|
|
|
|
|
|
by jstx1
1359 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.