we’re “going hard” on the vibrating chair and whatnot. obviously the hand itself is weird as fuck and raises some questions
4 Likes
j/k but I couldn’t resist the opening.
The thing is, if she wasn’t cheating, you absolutely want this hand to happen! You absolutely want this woman in your game.
1 Like
which is why no matter what the result is, I’m imagining myself as another player at the table and I’d be rightfully (in my mind) incensed at all this, and honestly, from what I can gather no other player at the table is really siding with gman here
1 Like
The dealer always cuts coming out of the machine before play. So even if you hacked the shuffler to set up this lol situation, you have to set it up for dealer to execute the perfect cut or somehow mechanic the deck back in order on stream. All these conspiracies to explain away a donk hand are just so stupid.
Polk is a weird guy. It’s clear he has a great understanding of high level poker. But he did a microstakes bankroll streaming challenge a while back and struggled a bit and really seemed confused by the nonsensical stuff that happens at 5c/10c online.
2 Likes
To be clear, I’m not attacking your intelligence. I respect you as a person, but I think you have a blind spot here. The things you are trying to piece together to get to 95% confidence of cheating are absurd.
2 Likes
I echo Viridian’s sentiment, I think you’re a very smart guy, I just think you’re really reaching here
how wild would it be if garret was actually the cheater and he got upset because he knew she was supposed to fold that hand
why aren’t the same people going as hard at her even questioning possibilities like this?
being in a position where everyone thinks you did something you didn’t do is rough, because you can only rarely prove definitively (and sometimes you just straight up can’t) that something DIDN’T happen. So what people do is this fundamental logical error and assume that because something COULD have happened, it did. It’s really really frustrating and agonizing to be on the receiving end of something like that and I feel for her a lot, even though I do believe she’s a complete moron.
1 Like
Putting the vibration issue aside for the moment (and that looks like she’s nervously tapping her foot to me, but who knows), it occurs to me that this shoudl be relatively easy? Unlike the initial potripper stuff before we got those hand histories, we have every hand she played with everyone’s hole cards known to us, right? I havne’t watched the whole video, but, does she make incorrect plays for someone who knows their opponent’s hole cards? Does she ever fold the better hand? If the answer to that is yes…
If the shuffler is hacked and you know the order of cards and the number of players at the table, as soon as one card is known, an algorithm can figure out the order of the rest of the cards in the deck.
I find this theory to be a lot less likely in this case, but it’s something that’s supposedly been done in some games in Texas.
That’s fine, I don’t mind people vehemently disagreeing with me or thinking I’m way off here. I find some of the words that have been thrown at me to be abusive and offensive and unnecessary, but I don’t think much (if any? not sure and don’t care enough to go look) of that has been you.
I do think it’s notable that some live pros who have tons of experience playing with crazy players and whales think it’s more likely cheating than not - myself at mid-stakes and Dwan at nosebleeds being two examples.
Of course, the possible blind spot there is that all the times the whale calls with J4 here and you just have T9 or even QJ, they can just muck and say they missed, so you assume something like J8 or 87, not J4.
Alright, I appreciate that. To be clear while I’m super confident there was cheating, I’m not super confident in which method would have been used, I’m just considering all of the plausible ones and maintaining their plausibility.
Just cause I’m arguing XYZ is possible in that regard doesn’t mean I think it’s super likely. Even at 90-95% confidence of cheating, with several different plausible methods/strategies of it, none of them are super likely in their own right.
I do think people here are reaching with their argument being that basically nobody would be dumb enough to cheat this way. History tells us that’s not the case. Cheaters get caught in stupid ways.
She does make some incorrect plays. However they are in small pots - but also she was only in a handful of big pots prior to the J4.
So I don’t think we can really draw any other conclusions from her other hands this session.
Haven’t watched the prior sessions she played, but I did see one hand linked where she misplayed the river in a big pot.
Yah, Andy was definitely trying to calm everyone down and get the game back going. I think he saw it as a golden goose situation and wasn’t concerned at all about cheating and wanted to keep going.
Polygraph testing is only useful when you know somebody is lying and are hoping to use it to get them to tell the truth. It is not at all useful for determining if someone is telling the truth. It is only marginally more effective then flipping a coin.
Garret’s line is completely standard for him. Nothing at all odd.
I assume you haven’t watched him play because he has been caught bluffing plenty of times and almost always reacts with a smile. He’s clearly smart enough not to blow up his own spot like that.
It’s a very small sample size, like probably 300-400 hands maximum, so the sample size is really small which makes it hard to draw conclusions. She did pay off river bets in a couple spots, but she also acted quickly in those spots and they were in smaller pots. They were also in earlier streams, so if the hypothesis is she cheated on the third stream and not the first two she was on, then they’re useless.
People have used examples of her making the wrong play after the J4 hand on that stream as evidence there’s no cheating, but the brazen lunacy of cheating on camera after getting accused of cheating publicly would exceed by far the stupidity/greed of cheating w/ the J4 spot.
So basically, it appears inconclusive at this point. You could piece together a good argument for either side.
1 Like
It’s especially useful when you want to be able to say “suspect refused polygraph test” and I think that’s about it, honestly.
1 Like
They can still be telling the truth and afraid they will fail (or people will say they fail) and accept a lesser charge or make up something about someone else or whatever they think will placate their interrogators.
1 Like
nick vertucci on joey’s stream rn
Does grandma suck eggs?
Vetucci nailed it - however, I disagree that a person’s unwillingness to take a polygraph is evidence of anything, and the fact he just said he publicly thinks it does may cause him problems if he decides to terminate staff for not having taken it - idk.
He said the polygraph stuff is for his staff only, but if she would take it, he wouldn’t mind.