Who was in the wrong here?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Who was in the wrong here?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
after the Mike Postle cheating accusation shit, I am very suspicious of these live streamed rooms. It's just a set up to create a fixed environment
its like not possible to cheat here, she just kept going all in on a shit hand and got lucky.
well it's very likely Mike Postle was cheating in a similar type room. (livestreamed, RFID chips)
I guess the only difference is players were allowed their phones in that room
right but her play here is like being wreckless with an all in + nothing hand and him getting unlucky
She called all in, very different from going all in.
ok
>its like not possible
>like
have a nice day
have sex
> "Noooo, you can't call my bluff with a jack high that makes no sense"
His bluff was with all kinds of great draws and outs. He raise/call all-in was with very little.
>shaves eyebrows off so no one is able to call your bluff
man's a poker genius
hah
keen eye
Isn't that the same guy who literally got voted out 2nd on Tony's season?
Yes, it is.
Calling that all in is completely fricking moronic and should be done precisely 0% of the time. She didn't deserve to win but hey that's poker.
a woman goes in displaying breasts like that all the men should take off their shirts
homosexual
Yeah they should show us all their wiener and balls too to stick it to women
maybe even give us a little butthole wink too, to really show those women whose boss
or walk up and grab their breasts. let them know you see their bullshit. no unfair advantages here, witches.
Having a good weekend over there, incel?
>haha u no do sex
You have to be 18 to post here
ackshually all women who come in should have their breasts buzzsawed off
or start crying so they lactate
that would be funny
Or just take turns raping her
There’s also nothing worse than getting the neck of your shirt stretched out from her struggling while being raped. So take the shirts off as well.
this is why being an ass man > being a titty boy
gay white male privilege is an epidemic
What happened? Steve Albini commented on it on Twitter, but I don't understand what happened.
she went all-in with a shit hand that statistically had a high chance of losing, even if her opponent was bluffing.
>she went all-in with a shit hand that statistically had a high chance of losing, even if her opponent was bluffing.
Calling with a shit hand, for some reason there's NOTHING that makes these professional poker players seethe harder than this. They absolutely hate it, whether they win the hand or not.
>opponent is a pro operating along some guidelines that work with the assumption their opponent is also a pro also operating within those guidelines
>be a completely unpredictable moron
they hate this one weird trick
It's called never bluff a monkey.
Is this the one where she cheated by having an accomplice send her signals using a vibrating butt plug?
no that was in chess
based roast beef king
>beat 800 other players
>only win 196k
kek
That's like 1 million in my third world country monopoly money, enough for you to never work a day in your life again if you are smart with it.
you kinda need to grow up in a country like that to live like a king. you need to know the way of life there.
probably best to get a visa to america, work for a few years then move back
>probably best to get a visa to america
Oh, living in the United States would be a dream come true for me, except I'd never move back here unless my stay in America was VERY shitty. It's the greatest civilization on Earth right now.
what a shit pot
Why the frick are you following a pedophile on twitter?
can someone explain why she refunded him?
because he was throwing a fit like a fricking baby
sorry she didn't play by the weird ass unwritten rules
He threw a tantrum, she just wanted to play.
To keep the peace, she gave the baby his candy back.
>refunded him
oh frick that shit
how is it possible to cheat? I don't understand the controversy outside of it being a dumb move that worked out for her in the end.
Her explanation is bizarre though she assumed he had Ace high and still called with only Jack high and not even a kicker on the board?
>she assumed he had Ace high
I thought she said she thought he didn't have anything. High card is nothing, but it is when you think it beats your nothing lol. But is there any plausible explanation on how she could cheat? Even knowing his hand, he was still likely to catch the flush and he had an open ended straight. It was still a suicidal call to make knowing his hand.
You guys are moronic.
Poker is about bluffing.
In fact, even if you lose the bluff, it is still a good move Becuase it makes them uncertain about future bluffs.
I really fricking hate you people so god dam much and what you have turned “poker” into.
Poker is and has never been purely a stats game.
You are fricking moronic and have ruined a fun social game.
I can’t stress how much you gays have ruined the game.
I blame Texas Holden actully.
It’s not a real poker game, it’s a casino game posing as a poker game.
It’s not how poker should be played at all
Please shut the frick up
she wasn't bluffing. she called his bluff with a hand that is shit
How did she got there with that shit hand? She should've folded but she was bluffing
that is fine until you call for over $100,000 with jack high
You are dumb
>It’s not a real poker game, it’s a casino game posing as a poker game.
this is the dumbest shit I've read all day, well done anon
>Autistic af
>Bluff all the time when playing poker with friends
>They all hate me cus they cant read me.
It's ez, just be autist and they won't know when to cave.
there was a pretty good episode of 30 Rock like that
Just finished watching that for the first time since it aired on TV. God tier show.
But yeah pretty much that, don't know enough to know when you should fold, know enough to get inside everyone elses heads.
I'm a raging misogynist but 30 Rock is pretty kino. Kudos to that feminist twat Tina Fey
>That was pretty good... for a girl.
She seems like an old school feminist that pokes fun at the moronic points of nu wave feminism.
She seems like a feminist who could take a joke, which is a rarity.
He’s got a point. Poker night used to be dealers pick of 7 card no peek, baseball, 5 card draw, ect, now when you say poker everyone assumes you mean Texas Holdem all night.
women are stupid and she got lucky
>got lucky
Yeah, you have to take risks in poker, fricking moron
>got lucky
>why do they call it “gambling”???
>noooooo you can't make illogical hands that go against my maths
I don't play poker. How much of poker is actual chance? Are the best players just lucky or is most of the game just a run of statistics with a bit of luck?
This version, Texas hold'em, is mostly skill based. There is obviously a large amount of chance involved in what cards you're dealt and which ones come after, but the old saying "know when to hold em and know when to fold em" is true and explains that smart card players come out on top most of the time.
There's chance with the last card but mostly poker is about playing your opponent
Its 100% chance and casinos hire actors to play "pro players" for marketing.
99% chance, 0.5% math (i.e knowing odds and calculating effective payouts), 0 5% "skills".
Right, that's why the best players all carry four leaf clovers and rabbit's feet when they play you absolute fool
my gods are smiling at me imperial, can you say the same?
obviously they do, they just dont wear them openly because then they wouldnt be lucky. go be an ignoramus somewhere else lucklet.
the skill plateaus after 2-3 years of intensive play, after that it's a lottery with additional steps. the regulars live of the newcomers or degens who want to burn their money down, there's little of regular on regular violence. with pros it's mostly promotional deals, coaching, and stuff like backstage agreements, when people share a cut of the winnings to minimize the variance.
Texas holdem has essentially been ‘solved’ in regards to what to do in any given situation to maximize outcome so it became a game of skill but at the top level it’s become a game of luck again basically. If you were to play a top player, you would get fleeced though.
No I wouldn't. I'd choose random plays. That's literally what "pros" admit is the best when playing other pros, and is literally what Pluribus (poker AI) does to humiliate "pros".
It's almost like it's a game of luck. Seethe harder you fricking brainlet.
You want to play a game based on REAL statistical variance for REAL money? Get your bread up and learning options trading.
good luck with that strategy
How did she cheat?
Seems like she just made a stupid play but got lucky.
>How did she cheat?
Probably had someone watching the live stream who then communicated to her that she had the best hand. Some speculation that one of the rings on her hand received the signal. She’s seen fidgeting with it.
Are we sure it isn't a vibrating dildo?
>she had the best hand
she didn't have the best hand though, see
That makes no sense. Her hand was absolute shit. His hand had a bunch of outs via the river, the best she could hope for was a pair.
>Something statistically unlikely happened in poker
First time seeing poker being played or what?
I responding to the person saying that she had someone feeding her info and telling her she had the better hand. She went all in way before inside info would be helpful, so it was just an entirely luck based bluff. Her hand pre-flop was awful.
It wasn't a bluff, she CALLED all in. She was calling his bluff. The issue is that even if she knew 100% that he was bluffing, the odds were still against her because of how awful her hand was. Either she's extraordinarily moronic, or was cheating.
except there are some bad dudes who get off on bluffing with the worst hands like 7 high or 8 high
so its not a pure stats play its also a play on thinking he's just bluffing on a very shitty hand
It's perfectly fine to assume that he's bluffing, and call his bluff. The issue was that he was statistically more likely to be bluffing with a hand that could beat hers than he was with a hand that would lose to hers. Like I said, even if she was 100% sure that he was bluffing, calling would be a mistake.
ok fine, isn't this evidence against cheating? Like if she was cheating and knew her cards and knew his too, she would be signalled to fold. She would also have to somehow also know which cards would be dealt (and they ran it twice so she would have to know all that ahead of time too)
Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened. Either she somehow knew what the next two cards were, or she was just tremendously moronic and lucky.
yes i guess i'm just in the moronic and lucky camp and frick garrett he plays like every hand and preys on people making dumb decisions
You are the only moron here.
You continuously fail to ask why he went all in on a hand that could be beat with such a shitty hand
Because he was bluffing. The whole idea of a bluff is that they don't call it. If they call it you lose.
it doesn't matter what he had, because she shouldn't have know what he had. in the end she called $100,000 with jack high
And what did he bet 100,00 with less than jack high?
Because he was bluffing.
A straight flush draw. It's a semi-bluff, meaning even in the event he gets called he still has good equity.
because he was bluffing and she called with a hand that loses to nearly everything
I don’t think you know what bluffing means
She called his bluff with a bluff. It was a double bluff, but his hand had outs hers didn't.
>She called his bluff with a bluff
You cannot call all in with a bluff. The entire concept of a bluff is trying to trick your opponent into folding. There was no opportunity for him to fold, so there was no bluff.
correct
Your right, but how else do you describe going all in on a hand you know is going to lose? She even says in the video I have a shit hand.
There are Bluetooth actuators you can put in your shoe, or a vibrating egg up her vegana or anus, which could be triggered using an app from an accomplices phone within view of the other players hands.
I haven't watched the clip since it dropped, but if I recall correctly they both went all in before the river. At that point her hand was the losing hand. Why would her accomplice tell her to go all in?
not him, but they wouldn't, which is why I don't think she was cheating. Just moronic.
Women fidget with their rings all the time virgin
Isn't bluffing part of poker too?
it would be a normal bluff if she was the one betting first, but she called his bet with a J high. That's not a bluff that's stupidity.
So wasn't the guy stupid who didn't fold with an 8 high?
no because he had a very high chance that any one card would make his hand really good while she had basically no chance that any cards would help her there. He got massively unlucky and she got massively lucky, basically.
You know what they say about luck. Its a skill.
Lol. Are you guys in here fricking moronic or something?
where do you think we are?
>it doesn't count as bluffing because the hand is unlikely to win
Doesn't that make it exactly the right time to bluff?
It doesn't count as bluffing because there was no opportunity for him to fold. The idea of a bluff is to trick your opponent into folding.
>The idea of a bluff is to trick your opponent into folding
Isn't the idea to win? (Which she did)
still doesn't make it a bluff
Yes, but don't call what she did a bluff.
No, the idea of a bluff is to trick your opponent into folding. This allows you to win. Just because the idea of a bluff is to win doesn't mean that the idea of winning = bluff. I get the money if I knock the other players to the ground and shoot them multiple times in the head, but that doesn't make it a bluff.
Sounds like a lot of cope. She is a moron who did a moronic thing and he was more moronic for actually believing it. It's a bluff.
it isn't a bluff because she called the all in forcing the pot to go to whoever had the best hand. when you are bluffing you are assuming you do not have the best hand and you want them to fold.
It's not bluffing because she did a minimum raise firstly, and then called an all-in afterwards. If there's no more action left, calling can't possibly be a bluff.
Yes, but she wasn't bluffing. She did the equivalent of "wall hacking".
>thot makes dumb play
>in other words takes a gamble
>in gambling
WWOOOWW CHEATURRRRRR
any video?
yeah, there is
I found a video, this is clearly cheating
how so
shes bluffing and he fell for it like a dumb frick
she wasn't the one bluffing
By continuing calling/betting, she is bluffing that she has a decent hand that can compete.
Him continuing to call her bluff like a fool,thinking she will back down, is his own stupidity and there is no cheating likely occuring.
She was either cheating or she’s a massive fricking poker-tard who doesn’t understand how the game works
Poker is all about taking chances and trusting your gut.
there's a difference between taking chances and playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the gun. And this was even stupider than that.
Did she win the hand or not?
>chess is about closing your eyes and trusting your gut
Pretending that Poker is the same thing as Chess is moron-tier.
damn that's really what you got out of my post huh
sometimes you just gotta flip the entire board in a rage and hope that everything falls into place perfectly and it's a checkmate
lmfao you're the moron who fell for it, why are you so mad? Has it happened to you?
>Game of chance
>Hate chance
morons like you ruin things far more than women
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T BET IN THIS RANDOM CHANCE GAME YOU MUST ADHERE TO MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT PLAYS
Curious, why is everyone massively SIMPing here? Even if she's right, she's a woman, and therefore wrong.
She didn't cheat tho. She bet on a real shit hand and still won
>"other guy goes all in? he must have a good hand just give up"
So this is what pokercels call skill? Being cowards?
Her hand loses to most of the bad hands he could be bluffing with
But she didnt. All the pokercels reeeeeeee because a dumb thot has more balls than them.
really obvious you have no idea what you're talking about
Poker is so lame
it has it's moments
>ALL IN 1.791.000
>2%
Kino.
>table shakes after the river
kino
>King_Crimson.webm
>pokerstars irl
Kek Garrett the Redditor seething, he’s always off his breasts on sometbint grinding his teeth constantly moving
Gus for not going all in
bimbo did nothing wrong
can someone understand why this is a noteable/surprising poker move?
are they even playing poker? or is this blackjack?
i dont understand
>doesnt even know what blackjack is
jesus my man
she called his $100,000 bluff with a really shit hand
And what was the outcome? lol some people here are fricking cringe karen tier
People below 80IQ should be removed from this website
A fricking child could understand his logic better than you you fricking moron
Why did he bet 100K with a shit hand
he is bluffing, but she should have never called with that hand unless she is A) moronic or B) cheating
She was bluffing too
>you can bluff while calling an all in
Why the frick do you even enter a thread like this if you have no idea about poker
Looks like he lost tho which makes sense since it's literally random
>never call with that hand
Why? She won. Reality proves you wrong, but you are so stuck in the mud you can’t even see it
you can make moronic plays and still win in poker. it is just the nature of the game.
It’s not moronic if it worked.
As stated above, it’s actually better to do that sometimes, even if you lose the bluff, because you can’t be know as the person that never bluffs, Becuase then you are readable.
>It’s not moronic if it worked.
Holy fricking shit how dumb are you? How do you even have the cognitive capabilities to type out your posts?
It is not moronic if it works. The law of averages does not apply to the extremes. Imagine coping and seething about something being a dumb move 98% of the time but then also getting mad about the 2% where it works. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible, you understand that right?
You are moronic. Imagine a game where the objective is to guess what number a six sided die will land on. You're given the choice of the winning numbers being 1 and 2, or the winning number being 5. It's objectively true that either 1 or 2 are more likely to be rolled than just 5. Even if the die lands on 5 it doesn't mean that 5 is more likely to be rolled than 2 other numbers. So it's still the wrong choice.
Choosing just 5 over 1&2 is not objectively wrong. If you are playing against someone who expects you to pick 1&2 because it is the "better" play on paper, that makes choosing 5 more advantageous.
Everything wrong with modern poker stems from the fact that players like to pretend they are up against a computer rather than a human being, then throw a tantrum when the indomitable human spirit throws a wrench in their carefully calculated probabilities. Eat the bugs you soulless worm.
you do that when your hand has some value not with jack high for $100,000. it is such a moronic play that people are considering that she cheated, because literally no one who has any idea of how to play the game would call that unless they knew what the the person had.
I would play that because im not a fricking stats nerd and im not playing with real money moron. Make him and all the other nerds seethe.
godspeed with your future poker career
So why is it such a smart move to go all-in with what he had?
it is fine to bluff with shit hands, because you are hoping to scare them to not call. calling with shit hands is moronic, because then you have to have a stronger hand which is unlikely.
>because you are hoping to scare them to not call
What an absolutely moronic unwritten rule which pros don't follow either.
ok sammy
Who's sammy, schizo?
it is not an unwritten rule it is just basic fricking poker strategy
Get fricked then. Looks like it's not a perfect one, guess what? It's poker.
>Oh no, you defeated my moron strategy, you must've cheated
Stay mad.
for your own financial security please never play poker
Stay seething and keep losing. moron. It's not like you've ever played poker in real life. Keep playing with fake money on pokerstars with your infallible strategies.
fuming
I accept your concession.
Um yes, it’s called buying the pot, child.
What do you think a bluff is?
What do you think calling a bluff is, moron? I also didn't post a soijak, schizo.
>calling the bluff
You stupid fricking Black person. She had a fricking jack high. Not even a pair, a single fricking jack. If you're going to call the bluff you should at least have a card that could beat whatever he was bluffing with. The chances that a jack high could beat whatever he was bluffing with were minuscule. There's nothing wrong with calling his bluff, the issue was that she called it when she had a horrible hand that couldn't have even beaten him had he been bluffing.
TL;DR
have a nice day.
Lmao, homosexual. I'll simplify it for you. There were 150 ways for her to lose and 6 for her to win. Even if she knew he was bluffing the odds were against her.
He still lost, doesn't mean shit now, huh?
How are you able to solve the captcha?
except she did beat him with that hand
Because she got extremely lucky.
>poker fans stunned and upset after local gambler wins by being extremely lucky
She made the objectively wrong play and won. People are understandably upset.
>you have a moral obligation to play safe or else we all will be mad
You let a literal moron into the game, and you're surprised she's making absurd calls? That fault is on you, adjust your play style.
For the thousand time sometimes you need to play randomly to throw people off.
It’s not a game of stats, it’s a social game.
There were 6 situations where her "playing randomly" would have let her win, and 150 where she would have lost. You shouldn't always play based on statistics, but you shouldn't play with unfavorable odds that big.
Just because it worked doesn't mean that it was the best idea.
>Just because it worked doesn't mean that it was the best idea.
It actually does. That's literally, exactly what it means.
>Being results-oriented in a game where chance plays a significant role
ngmi
that's one of the hypotheses, using an rfid hack and some kind of vibrating device to signal when to call.
>You call some bluffs and you leave some bluffs alone
You don't call a bluff with Jack-high unless you like to light your money on fire. Even with his worst bluff he's still the favorite to win.
a vibrating device you say?
hahahaha you're so mad
She refunded him and will probably never show her face on a poker stream again, why would I be mad?
wheredoyouthinkyouare.png
>People are understandably upset.
It wasn't the wrong play if it won.
this, poker gays who don't bet it all on luck are plebs
That is why no one will remember your name.
if she was cheating, she wouldn't have called
if she knew the contents of his hand, she would have folded
she made a bad play and won, because luck is a factor in the game. no reasonable person would think she cheated.
Obviously if she knew his exact hole cards then she would have folded (unless she's literally moronic) but people are arguing that she has a device which basically tells her if she's ahead in the hand as it stands, or not and nothing more.
except before the river, she was not winning the hand
after the flop, it was 70% for garret and 30% for robbi (she called)
after the turn, it was 53% for garret and 47% for robbi (she called all in)
if all she knew was the percentages, she would have folded instead of calling after the flop and especially after the all in
I'm saying she just knew that her hand was beating his hand, not the EV percentages.
So basically she knew that his current hand had nothing better than her hand which was jack high. This isn't taking into account his potential to improve the hand on the river. It's just his hand as it stands.
The only explanation is she misread her hand and thought she had a 3.
he missed the straight and the flush and figured he might as well take a shot at it if she has a shit hand
“$100,000 bluff”
That used to be called “buying the pot”.
But at the amounts these people play at its not really that much money. They might be done $500,000 one week and up 750,000 the next. It’s not real money to them.
Which is also why the can play so erratically, and make stupid gambles.
Which is why poker is so much better with real people and using their own real money
kino
Literally the worst hand in Texas Hold'em poker, what?
beats 6-2 5-2 4-2 3-2, you clearly don't know what you're talking about
no, those hands are objectively better because they can get a flush
2-7 cannot - it is the weakest hand in the game
You mean make a straight, not a flush.
correct, my mistake
those hands are capable of a straight, but 2-7 is not
You ever piss off a bunch of poker players by not observing the unwritten rules cause I have. It was pretty funny.
The best is walking away after you make a big win, instead of staying at the table to lose it.
They fricking hate that.
Pissing off blackjack players is funnier, because they think it's only about them
All old farts pretending that they can count cards.
Seethe more homosexual. Blackjack is based and counting cards is fun.
vibrating butt plug sounds more plausible than going all in on jack high
if it hasn't been brought up yet here's the video
https://streamable.com/8liwa6
if you guys think garrett shouldn't have gone all in with 8 high and get very upset to lose, you don't know anything about poker
>gets out bluffed
>screams cheater
>calling all in
>bluffing
Anon, you're embarrassing yourself. It's ok to admit you don't know how poker works, just please don't pretend like you do.
I read somewhere that she said she misread her four. What the actually frick. Ban women from the table.
She was clearly lying there since she checked her hand 3 times before calling. She also said her hand before flipping it over.
He's literally me
Fricking someone's shit up with a shit hand is the best feeling in the world. I say this playing for little money. If I was playing hundred and thousands of dollars I would cum in my pants.
>poker night with family while on holiday
>get sister to play as well
>insists on calling all bluffs despite having frick all
It's simply because the woman in the OP is shit at the game, every single new player does this, they don't think about the three cards, the straight, the flush you might have, they just think "he doesn't have what he says he has", which makes them think calling = they win the hand
You have to play somewhat honestly against morons, because they simply don't have the brain power required to figure out what you need them to figure out for a good bluff to work
So basically the guy on the OP was in the wrong, he knew he was playing a moron and tried to play smart
>So basically the guy on the OP was in the wrong, he knew he was playing a moron and tried to play smart
This anon gets it. His bluff would have worked fine against a halfway decent poker player. He just forgot that he was playing against a moron.
I'm also going with this
I'm a decent enough player to beat almost any of my friends who know how to play. But I have one friend who's a smart guy but just doesn't really know how to play poker. He constantly does the "wrong" thing and he always beats me because he's playing the game on a different level like this where stuff like bluffing just goes over his head.
israelites and bimbos
all of them are fricking degenerates
>poker "professional" plays against a moron (woman)
>tries to bluff against her based on statistics
>get assmad when the femoid ignores all statistics and plays with her guy
The fault unequivocally lies with the male. His plan was ill-suited for the opponent. He cannot get mad at the b***h for his own strategic error.
This boils down to the bimbo lucking her way into a winning hand just like she lucked her way into this high stakes poker game by sleeping with the right men.
I thought in the thumbnail she was pushing her breasts together and using the breasts to go all in
poker unironically is for tryhards and losers
this. Blackjack is the superior game.
I got screamed at by a random dude at my local casino for playing black jack wrong.
I would've just laughed in his face. They hate that.
Well maybe you should have played it correctly you homosexual. Every time I see morons splitting tens I want to hurt them.
The way other players play their hand has absolutely no effect whatsoever on your odds of winning.
Yes, but it's infuriating when they play wrong and it works out for them.
incorrect
Once again we see alll poker players are losers.
>Well maybe you should have played it correctly you homosexual. Every time I see morons splitting tens I want to hurt them.
The funny part is I split queens. It was my last hand of the night and just wanted to finish in a funny way.
top panel is that guy's face when
How could she cheat tho? I think she just got lucky
She's most likely cheating. Jake Paul's manager is staking her (the guy with cowboy hat in the video). She had 0 experience in high stakes cash games before appearing on this stream. She keeps changing her story. She's the one that offered to refund Garrett. Why would she give back 100k if she thought she won fair and square?
The gay who cried he lost
>OMG YOU GAMBLED IN A GAMBLING GAME? MUST BE CHEATING!
Poker morons in this thread
Scenario 1
>He already raised her to test her out
>She called
>He should have raised her again by double instead of going all in
Dude is a poker moron for making such an obvious power play with nothing
Scenario 2
>He went all in
>She should have folded unless she had something
>To go all in with nothing when it is your decision to do so is moronic
She is cheating
There is no game on earth where such a play would happen unless the person was new at a local game for $10 a hand, not six figures with supposed pros.
It is written all over his face as he replays it in his mind after losing, he did all the expected things but she knew what he had from the start, her and her handler got greedy and risked blowing their scam, fitting it comes weeks after the chess thing where such a cheating method was talked about.
She was cheating.
>he doesn't think women would make a genuinely moronic decision just to frick with you
kek
Are you implying that her handlers knew the exact cards that were going to come out for the river, even the last card of the river that redrawn?
absolute moron
she played him like a fiddle and you homosexuals can keep crying about it
The guy
She won fair and square, by just being cheeky and then the stupid butthole starts crying about it
Pathetic little man-baby who got btfo by a pair of breasts
So to sum it up, some dumb b***h made a 'poor' play and everyone is calling it cheating?
yes
she knew was he was doing, the guy was bluffing and everyone could see it
She did not cheat
>I thought you had ace high so I knew my Jack high wasn’t good, but I decided to call you anyway
uh-huh, not cheating
She just saw through his bullshit, how is that cheating
literally the point of the game
the only thing that 'poker literate' homosexuals are going to point to is probability and in a game of chance that sometimes does not matter but they can't cope
>She just saw through his bullshit
not sure how you can say that. if she’s making the claim that she thought he had ace high and thus was behind in the hand, then she’s not really seeing through his bullshit
She could be playing games after still
you people need to have sex
you got me and have defended her honor admirably throughout this thread. hope she sees this one day
im gay but nice try
She's not gonna frick you homosexual.
She did nothing wrong. You call some bluffs and you leave some bluffs alone. It's literally how you play poker. Dumbasses with view of both hands are going durrr what if he had flush or straight, exceot neither could see each other's hands so both are just trying to bullshit the other one, for all he knew she could have had a higher straight or flush.
She tried to call his bluff with a hand that wouldn't have worked for calling his bluff
>wouldn't have worked
Except it did work, which should make it clear your line of logic is flawed somewhere.
Jack isn't even that low of a card, basically what you're saying is no one ever bluffs with their highest card lower than a jack, except that's EXACTLY what he did. People do it all the time. It's not about the cards, it's about thinking if the opponent is faking it or not, that's why you read the person. That's exactly what she did and exactly the explanation she gave.
Again, "favourite to win" is bullshit because it relies on having knowledge of both hands. Neither of them know what the other has.
>basically what you're saying is no one ever bluffs with their highest card lower than a jack
No, what I'm saying is even the lowest holdings in his bluffing range (ie a suited connector like 78) has a decent chance of beating her bluff catcher.
>That's exactly what she did and exactly the explanation she gave.
She changed her "explanation" about 50 times which is another reason why people find her actions suspicious.
>No, what I'm saying is even the lowest holdings in his bluffing range (ie a suited connector like 78) has a decent chance of beating her bluff catcher.
Knowledge only he has. Irrelevant to her since she doesn't see his cards. Furthermore it's still a gamble because he doesn't see her cards either.
>She changed her "explanation" about 50 times which is another reason why people find her actions suspicious.
I watched the entire video and she only ever gave the explanation of "he always bluffs like this and she didn't think he actually had a hand that backed up his bliff this time".
I'm not gonna argue poker strategy with you because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. She changed her story many times in the video itself and since the video came out. She refunded the guy his 100k which is an admission of guilt in itself.
If you can't explain it succinctly then you don't know shit and would have been eaten alive like he was.
Also you're free to post all her other explanations with links and screenshots I'll believe it when I see it I'm calling your bluff right now.
The only mistake she made was refunding his money, but as people in the original pair of videos said (the one shot after with the angry man in the hat saying she shouldn't have refunded him) they were business partners and she didn't want to sour their relationship.
If you actually understand this picture and know whats going on, please get a fricking hobby, im begging you
WHEN I SAY BAD
YOU SAY BEAT
BAD
Pokercels be like THE CORRECT PLAY WAS TO LOSE lmao just sit and repeat to yourselves how cucked you are by math
BUT YOU DON'T GET IT
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PLAY THAT WAY BECAUSE.... YOU JUST ARE OK?!
the amount of butthurt this is causing pokergays is more entertaining than any TV show or movie in the last decade
As a pokergay, I just find it hilarious because this has almost went mainstream and you see all these people who know absolutely fricking nothing about poker weighing in with their moronic opinions. People genuinely seem to think poker is like straight up gambling and nothing more: no strategy or skill. Just basically another form of blackjack or something, or bingo.
I've lost count of how many times I've heard: "He's just mad cause he got beat fair and square by a girl." or "At the end of the day, they both took a gamble and he lost." or "I don't understand why her play was bad but him going all-in with a weaker hand is good."
It's all so tiresome. How can people be so stupid?
YOU CAN'T CALL A BLUFF THAT YOU'RE UNLIKELY TO WIN BECAUSE.... YOU JUST CAN'T, OKAY????
Might as well play russian roulette if you are going to make moronic plays like that
No thanks, the easy marks are clearly the pokercels.
>he took a gamble and lost
he literally did, and trying to focus on why he SHOULDN'T have is inherently more moronic in a game of chance
Most action I've seen in the poker community in years besides gay ass phil helmuth blowups
>People genuinely seem to think poker is like straight up gambling and nothing more: no strategy or skill. Just basically another form of blackjack or something, or bingo.
it is, you homosexual
luck is a major factor in poker
each decision has a certain percentage chance to win - you can make the wrong play and still win because of luck
morons like the guy in the video believe that she has to be cheating when the simple truth is she made a bad play and won anyways - she got lucky
there is a reason "i'd rather be lucky than good" is a popular saying
Of course luck is a factor. You can lose with pocket aces repeatedly even though pocket aces is the best hand in the game.
That doesn't mean it is the correct decision to fold pocket aces preflop to a large bet because "I might get unlucky and lose this time"
Is this the new moronic offtopic thing that there's going to be daily threads about?
poker is broadcast 365 days a year, frick off queer
Wasn't this livestreamed to an online platform? What's next, you wanna talk about twitch drama on here?
Climate change -> resource depletion -> justification for gentile holocaust
Bill Gates
Donald Trump
Joe Biden
All blackmailed by Israeli Epstein program
We are all Amalekite survivors of an attempted israeli induced holocaust against our people
>going all in with nothing
>OMG HE'S SO BASED AND BIG BRAIN OMG WHAT AN INSANE MOVE
>calling all in with nothing
>OMG WHAT A STUPID MOVE NONONONONONONONONO YOU CANT DO THAT NOOOOOOO
poker tards are something else
it almost like bluffing and calling are two different things
>all in with nothing
He had a straight flush draw, you fricking moron. It was a semi-bluff, not a full on bluff with air because his hand had a chance to improve dramatically on the river.
Also, going all-in with nothing is not the same as calling with nothing because you're not trying to get your opponent to call, you're trying to get them to fold because you want to win the pot but know that your hand has no showdown value, so the only way to win the pot is to scare your opponent into thinking that you have a much better hand than them.
All I see when I read posts like these is a seething wojak typing through tears.
and at that point he still had a near equivalent win probability as the chick with a jack high
>NO BRO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND HE DIDN'T HAVE ~~*NOTHING*~~ HE HAD A MAYBE SOMETHING BRO DUDE PLEASE BELIEVE ME IT'S NOT LUCK PLEASE
highest IQ pokercels
wow poker is easy when you can see everybody's cards
My God, this is like trying to explain quantum physics to a 5-year old.
It doesn't matter that they had equal win probabilities because he is representing a variety of potential hands which her jack high, 4 kicker garbage doesn't beat. He could have queen, jack or king, queen, or and ace high flush draw, or a made hand already. Her hand beats almost none of his potential bluffing hands. Sure she could say to herself that he might have a hand like 8, 7 or 7, 6 but he is very unlikely to bluffing with much lower than that such as something crazy like 4, 3. So although she feels like he is bluffing, and she wants to hero call him, she simply is fricking crazy to call with a hand as bad as jack high.
see
and
she won one hand
doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile
>all of this text to justify pokercel cope
Please start trading options so you can truly get fleeced
>Her hand beats almost none of his potential bluffing hands.
>hand beats almost none
>beats almost none
>almost
What's the issue, anon?
It's really not worth the risk of losing your entire hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of chips just to gamble on that possibility.
If your explanation relies on both of them having knowledge of opponent's cards it doesn't work. His potential bluff means nothing. For all he knew she had a potential bluff.
He was bluffing you moron.
>I call
How the frick does a J and a 4 win over that guys' 8 and 7?
pair of tens, jack being the highest card
the amount of whiteknights defending her just makes me think you Black folk are trolling