[generalk]

> It's not marginally +EV to call given the pot odds and she doesn't need to know her exact equity to be cheating, she could be getting binary "you're good" / "you aren't good" signals (and that's much easier to transmit and read without being noticed). [...] The play on the turn is way too ridiculous.

I watched the hand. I've been in that spot. You think you have a good read on someone such that your not-great hand may actually be best, say, they're chasing an open-ender and your high card is good. (Which it would be, barring cards folded by other players.) You're nervous, you're facing an all-in decision, you know the safe move is to fold and move on, but damn all you just can't shake the feeling, and you have to gamble.

Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer here.

You didn't say this, but I fear that if this were someone like Daniel Negraneau monologuing about what to do and stating his read aloud ("I'm pretty sure you're chasing. I'm probably beat but if you're holding 8 9 I'm beating you right now. I'm right aren't I? sigh I call. Show me I'm beat.") then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

> The other thing is why did she return the money after the hand if she won it fairly?

"He cornered me & threatened me. If he has the audacity to give me the death stare ON camera, picture what it’s like OFF camera. I was pulled out of the game & forced to speak to him in a dark hallway."[twt]

Shit, if I was in that position, and producers/officials pulled me out of the game and put me in a room with my opponent where I was accused of cheating and told to return the money, damn good chance I'd return it just to make a scary situation stop. Maybe you're different, but that doesn't mean intimidation doesn't work pretty damn well.

[twt]: https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575758837465812992

[jstx1]

> I'm pretty sure you're chasing.

Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any high flush draw. Let alone value hands (she's drawing dead against a 10). So she has to put him specifically on 78 (which he had), 68 or 67. That makes it more suspicious, not less.

The intimidation thing makes sense if you believe her story. I can only guess what happened between the two of them after the game. I know that I've seen her change her own story about the hand that she thought she had. If you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't really go with their own story about what happened as a reason to exonerate them.

[generalk]

> Right but chasing what - she can't beat J8, QJ, KQ, any high flush draw.

Fair, there are definitely semi-bluffs that beat J4 here, and of course if Garret had a made hand she's toast.

There's also (and I think she says this at some point, "purely a bluff-catcher" IIRC) tons of pure air bluffs that J4 beats.

I simply do not understand the stance that if a poker player makes a call with a crap hand that turns out to be good, and then holds up, that she must be cheating. Not for nothing, but I have never heard such accusations leveled at a male player like this.

> If you're questioning someone's credibility, you can't really go with their own story about what happened as a reason to exonerate them.

I am not questioning her credibility.

Because there is no reason to.

The only reason anyone thinks she might be cheating is because her heads-up opponent angrily accused her of it. Not even after a bad beat! After his hand, which was never ever the best hand of the two, failed to make any of its draws over a river that was run twice.

I question the credibility of the accusation. Garret has every reason to accuse his opponent of cheating, especially given that he successfully intimidated Robbi into returning his chips, which to me is just insane.

Why the conversation isn't "poker player doesn't catch his outs, demands his money back" is beyond me.

[nwienert]

But again it’s not uncommon to believe your opponent is chasing a card especially in this case - straight and flush draw and the straight is below your top card. If it’s a straight draw they have, you know you have them beat. And going all in pre-river on your draws is the main tactic you’d expect to see.

[c7b]

> Poker player trusting a soul read is the Occam's Razor answer here.

I suppose Hanlon's razor is adequate here - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

[treis]

The problem with the cheating is that it requires her to be (1) smart enough to not get caught cheating in a high stakes poker game and (2) dumb enough to cheat in a ridiculously obvious way. Those seem mutually contradictory. If you can pull off the cheat you'd be smart enough to cheat in a less obvious way.

[gnicholas]

Did she make predictions this specific? I couldn't hear everything that was said in the clip, but I don't remember her saying anything this specific.

[generalk]

Oh no, the stuff I put in quotes was not Robbi speaking during the hand, but my imagining of what Neganeau would have sounded like in his typical confident chattery thinking aloud.

[gnicholas]

If she didn't say anything like this, I guess I don't understand why you said you "fear" that this wouldn't be happening if Negraneau had made the same moves and had narrated precisely what cards he put his opponent on.

My sense is that the different reaction would be because of the narration, not the identity of the player (though it would also make sense that a player with a decade(s) long reputation would be given more deference than a newer player).

[stouset]

Daniel Negreanu is a player who is renowned for making insane reads like the GP is roleplaying, narrating them live. GP is—I believe—saying that if Negreanu had made the same play and narrated it this way, nobody would have batted an eye.

I think the reality is she just made a shitty decision in the moment that happened to play out well. Anyone who's played poker long enough has done the same dozens of times.