Hustler Casino Live (9 Viewers)

[TheDuke]

And….

Yes I wish we all had 20/20 hindsight for the stupid things we’ve said and done

She more than likely knows she flubbed, more than a few times it his situation. And that is tough to shake off
But I have a feeling she’s not a stupid person but we are all guilty of being stupid sometimes.
This was her moment

And the vast majority of us are fortunate that we weren't being recorded when we did something stupid.

The pressure of playing on stream for the poker world to critique is likely pretty intense. It's probably not nearly as easy as everyone seems to think it is. I imagine it causes people to second guess many of their decisions.

 

[MatB]

And the vast majority of us are fortunate that we weren't being recorded when we did something stupid.

The pressure of playing on stream for the poker world to critique is likely pretty intense. It's probably not nearly as easy as everyone seems to think it is. I imagine it causes people to second guess many of their decisions.

Not to mention you have ‘Poker Legends’ at the table
Garret , Ivey, Andy. Pressure to not look foolish. Does amaze me how we all lose empathy for people when we watch something online or tv, sitting in our ivory towers.

( I say poker legends because I could list those names off to everyone at the local grocery store and 99% of people wouldn’t know who they were)

 

[upNdown]

Changing her story AND giving Garret the money falls into the same category as flustered, inexperienced, feeling pressure , and not wanting to look stupid.

Yes. But she could still be a cheater AND be all of those things.

 

[MatB]

Yes. But she could still be a cheater AND be all of those things.

Absolutely.
But right now the only evidence is speculative grasping at straws

 

[RainmanTrail]

Hundreds of posts here, and this is the most accurate one. All we have so far is suspicion, innuendo, and stereotyped assumptions. Until there is any actual evidence of cheating, any accusations are nothing more than conjecture. The most egregious action that night was the so far unfounded accusations from Garrett. No matter what comes of this, short of actual proof that he possessed at the time the hand ended, the one absolute in my opinion is that Garrett has got to be severely reprimanded for having made the accusation of cheating, based only on his feelings that there is no way she should have called with that hand.

You don't understand poker if you think his accusations aren't warranted. This isn't just a "bad call". This hand should have been enough for anyone to assume they had just been cheated, rightly or wrongly. You simply can't stay in that game after that hand went down. It really is that bad. There's a reason Shaun Deeb responded by saying he's played over 20 million hands of poker and he's never seen anything like it. That's he's never seen a call that bad in over 20 million hands. When people say there's a "one in a million chance" of something occurring, this is poker's equivalent (although it's more than one in a million). Sure, there's a "one in a million chance" that she's just that bad and that she didn't have information on his hand. But those are the real world odds you have to hang your hat on if you think she just played it that way straight up. This is not an exaggeration. It baffles me just how disconnected people seem to be with just how bad this call would otherwise be. It's like people just think, "it's a bad call, lots of donkeys make bad calls all the time". But this isn't just a "bad call". It is either cheating or the worst call in the history of poker by a country mile. Those are your two options whether you recognize it or not.

 

[MatB]

But if she had J3 is it a good call?

 

[MatB]

If you can accept the premise that maybe she misread her cards then there is no discussion

She behaved and acted EXACTLY as you would if you had J3.
And most of her word salad after showdown makes sense if she had J3

 

[AH77]

But if she had J3 is it a good call?

It would be a way more realistic call. The “I thought I had J3” theory really doesn’t add up to me given how long she looks at her hand BEFORE calling and her saying “you give me that much credit?” when asked “you have a small pair?” meaning that she knew she had just a high card.

The fact she had J3 the hand before is her only saving grace.

 

[MatB]

It would be a way more realistic call. The “I thought I had J3” theory really doesn’t add up to me given how long she looks at her hand BEFORE calling and her saying “you give me that much credit?” when asked “you have a small pair?” meaning that she knew she had just a high card.

The fact she had J3 the hand before is her only saving grace.

And the fact she says. ‘3s no good?’ After Garret went all in and before she called

This is so important I don’t know why it’s not discussed more

 

[Mandos]

If you can accept the premise that maybe she misread her cards then there is no discussion

She behaved and acted EXACTLY as you would if you had J3.
And most of her word salad after showdown makes sense if she had J3

I get the appeal of the J3 story, but her reaction when tabling her cards in no way matches what you would expect from someone who misread their hand, that's what I can't get past with that story. And the fact that she only gave that explanation 15-20 minutes later, which is plenty of time to come up with a good story.

On the other hand, she did ask if he could beat a three. But then again, someone asked during the runout "do you have threes, do you have a three" and she scoffs at those.... Everything about this whole fiasco doesn't make sense.

 

[Bill_Man618]

Would she be an idiot if she thought she had J3 on a TT93 boa
Literally everything makes sense and it’s a great call if that’s what she thought she had.

So yeah if you believe this I don’t even think I can convince you otherwise. But I’ve had people call me down with a similar hand as J3 would be in this spot. With that said when it’s happened to me it was against players I have history with and in a spot where when o asked what they had and why they called they could explain to me why and it made sense. This they didn’t call and then tell me that they had JT on TK473 and table J9 (which also would make sense but you get what I mean). Either way she is an idiot if she didn’t cheat and she’s an idiot if she did.

Also I really wanna know how this makes sense? Like you’ve played longer than me no doubt. But I’ve never ever seen a hand where a player made a call that fucking good in my life. Haven’t seen it in person, haven’t seen it on the hundreds of hours of poker I’ve watched, and I haven’t seen it online. She only beats one hand and it was the one Garret had. She gave the money back which is also something that’s a massive massive indicator that she cheated.

You can deny it all day long, but all of us here work and we all know that certain things indicate cheating. If you’re honest you fight it and if you cheated you don’t. You see it all the time in college. The kids who are cheaters won’t fight it if they’re accused. But those who didn’t cheat will fight it to the death.

 

[MatB]

So yeah if you believe this I don’t even think I can convince you otherwise. But I’ve had people call me down with a similar hand as J3 would be in this spot. With that said when it’s happened to me it was against players I have history with and in a spot where when o asked what they had and why they called they could explain to me why and it made sense. This they didn’t call and then tell me that they had JT on TK473 and table J9 (which also would make sense but you get what I mean). Either way she is an idiot if she didn’t cheat and she’s an idiot if she did.

Also I really wanna know how this makes sense? Like you’ve played longer than me no doubt. But I’ve never ever seen a hand where a player made a call that fucking good in my life. Haven’t seen it in person, haven’t seen it on the hundreds of hours of poker I’ve watched, and I haven’t seen it online. She only beats one hand and it was the one Garret had. She gave the money back which is also something that’s a massive massive indicator that she cheated.

You can deny it all day long, but all of us here work and we all know that certain things indicate cheating. If you’re honest you fight it and if you cheated you don’t. You see it all the time in college. The kids who are cheaters won’t fight it if they’re accused. But those who didn’t cheat will fight it to the death.

But the call wasn’t that good. That should be part of the ‘no cheat’ argument.
He was 53% to win

You think her acomplce is like. Buzz Tap tap tap ( Morse codes) hey youre an underdog in this hand. Call his all in now. Tap tap. Buzz ?

No

 

[AH77]

And the fact she says. ‘3s no good?’ After Garret went all in and before she called

This is so important I don’t know why it’s not discussed more

“3s no good?” is typically something you say in jest to get a read on a player. It’s kind of common poker banter. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’s saying she has a 3.

 

[MatB]

“3s no good?” is typically something you say in jest to get a read on a player. It’s kind of common poker banter. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’s saying she has a 3.

I get that.
But her having ( or thinking she has ) J3 explains away 80% of her weird reasoning for calling

 

[MatB]

So let’s look at that

Garret 53% to win the hand

She’s tanking and people are assuming now that this is where the cheating is happening

And she calls?

Hmmm. You guys know how cheating works right?

 

[AH77]

I get that.
But her having ( or thinking she has ) J3 explains away 80% of her weird reasoning for calling

It would if she realized it and said it right after the hands were turned over but she didn’t even mention it until all hell broke loose and she did an interview for the camera 15 minutes later.

 

[MatB]

So that leads to the next premise of assuming she is cheating, that she knows the sequence of the deck.
As this must be the only logical conclusion that she would be cheating and call with her opponent at 53% to win

Correct?

 

[Anthony Martino]

But the call wasn’t that good. That should be part of the ‘no cheat’ argument.
He was 53% to win

You think her acomplce is like. Buzz Tap tap tap ( Morse codes) hey youre an underdog in this hand. Call his all in now. Tap tap. Buzz ?

No

Unless they know the runouts, then she can call with 1% equity if they know she gets there

I don't disagree that her thinking she had J3 and picking off Garret makes sense, it completely does.

It's her lack of reaction when she DOESN'T have J3 after calling but still winning, and her 27 different stories (the J3 one coming much later after the hand) that make it extremely fishy

The J3 misread seems like the ONLY plausible reason she could call there, but since she doesn't react after the alleged misread amd doesn't enter it as a defense until she's already given multiple other conflicting nonsensical reasons for the call, it casts significant doubt

 

[upNdown]

And the fact she says. ‘3s no good?’ After Garret went all in and before she called

This is so important I don’t know why it’s not discussed more

Because she said A LOT OF REALLY STUPUD SHIT.
I hear you though, I actually made a hero call with a pair of 3s for a really big pot this weekend. So I get it. If she thought she had j3, she’s all good.
I need to go back and watch again and pay attention to when she looks at her cards.

 

[Anthony Martino]

So let’s look at that

Garret 53% to win the hand

She’s tanking and people are assuming now that this is where the cheating is happening

And she calls?

Hmmm. You guys know how cheating works right?

She only needs 40% equity to call to break even. She's getting the right price with 47%

 

[Highli99]

I’m open to assessing more information if/when it is presented.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and can be used to convict people of crimes including murder. So those waiting for direct evidence only are setting a threshold higher than our current legal system.

 

[MatB]

FWIW:

I wouldn’t want to play with her based on style of play.
Her, mikky, Armenian Mike , bunny, jungle man getting a 3hr massage.
This Is my nightmare table

 

[Rieguy]

The funniest thing about all of this is that had she just shut the fuck up and not return the money this probably would not have gone so nuclear. Yes, the accusations may still float around, but she simply gave too much ammunition to accusers by her continually spouting off inconsistent nonsense, returning the money, and the guy who staked her getting irate for that action. Wonder if she was inebriated as well and to what extent if so, because that could help explain why everything she has said and done since is just so damn stupid.

She obviously has a great deal of money; for a $5,000 retainer I would happily instruct her to stfu.

 

[krafticus]

It would be a way more realistic call. The “I thought I had J3” theory really doesn’t add up to me given how long she looks at her hand BEFORE calling and her saying “you give me that much credit?” when asked “you have a small pair?” meaning that she knew she had just a high card.

The fact she had J3 the hand before is her only saving grace.

But we can't say for sure she looked at both cards. I've done that before .. peeling my cards to look at 1 card, ignoring the other as I was "sure" I knew what it is. I've also peeled to "look", but never actually LOOK at them.

As to the small pair comment, I took that to mean a small pocket pair, not a small pair on the board.

Until there is actual evidence of someone cheating, I don't believe that it happened. But hell, that never stops people these days from jumping to the conclusion that they want it to be.

 

[Highli99]

FWIW:

I wouldn’t want to play with her based on style of play.
Her, mikky, Armenian Mike , bunny, jungle man getting a 3hr massage.
This Is my nightmare table

All them, plus you is my dream table!

 

[MatB]

FWIW:

I wouldn’t want to play with her based on style of play.
Her, mikky, Armenian Mike , bunny, jungle man getting a 3hr massage.
This Is my nightmare table

Add Ivey to that nightmare table too


WE PLAYING CARDS BRO OR WHAT ?? STOP LOOKING AT THE BASEBALL

 

[krafticus]

Also, if a new forum member that nobody really knows well sits down at a table with some of the big hitters of PCF, and were to make this same play, would you assume the same thing? Also, if the big boys see this no-name nobody take them for thousands and essentially back-ally them into paying it back, I'm pretty sure they would. the scale isn't as large, but when you are new to a game of heavy hitters like this, and one comes after you with more weight then you are ready to take on, i'd probably feel like giving the money back too.

 

[MatB]

Very surprised @Goldfish didnt corner me in Dallas

 

[bergs]

There are much much easier ways to lose without drawing suspicion. Especially on a stream where the backer can review hand history easily. Example, calling raises or 3 betting preflop and then folding on the flop or turn.

If she lost the runouts, she would have had to explain herself to Rip.

Plus there's the AQ v AQ hand where they definitely softplayed. If she hated him, she wouldn't have softplayed. She would try to take as much off of him and then dump it to someone else.

If they slowplayed they should be tossed off the show. If I want to watch slow play I’ll go play 3/6 limit truck stop holdem in Glendale on a Tuesday night. I tune into HSP to watch ridiculously insane jam run twice poker.

 

[AH77]

But we can't say for sure she looked at both cards. I've done that before .. peeling my cards to look at 1 card, ignoring the other as I was "sure" I knew what it is. I've also peeled to "look", but never actually LOOK at them.

As to the small pair comment, I took that to mean a small pocket pair, not a small pair on the board.

Until there is actual evidence of someone cheating, I don't believe that it happened. But hell, that never stops people these days from jumping to the conclusion that they want it to be.

These are all fair points.