because I know he has reading comprehension issues and may or may not be able to use a search tool and will accuse me of making it up:
The mods are editing your posts? Seems like extremely stupid moderating imo
Jesus the last few hundred posts are stupid read.
Anyway covering some points.
The Ivey hand isn’t a fair comparison. Neither player called it off. Neither player should really be firing off with their made hands on this board (except bottom full trying to get stacks in vs morr combos of Jx) as it’s hard for opponents to continue calling down without a piece. Basically bluff vs bluff a heap.
Rui Cao hand same thing. 72o game adds 16 combos (12 once you see Rui’s hand) of specific bluffs that 87o beats. With the preflop action (Dwan open, Cao 3b, Dwan call, Dwan C/R flop on AQx) Dwan never really ever has the value hands except Ax two pair and bottom set. Meanwhile Rui’s range is way stronger (AKx and AQx boards always favour the last preflop aggressor range vs range).
Shame nothing actually interesting has come out yet.
I would say, if the Robbi hand hypothetically went
Garrett 7k on turn
Robbi 15k
Garrett 40k
Robbi shove
Garrett shrug call it off with a weak read against a range that doesn’t contain mostly FHs hoping to suck out
Then no one accuses Robbi of cheating nearly as hard.
Same applies if Robbi called 3 times F/T/R
PM me the edits
If I wanted to be involved with petty arguments and he said she said Id watch the Kardashians rather than read a thread named “pokernews and live streams” on a forum created as an offbranch of a poker forum.
1 Like
He doesn’t want to show his face on cam which I think is understandable given it’s a webforum full of IRL strangers. If that’s a dealbreaker for you then this just isn’t gonna happen which is disappointing for all us railbirds but ah well.
1 Like
yeah that hand was Yeti Theorem on steroids (which predates the yeti theorem I believe)
Serious question: do you want to bet on this? Because I want to win more than just your poker money.
Here is a cheat-sheet of reasonable answers:
-
yes
-
no
-
be more specific about what you’re asking to bet on, so i can properly answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’
I did. Sry.
Yo less of this, more of crackheads accusing dealers of using holdout devices on live streams with 240p video “evidence.”
2 Likes
Nah it’s all good, get ready to add Recollection4Rollz and/or FunctionalLiteracy4Rollz as well.
My bad lol, any thoughts on this:
I can’t think of a worse and more suspiciously “correct” (hand vs actual hand, not hand vs range) call that I’ve ever seen considering the stakes and situational factors. However, the rest of the facts don’t really support cheating. Sure, players who suspected Postle was FOS weren’t heroing J highs, but known cheaters like Postle aren’t making those calls either. Clicking it back and calling off on the turn is like the worst possible cheat you could do when jam turn or flat/jam river are options.
I say you guys just do a simple 400 or 500bb freeze out, NL hold’em. No silly webcams, just talk trash in the chat, old school style.
We need this!
3 Likes
Right, that’s what makes it genius because (you said you wanted crackhead speculation) it lets super smart people like yourself see an impossible hand and doubt cheating. I know that sounds like circular logic at first, but here’s what I’ve been mulling over: if you’re gonna make plays with J4o like call flop, call turn, raise river (Garrett isn’t giving up, that’s the whole point) then you have to do them more than once, and you have to be wrong more than once. Postle could’ve made 1/10th or 1/100th the crazy plays he made but if he was never wrong it wouldn’t work.
Essentially, every hand we cheat (for the thought experiment consider a person could know the info at any time but doesn’t choose to know it or apply it every hand) leaves us more exposed. If this wasn’t the case then the easiest way to play would be like Postle, except being wrong a significant percentage of the time. This would obv be undetectable online, but live there would be much more exposed info, body language and Live Tells and what not. So, another way would be to pick, say, five big spots and lose two of them. But this would present the trouble of finding those spots and then putting in the steps to make it all believable, in terms of the big spots and compared to all the other hands, in order for us to present the reality that we’re a crusher able to make big moves somewhat often in those spots.
That leaves us with, well, hey, maybe instead of mimicking a killer making hero calls and big moves, we just mimic a stone fish getting lucky. Don’t bother winning a few big spots when we can just call of the stack and outpip our opponent and say ‘lol live poker amirite’.
1 Like
Just lol. I’m becoming more suspicious this was all some PR stunt over cheating daily. Quiet news day … Time to post about blackmail!
did this mf just drop that while i’m writing a story related to the J4o hand, breaking my stride?
(anyhow)
Here’s a story that just popped in my mind, and if people say ‘holy fuck that doesn’t sound true’ well that’s the point, so make a leap of faith:
In the aughts and early teens I lived on a third floor apartment facing a residential street (north and western in chicago if you’re the type that likes to follow along on google maps). So it was a super busy street during the day but empty at night, including parked cars.
One night I was standing at the window (the entire wall facing the street was three big windows) and saw a black SUV just abruptly turn and smash into a parked car. Like so:
The yellow ‘woman’ would be the other witness, and note that we’re on the far side of where the SUV sustained damage.
There were only three parked cars on the street (they had to be moved by 6 AM or whatever like how it works in big cities, so people didn’t bother) and to this day I don’t know if the person was DUI or if they intentionally rammed the car. The driver wasn’t careening around as they came down the street, they just abruptly turned in to the car as if a poltergeist pulled the wheel at that exact moment. Then they pulled out (I heard a crunch) and hit and ran.
So that’s the premise, and I’m looking like wow, pondering if I should snitch. A few minutes later the yellow woman comes out so I go down, thinking it’s the owner. But she says no, she just saw the whole thing as well, and we double checked that we didn’t imagine a black SUV ram into the side of a parked car with its right front bumper, almost as if it was intentional.
A few more minutes the owner comes down to actually move their car and the kid is freaking out because the damage was severe, like, the door was caved in and the wheel looked bent as if the axle might’ve snapped (foreshadowing #2, once again note that the two witnesses, me and yellow, didn’t actually see the extent or specifics of the SUV damage).
Another few minutes and a cop arrives, and we give our statements. I assumed that was that but the cop asked for my information in case they find the driver or car and need a follow-up statement. Yellow woman is a good citizen and agreed but I’m hemming and hawing, half because of some loose no-snitching policy and half simply because it was feeling like an impending hassle. As I’m pondering and trying to figure out if my statement would still help regardless, a black SUV, with it’s front right bumper and headlights and wheel well just fubar, turns the corner, like so:
The cop looks at us like he’s waiting for us to tell him what to do. He asks if that’s the same SUV, we’re the witnesses, it’s our call to make. We furrow our brows for a few seconds an give him the green light, fuck it, I mean, a black SUV with a fucked up right front end just rolling down what is a an empty street at 3 AM about a half hour later, and no, we didn’t see the specific damage but heard the crunch and saw everything else and, come the fuck on right…
As you’ve probably guessed, it was not the same SUV.
3 Likes