Yup, most poker drama is like this.
Something that can be easily resolved but for the personality of those involved.
1 Like
Have you ruled out anal beads yet?
How has nobody suggested these! I’ve used them. They could work.
1 Like
I kinda wonder the opposite. If no other information is presented, the non-cheating side will proclaim victory but for the most part people will stick to their preconceived beliefs.
If evidence of cheating does come out however, boy are a lot of people here going to look foolish.
It seems like you are coming up with a ton of potential scenarios that may theoretically possible and then concluding that because you can think of so many it is very likely that one of them was used in this situation without taking time to consider just how likely any particular scenario would be to pull off. Like, with this magician’s device, how close does it have to be to read cards? Can it read them from the other side of the table? If not, how is it even possible to use effectively to pull off this hand? The RFID stuff I’m familiar with (which admittedly isn’t much) has a pretty close proximity requirement. I don’t really see any plausible way she could effectively cheat reliably with a hidden device that required being waved near a card in order to be able to read it. A pack of gum? It’s going to look real suspicious if she’s constantly asking people if they want a pack of gum and waving the pack near their cards. Maybe I misunderstand the technology?
5 Likes
Whats the opposite here
How other people will feel about this thread if it turns out she cheated.
Surprised
Probably not referring to you here
I think I was pretty clear that I wasn’t suggesting that device was likely used here:
And no I’m not using the existence of these devices as proof in this case or even as evidence. A very simplified version of the arguments ITT so far are:
Pro-cheating side: J4??? WTF??? She must have cheated, right?
Anti-cheating side: Lol WTF??? She prob misread her hand or made a dumb call at a good time. How would she even cheat?
PC: Tons of ways, that hand is way to suspicious and we should investigate.
AC: How would she even cheat???
PC: Here are some plausible ways, none are very likely on their own but they need to investigate this have and the security of the stream.
AC: These conspiracy nuts are pushing absurd theories just cause a woman beat a man!!!
People who think she cheated have laid out a bunch of plausible ways. Doesn’t mean we’re pushing any of those as the way it happened, if it did.
Part of what I’m trying to point out is that these scenarios aren’t actually that plausible if you think about them for a few seconds. Pointing out there is technology that could read cards in some theoretical scenario, doesn’t make it plausible in this context.
3 Likes
There are plenty of scenarios that are plausible in this context, but when I point them out I’m called a conspiracy nut. Then when I say:
That example is still treated as if it’s supposed to apply to this hand/context.
Clearly people are just looking to poke at me and fight with me at this point.
I’m not looking to fight you. What iyo is/are the most plausible cheating scenarios, too two or three? I might have missed where you identified them, but I only remember you deflecting when asked.
I’ll leave it be if you’re tired of talking about it, though.
I mean the most plausible is compromising a device, either the shuffler or something in the chain of transmission from hole card reader → live stream, then having it relayed back to her by a communication device or signal.
Second most plausible is somehow reading the RFIDs at the table, mapping the deck from a prior stream (if they don’t remove them from play enough), then using that info the next time.
Expecting anyone to get into exactly what was compromised or how it was communicated is impossible, given that we don’t have access to any of the evidence - and if there was a device snuck onto the stage and used, they let them walk out with it too.
I’m very interested in new information or general discussions over securing live streams, rather than pretending this is all conspiratorial nonsense and these live streams are 100% secure regardless of the outcome here. I’m not interested in re-re-re-re-re-litigating whether discussing the possible plausibility of a method means I’m saying they used that method, etc.
At the end of the day it appears they’re going to run a decent investigation with third parties having free reign to investigate whatever is available, but that they let a lot of potential evidence walk out the door and may not have had proper systems in place to preserve data from the feed/stream. We may or may not get any firm answers. Hopefully at least some of our questions get answered.
Someone asked me today if Rip was accused or suspected, which led me to an interesting realization: someone there had to accuse him, because Vertucci said he decided not to search Rip’s bag. Why would he say that? Did they also decide not to search Andy’s bag or the 4 seat’s bag or the 5 seat’s bag? etc? There was some reason they were considering searching Rip’s bag, and nobody from HCL or from the game has said what it is.
Hopefully the answer to that comes out in the investigation.
I think the pushback is that people on the cheating side have been pointing to various pieces of evidence saying they are suspicious and make it more likely she cheated. If/when it’s shown that those pieces of evidence aren’t actually suspicious or are contradictory, rather than reassess their degree of certainty she cheated, they just pivot and look for additional things to support their opinion.
13 Likes
So 1,000:1? My 100 to your 100K?
2 Likes
I don’t think saying this:
Equals saying this:
Therefore, I don’t think removing some of the possible methods from the realm of plausibility impacts the overall likelihood that cheating occurred. The most plausible methods could easily be concealed from the stream, so the only ones that are going to be “investigated” on Joey or Doug or Berkey’s streams are going to be the ones that are more around the edges.
3 Likes
Did you watch the video? You still think she cheated with a device?
The part I don’t get is why people keep using the hypothetical possibility of cheating as evidence of any kind. It’s like saying someone murdered someone because being shot it deadly.