he continued. "That's for my own benefit and it's for the benefit of the poker community at large."
Two things (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Anyone who thinks online play, whether poker, blackjack, baccarat, etc, is secure and a "safe haven" is deluding themselves. It is far more susceptible to cheating and other shenanigans than live playing.
B) This guy sounds like election deniers. He "knows" there was cheating yet can't show any instance of said cheating (in this case).
Crap happens. It's always possible Lew got extraordinarily lucky and he just happened to be the person playing her at that moment in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is reasonable, he has 14 years of experience as a professional poker!
In the profile we learn that Adelstein has 14 years of experience as a professional poker, and is "one of the game's best...
Although he doesn't beat my brother with 25 years experience as an professional airplane nor my step father with 30 years experience as a professional bus!
Re: (Score:1)
You Misread (Score:2)
A) Anyone who thinks online play, whether poker, blackjack, baccarat, etc, is secure and a "safe haven" is deluding themselves. It is far more susceptible to cheating and other shenanigans than live playing.
I don't know what you think he was saying, but he was talking about live, in-person poker streamed online, not "online play" of poker or anything else you listed.
"I thought that streamed poker was, at least by comparison to the other options, one of the last safe havens," Adelstein said. "And at this point, I have so little faith in that...."
Re: (Score:2)
We know that they are cheating, example below:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/c... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Hillary conceded, no denial there.
7 of the last 8 elections won by the D's (2004 Bush the only GOP win since '92) but somehow 3 GOP presidents. So yeah, electoral college should be toast. It maybe made sense in 1787 or the Pony Express days, but makes little sense now, other than it over-represents large tracts of land, rather than people.
Re: (Score:2)
>How did they get robbed? We don't do elections by total. We do them by electoral college votes.
Al Gore *was* robbed. I notice you didn't mention him...
>Hillary is an election denier.
Hilary lost in the EC, but doesn't insist that she actually won. And she doesn't go around insisting there was fraud. So how is she an election denier again?
Re: (Score:2)
The president should be the candidate most people want, not the one that comes second.
There lies your misunderstanding. The office of the President is given to the states to decide, not to the people (in the same way the senate originally was). States have chosen to award their electors to the winner of a popular election, but they do not have to.
It's that whole "federal republic" thing at work.
Re: (Score:2)
The president should be the candidate most people want, not the one that comes second.
There lies your misunderstanding. The office of the President is given to the states to decide, not to the people
No, GP understands perfectly well. They're stating that this is undesirable. And I agree. The idea that Americans can't handle democracy is insulting at best.
Re: (Score:2)
The president should be the candidate most people want, not the one that comes second.
There lies your misunderstanding. The office of the President is given to the states to decide, not to the people
No, GP understands perfectly well. They're stating that this is undesirable. And I agree. The idea that Americans can't handle democracy is insulting at best.
The idea that Americans can't handle democracy is insulting at best.
Sounds fairly insulting to me, too, I'm glad I didn't say or suggest such.
No, GP understands perfectly well.
He appears to understand that the electoral college is a thing, and thinks it's stupid, but it's decidedly unclear if he understands the "why" of it (i.e. is simply ignorant, or if he feigns ignorance as a rhetorical device).
GP's rhetorical construct about the electoral college being poorly designed is answered quite simply: "sure, it's anti-democratic, but it's not supposed to be a popular election in the first place--the states pick
Re: Two things (Score:2)
If the rules were different the strategies to get votes would be different. Change the winning conditions and the way votes are purchased changes. Your assertion that the rules are not the conditions for winning reveal a level of immaturity and/or partisanship that occludes reality to a disturbing degree.
A loss according to the rules is a loss. Before you can even consider yourself capable of restructuring a country's voting system you may want to work on understanding cause and effect and facts.
Re:Two things (Score:4, Insightful)
On B: yeah, Hillary and Stacie both insisted they got robbed but no evidence in either case. I'm with you, bro! Those election deniers are nuts!
Funny, I didn't see either Hillary or anyone else running around filing case after case after case to overturn the election. Hillary wasn't on tv every single day whining about "fake" voters or "illegal" voters or anything similar.
Now mind you, what we have seen for the past 2 years is whining after whining after whining from a sore loser, various attorneys, and even elected officials, claim the election was rigged, that President Biden isn't really the president. We've even seen some government officials let outside whackadoodles view and possibly alter voting machines they're so sure the election was rigged. There's even one nutjob who keeps claiming they have tons of evidence they'll turn over to the FBI it's so ironclad. And yet . . .
So yes, those election deniers are nuts.
Re: (Score:1)
So seeing folks on video in Georgia doing -something- with no one watching after they sent everyone home doesn't even raise a question? That's not irregular? Ok. It doesn't even matter if they didn't do anything wrong. The appearance of potential wrong doing is wrong and they should not have been doing anything without watchers. It was irregular. How can we expect voters to have faith in the system based entirely on "you just have to trust me! *grin* "?
Re: (Score:1)
Why are people on the room at all? Why are they moving boxes? As I said I don't care if they were actually criminal or not. That is completely unimportant. The point is you need to run elections in an incontestable way. No irregularities.
You can recount and recount and recount some more all the fucking day but once you fuck up like they did you have destroyed integrity trust and faith which can not be so easily restored, if ever.
Don't do stupid highly irregular shit and no one will question anything.
Ho
Re: (Score:1)
Was anyone from either party in the room? No. They had all been sent home.
Then they started touching ballots.
That is the raw pure absolutely 100% definition of stupid shit.
There is a reason all those watchers are in the room. Do I seriously need to explain this simple concept or you going to stick to "oh it's all cool to have the counters fucking around with no one else watching them and then everyone should just blindly trust everything was ok" (which defeats the entire point and purpose of having all t
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have to invent a reason for the EC. My opinion is irrelevant. We have it. If you don't like it, there is a process to change it. If you get enough support for your new scheme that will be how we do elections and once part of the constitution I will support it.
Until then, shrug, you're just whining about random shit.
Were you upset about the black panthers standing outside polling places in Pennsylvania harassing white people? Was that ok because the victims were white or was it ok because it's s
Re: (Score:2)
Did we all collectively forget that Hillary rigged the Democrat primary to screw over Bernie Sanders? This isn't a conspiracy theory; it happened. The DNC even argued in court that it was a private corporation that need not respect the results of any vote - and won. [observer.com]
Here is several minutes of two-second clips with major political, media and cultural figures denying election results and calling the President illegitimate. [youtu.be] The party considers the act of denial itself illegitimate and ban-worthy, if not c
Re: Two things (Score:2)
And its not a "stolen election" when a candidate wins without getting the "popular vote."
Re:Two things (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm...
Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’ [yahoo.com]
Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’ [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They were robbed. The clear evidence is that they won the majority vote. They were robbed by a stupid system. Neither claimed the election was rigged.
Re: Two things (Score:2)
You cannot be robbed of a contest where all parties understand and work continually toward the same known win conditions.
That you maintain otherwise disqualifies you from considerarion on any subject. You are complaining that your basketball team got more touchdowns than the other basketball team they lost to.
Touchdowns don't matter in basketball, and neither does the "popular vote," in the presedential election.
If touchdowns mattered in the win conditions, the players, the coaching, the strategy, and even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree. Life should be about work from cradle to grave then death. We are all work-bots. That is our only reason to exist.
Loose/Aggressive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, she's a lousy player. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that she misread her hand as J3, hero called but won anyway. Apparently that was Phil Ivey's take on it too.
Here's a bunch of poker pros talking about the hand, quite interesting:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo... [twoplustwo.com]
And here's Adelstein's thoughts on the matter:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo... [twoplustwo.com]
Re: Loose/Aggressive (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. That is the kind of info I was looking for in the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
its exactly that. she made a dumb choice, but it paid out.
Re: (Score:3)
I am probably a completely average poker player, but I've played with people who are a lot more serious about the game, keeping track of odds, who checked, who check-raised, who raised and then checked, and so on. I usually lose to them, but every once in a while I've caught them with their pants down, and they've behaved just like Garrett did at the table: completely baffled on why I would do what I did and lose their speech. And of course it's because I'm just an average player and I don't do everything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Loose/Aggressive (Score:2)
I watched my wife win her first ever game of Texas hold em against players who go to Vegas many yimes a year and bring back large sums of money from playing poker games and tournaments.
We had to write down the hierarchy of winning hands on a white board for her, and remind her of the rules repeatedly, after all.
How could somone who does not know the game win repearedly against 12 experienced players all night?
Maybe she cheated, one might think. Knowing my wife, and talking to her afterwards, i would say sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When you think your opponent is bluffing but you also have shit, such as J high, you need to raise, and if you cant, you need to fold. There is no call.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is he sexist? I read the entire article. At no point does the article quote him saying anything sexist, nor state or imply he had previously said anything even remotely sexist.
Do you have information from elsewhere to back up that bold assertion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She was all-in, he was not (from what I understand).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He had more money than her, so when he went "all in" it was only up to the amount of money she had. That is, she would have lost everything, but he wouldn't have.
Of all the poker scandals (Score:3)
Digging Deeper (Score:3)
Adelstein said he was "extremely confident" that he was the target of a cheating ring involving not just Lew but other players and at least one member of the show's production crew. Lew, 37, denied the allegation, which she called "defamatory."
To put it in poker terms, unless his hand is a whole lot better than he's shown so far he really needs to fold.
On a separate note, I want to make a comment I now need to hunt around for the 'X' on the ad that's covering up the comment text box?? Between this and the "Newsletter" subscription popup something is going seriously screwy with /.
Re:Digging Deeper (Score:4, Informative)
>>I want to make a comment I now need to hunt around for the 'X' on the ad that's covering up the comment text box??
adblock
The guy should let it drop (Score:4, Informative)
I think some people who gamble a lot have ways of tricking themselves into believing that it's not really gambling for them, because they have a 'system' or they've been historically lucky or good at their game. I've played at a table with people like this before, and it can be a real drag. If I do something that doesn't fit their system, then I have somehow contributed to their loss. For example, at a blackjack table, I take a card in a situation where their system says I shouldn't, and it doesn't help me. But that card would have helped them. Therefore, I have taken 'their' card according to their system, and it's my fault that they lose the hand. Or I bluff with a handfull of slop and they fold on a hand that's weak, but still better than mine.
From watching the video of this hand play out, the guy was bluffing. He didn't have the cards, and he made a big bet anyway. The woman who called his bluff also didn't have the cards, but she won anyway with a crummy hand. That's not cheating; it's gambling. And that guy may think he's a great poker player, and maybe he even is, but at the end of the day, there's a very strong element of chance in poker, and you can lose even when the odds are in your favor. (And they weren't, particularly, in his case.)
Re:The guy should let it drop (Score:4, Insightful)
Superficially, this feels like a similar situation. He expected the other player to play a certain way, they didn't and he lost. Essentially he's coming across as salty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall some kid beat a grandmaster with one of the well known early game traps that lets you win in only half a dozen moves, many years ago. Can't find the details now, and I think it was just a friendly game, but the excuse given was that the use of that trap was so unexpected the master didn't even consider it when making his moves.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
the guy was bluffing. He didn't have the cards, and he made a big bet anyway. The woman who called his bluff also didn't have the cards, but she won anyway with a crummy hand. That's not cheating; it's gambling.
That depends. If she was calling a possible bluff, that's gambling. If she knew his cards, that's cheating.
Re:The guy should let it drop (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The guy should let it drop (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see any reason why, if she knew his cards, she would call
Ding ding ding! Bingo! Unless she knew what was going to come up on the River, even if she knew his cards, it was completely stupid of her to call. He had an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw, to her J. She gambled. She won. End of story in my opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see any reason why, if she knew his cards, she would call
Ding ding ding! Bingo! Unless she knew what was going to come up on the River, even if she knew his cards, it was completely stupid of her to call. He had an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw, to her J. She gambled. She won. End of story in my opinion.
She was the favorite. 24 cards win for her, 20 for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He was sitting on 7-8 clubs with 9-10 clubs already on the table. She had a J clubs and 4 hearts. He has the stronger hand at that moment (at that point, they favored him 70%). Then another card comes out, 3 hearts. Now he can win with a flush if any club comes out, win with a straight if a 6 or J comes out, win with a pair if a 7 or 8 comes out, and she's relying on drawing 4 or J to get a pair, or for the last card to be trash and win with her high J. They still favor him 53%.
When he went all-in she was the favorite. His 20 outs are 8 clubs, 6 non-club straight cards, and 6 pairing cards. Her outs are the 24 other cards.
Re: (Score:3)
This Guy.... (Score:4, Informative)
He was bluffing, maybe she could tell... (Score:3)
Adelstein was holding the seven and eight of clubs; Lew the jack of clubs and the four of hearts. After the flop — the first three communal cards — Adelstein had a straight flush draw, a hand with a lot of potential to win. Lew’s hand at that point was objectively terrible, but she called his bet anyway.
The fourth communal card, known as the turn, didn’t help either player. Adelstein semi-bluffed and bet out again; Lew raised. Adelstein responded by pushing all in for the remainder of Lew’s chips: $109,000.
Lew called — a shockingly unorthodox move that paid off. She took down the huge $269,000 pot when Adelstein failed to improve his hand after all the cards were dealt.
Though his had "potential", they both had bad hands. He was bluffing while hoping to fill out his straight flush; it didn't happen. Maybe he has a tell and/or she simply sensed something was off -- and maybe doesn't exactly know why she could tell. They both plowed on; she got lucky and he got burned. Would he be complaining if he had lost to a guy or admiring his gutsy play?
Re: (Score:1)
What does her being female have to do with this?
I read the entire article. I saw nothing in there directly or indirectly from him or anyone else saying anything that could be taken as sexism.
Do you have information from elsewhere?
On what do you base that bold assertion that his complaint is due to her sex?
Re: (Score:2)
Would he be complaining if he had lost to a guy or admiring his gutsy play?
On what do you base that bold assertion that his complaint is due to her sex?
It wasn't an assertion, just a question. Take the chip off your shoulder.
Unfortunately, sexism (subtle or overt) in sports and gaming isn't unknown or even uncommon.
When this story broke earlier on /. someone else here expressed the same thought (before I did).
I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable thought.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's a wholly unreasonable thought drawn from thin air based on nothing which besmirches a man for no reason.
It only says we should always assume men are evil and women are always innocent victims due solely to having a vagina.
It's a bunch of nonsense and not worth asking or raising in any way.
Why not say he accused her because of her race or the dress she wore or her shoes or her hair style or where she was raised? None of those were referenced in the article either. But suddenly for no reason ou
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, no. It's not an unreasonable thought or question and thinking/asking it doesn't besmirch anyone. Asking questions is how things get resolved. If it's not true, then it's not true.
Why not say he accused her because of her race or the dress she wore or her shoes or her hair style or where she was raised? None of those were referenced in the article either.
People have wondered about things she wore, like her ruby ring, bulge in her stocking (which reported was her microphone pack) and her sunglasses -- all noted in TFA. And if other people have actually wondered these things, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Adelstein could too.
But as to casting aspersions without any
Re: (Score:1)
Yes he besmirched her reputation with no proof. Absolutely.
The right answer is to crush him in court for defamation.
The wrong answer is to besmirch him as sexist based on nothing more than her vagina status.
I'm not a pro level poker player, I don't pretend to know what either was or should have been thinking, what the right play was, the odds, etc etc etc. and none of those things is important to my point. My point is strictly that smearing him with sexism charges without evidence is wrong. There is no
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and why I am arguing in his defense? Because I'm an absolutist about fairness, justice, and treating everyone in an absolutely unbiased manner. He might be a dick leveling false zero evidence charges but there are just and fair ways to deal with that. Falsely charging someone with some random crap that will follow him for the rest of his life that he's not even guilty of when he's already going to get crushed for his real wrong doing is double jeopardy and just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily disagree.
So far, the best armchair explanation I've heard is that she misread or miscalculated things and got (very) lucky. The contrary to that is that she unknowingly or subconsciously read things correctly -- more likely cues from him rather than the cards -- and acted on that when she, more logically, shouldn't have. I think the phrase is "went with her gut".
In any case, either she somehow cheated in some currently undiscovered way or got very lucky, accidentally or not. All t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. A bad move/play even with a good/lucky outcome, is, or may be, a mistake, but is not necessarily/automatically cheating. TFA noted (below) that Adelstein apparently tweeted that she must have cheated and that definitive an assertion seems premature:
That night, in a lengthy statement posted on Twitter, Adelstein reasoned that Lew never would have continued playing with the cards she had unless she was cheating, ...
Re: (Score:3)
What would happen if they stop RFID chip cards? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Behavior Panel don't think she is lying (Score:3)
"RFID cards"?! (Score:2)
Wait, what? I think I see the problem here.
BRB, going to hit the local Indian-feather-not-dot casino with my HackRF.
What Garrett and Robbi did were NOT the same (Score:1)
Let me start by observing I don't know whether or not Robbi cheated. I don't think the evidence is that strong, but it isn't exactly weak either.
Robbi's call made no sense at all. When Garrett shoved all in with low equity (a bluff), the play makes sense because of what is called 'fold equity'. If you think your opponent'