Using this logic, it could also be shadow people that were signaling her. You have a completely unfalsifiable position. In your model, cheating is fixed and the explanation for how the cheating may have occurred is a degree of freedom. In that case, you’d need basically everyone to agree that cheating occurred like in the Postle case, and, well, here we are.
Unless I’m misunderstanding the alleged complexity of scheme #2, Bryan is not involved in that one. So then how do you explain him palming $15k if he’s not one of the cheaters?
I don’t think anyone has seen someone who has a baseline of relative competency do something like this without misreading their hand/the board. I haven’t seen an example anywhere.
She’s switched her story on that AND she didn’t react at all when she tabled her hand and saw J4.
NO SHE’S NOT!!! We KNOW for a fact she’s been playing a year. She says she’s been playing 2+ years.
That people bluff with open ended straight draws and nut flush draws is not deep poker logic. You need her to be a rank newcomer for this defense to hold up.
According to her, and nobody else has said this. But I’m sure she’s just lying about everything else and not this. Also I’m pretty sure her story changed on this after the fact. Didn’t she give an interview on camera in which this never came up and she claimed they were cool?
No, she gave back $135K. That’s a few steps above trying to diffuse the situation.
Only if you take her at her word when it’s most convenient on topics she’s changed her story on.
There is not enough evidence to form a conclusive narrative at this point. The $15k is such an odd coincidence it wouldn’t be fair to not weigh it heavily. It could however be just that.
She has changed her story repeatedly on several issues. And I wouldn’t convict her on a jury, 99% is not beyond a shadow of a doubt imo. But in a world where law enforcement gave a shit about poker cheats, they’d have access to every camera angle to prove their case, so we’d get a much better picture.
I wish we could run a natural experiment and put you in the middle of the largest poker scandal of all time with millions calling you a cheater or moron and watch to see you stick 100% to one story with zero variation. No human on earth would do so.
You don’t need a conclusive narrative to have a narrative.
Let’s say that our null hypothesis is that she didn’t cheat. Then we should come up with an alternative hypothesis to test against the null hypothesis. I don’t think this should be constructed as simply cheat/didn’t cheat. The alternative hypothesis could be stated in terms of she cheated for these reasons by these methods. Those who think she cheated have fixated upon psychology as proof that she cheated.
I could never end up in this spot. I’d just say search me on the spot. I’d also obviously never play a hand this absurdly poorly, so it’s a moot point anyway.
But I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t go from no misread to misread to no misread to I don’t remember if I misread to I definitely did misread, nor would I be making up shit the police supposedly said whole cloth.
The point is that just because you wouldn’t do it, that doesn’t mean that every innocent person also wouldn’t do that in the same situation. It’s reasonable for her shifting story to make you suspicious of cheating, but I don’t think it justifies feeling quite as certain as you seem to be.
I’m talking about general psychology not this specific situation. Can you think of a single famous global scandal where we can’t easily find inconsistencies in the main players story. I’d bet a lot of money there is not one single example, ever.
The standard for criminal conviction is “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Big difference imo.
Are you saying you’re currently at 99% she cheated? I don’t think we’re anywhere near that level of certainty in this case. But it’s also true that “innocent until proven guilty” is a standard that applies only to the state, not to people discussing and speculating on the internet.
OK, It is highly relevant to someone’s current assessment of their own ability. In much the same way that you hold up “there are no hand histories of her looking like a total fish” as evidence of her current ability, your form in grossly overestimating your own ability is a factor here in your estimation of your own psychological prowess at the table.
But let’s leave that to one side.
The main problem is that you ascribe only the poker qualities to her of a rational actor, have never (afaik) played with her and have no particular insight into her psychology any better than anyone else here, give or take a small margin.