Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   ♫ One night in Bangkok makes a ... wait, we're cheating in Poker this time?   (independent.co.uk) divider line
    More: News, Playing card, Chess, Poker, Card game, opponent Robbi Jade Lew, world of high-stakes poker, cheating scandal, Garrett Adelstein  
•       •       •

1502 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Oct 2022 at 12:20 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



56 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-10-03 11:00:12 AM  
Vibrating anal beads, what can't they do?
 
2022-10-03 12:25:31 PM  
More proof of the 'butt stuff' Fark Philosophy of Life?
 
2022-10-03 12:29:15 PM  
Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.
 
2022-10-03 12:29:30 PM  
Paywalled before I could determine how it was anal beads this time
 
2022-10-03 12:34:47 PM  
So if I'm reading this right, he's accusing her of cheating because he tried to bluff her, and she called his bluff, but she didn't have shiat either and happened to win on a high card. His entire argument is "she didn't fold when I went all-in, even though she should have."

Granted, I couldn't read the whole article, but I'm going by what I saw of the actual game clips.
 
2022-10-03 12:35:13 PM  
Should invite them to stick around.
Donnely Rhodes with Paul & Robert in Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Youtube UcqFzVtEcNM
 
2022-10-03 12:35:14 PM  

Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.


Except for when you lose to a girl then it is obviously cheating.
 
2022-10-03 12:44:11 PM  

scottydoesntknow: So if I'm reading this right, he's accusing her of cheating because he tried to bluff her, and she called his bluff, but she didn't have shiat either and happened to win on a high card. His entire argument is "she didn't fold when I went all-in, even though she should have."

Granted, I couldn't read the whole article, but I'm going by what I saw of the actual game clips.


That's exactly it. If she had ended up losing it would have been a story about "watch this hot chick make a terrible call and lose cause she's dumb!" instead her high card took the pot and the dude is pissed.
 
2022-10-03 12:46:12 PM  

scottydoesntknow: So if I'm reading this right, he's accusing her of cheating because he tried to bluff her, and she called his bluff, but she didn't have shiat either and happened to win on a high card. His entire argument is "she didn't fold when I went all-in, even though she should have."

Granted, I couldn't read the whole article, but I'm going by what I saw of the actual game clips.


Seems that in his mind what she did by calling with nothing was so monumentally stupid that she would have only done it because she had information that she shouldn't have had.

From what I understand she actually gave him his money back later.  Which also seems equally as stupid.

So I don't know what to think.
 
2022-10-03 12:50:28 PM  
He bluffs with a crap hand.  She calls his bluff and wins with a slightly less crappier hand.

And she gives him back the money later?

Sounds like they both suck at this game.
 
2022-10-03 12:52:26 PM  
I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?
 
2022-10-03 12:53:17 PM  
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine!
 
2022-10-03 12:56:53 PM  

Tor_Eckman: scottydoesntknow: So if I'm reading this right, he's accusing her of cheating because he tried to bluff her, and she called his bluff, but she didn't have shiat either and happened to win on a high card. His entire argument is "she didn't fold when I went all-in, even though she should have."

Granted, I couldn't read the whole article, but I'm going by what I saw of the actual game clips.

Seems that in his mind what she did by calling with nothing was so monumentally stupid that she would have only done it because she had information that she shouldn't have had.

From what I understand she actually gave him his money back later.  Which also seems equally as stupid.

So I don't know what to think.



This is becasue poker is no longer poker.
Bluff and risk are part of the deal and "reading" is maybe a soft skill at best among pro poker players. let's   face it, if you are a pro, poker face is a more important skill than reading the other pro poker faces.
and now you are all bots playing by the math, which means only a few specific calculated bluff moments in a game are imagined real any more.
Once the risk amount of money > x is on the table, calling the bluff as a bluff is not what the machine could do, ever, it's not be able to do that, so how did you?


and in compare to chess, the goal is to play like the machine, to get as close to machine perfect moves as you can. So too it s for basically all the things when we imagine a machine does it "perfect."
and yet here we are a perfect HUMAN call on the bluff, taking the big risks, and as some like to point out, no risk no reward.
And yet the machine clearly could not have ever done this, so they all doubt any human could behave "irrationally" and still legit achieve their goals.


I also wonder how on the alt time line where the chess cheating news did not happen before this event, if the guy who lost would have even considered calling cheats in the first place, or was he under the influence of current times thinking to see and accuse cheaters more then he might normally?
 
2022-10-03 12:58:20 PM  

quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?


It's the age we live in. If something doesn't break your way, scream "Cheater!" at the top of your voice.
 
2022-10-03 12:58:44 PM  

Oysterman: Paywalled before I could determine how it was anal beads this time


I reported that, and here's Drew's reply:
Refresh your browser, or, scroll down and choose "maybe later".
I wondered why they never switched this site out, now we know. I'll make sure to look for the maybe later on everything that asks for registration now.
 
2022-10-03 12:59:10 PM  
So she walked away from a cash game with $260k+ more than she started with.... then what... wrote a check to the guy for $260k+?

IRS is gonna make sure both of them come out behind on that deal.  You can't move that much money around without Uncle Sam getting his cut.  Not after a news article gets published about it...
 
2022-10-03 1:00:22 PM  

BizarreMan: He bluffs with a crap hand.  She calls his bluff and wins with a slightly less crappier hand.

And she gives him back the money later?

Sounds like they both suck at this game.


That's my take. I don't care how nice you are, stick to the rules - written and unwritten.
 
2022-10-03 1:00:48 PM  
I beat a guy bluffing a pair of aces with my pair of deuces. He had ace high. It happens.
 
2022-10-03 1:03:40 PM  

Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.


I wish iat was Phil because it would've been a 30 minute rant for the ages
 
2022-10-03 1:11:40 PM  
Both were bluffing one lost and they scream cheat? Wtf
 
2022-10-03 1:12:45 PM  
If your moves and bets prior to the showdown scream "middling hand that hit a draw and oh no it missed" then it might all add up to "Yeah, jack high is good here." He's just a sore loser.
 
2022-10-03 1:14:37 PM  

KRSESQ: quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?

It's the age we live in. If something doesn't break your way, scream "Cheater!" at the top of your voice.


She called his all-in bluff with a jack high hand. That's not a winning move. Likely she knew he was bluffing but to call it with a jack? Epic call.
 
2022-10-03 1:21:47 PM  

quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?


Basically... anyone that's any good at live poker anymore plays purely math-based. The days of Doyle Brunson and the like "reading" people and doing crazy bluffing/plays is pretty much over. All the top players are using ranges and bet sizing (basically, based on betting patterns, you can eliminate certain possibilities of your opponents cards and put them in a range of possible hands) in an attempt to play like computers (that is, play the odds over time based on statistical analysis) and not play the person (that is, try to figure out if they're actually bluffing). Basically, they believe that no one with any mathematical analysis of the game overall would make this play, and such a person wouldn't be at this table.

That said, I don't know if she's cheating or not as I don't know anything about her, maybe she sometimes throws theory out the window and just plays her gut, but almost none of the younger players do. Nor, do I know what the 'correct' way to have played this hand is since I'm not into the modern game, just get that that's the argument.
 
2022-10-03 1:25:21 PM  

bhcompy: Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.

I wish iat was Phil because it would've been a 30 minute rant for the ages


"You called me with a Jack high, honey!"

/In his defense, I've never seen Helmuth accuse someone of cheating.  He just hates losing to suboptimal play.
 
2022-10-03 1:26:34 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Seems that in his mind what she did by calling with nothing was so monumentally stupid that she would have only done it because she had information that she shouldn't have had.


That's basically it from what I can tell. Reading that Garrett was sitting on a draw of some sort is one thing...but being able to deduce your J high nothingburger would beat his busted draw (if he doesn't hit on the river) is a significantly higher leap.

I actually think the most logical explanation is that no cheating took place, but Lew was sick of Garrett's table aggression and was willing to risk that much money just to demonstrate some "I ain't scared of you, motherfarker" posture. And if you're at these high stakes tables, you can afford to blow a quarter of a million just to make a point.
 
2022-10-03 1:30:09 PM  
He wasn't bluffing. His hand wasn't made, but he had tons of outs, and with that flop he wins 2/3 of the time. She had no made hand and no draws. It was a stupid call on her part, but cheating? If she somehow knew his hole cards there's no way she calls there, she is not the favorite. The only way it's cheating is if she knew what the turn and river cards were going to be, and how would that even work? It's silly.
 
2022-10-03 1:37:34 PM  

Spectrum: He wasn't bluffing. His hand wasn't made, but he had tons of outs, and with that flop he wins 2/3 of the time. She had no made hand and no draws. It was a stupid call on her part, but cheating? If she somehow knew his hole cards there's no way she calls there, she is not the favorite. The only way it's cheating is if she knew what the turn and river cards were going to be, and how would that even work? It's silly.


I watched the video and I now retract my comment. The article didn't mention the three of hearts on the turn. He was bluffing and she was a slight favorite. So, nevermind.
 
2022-10-03 1:42:45 PM  
If I'm correct, he tried to pull a Cool Hand Luke on her, but she was more successful and now he's whining. Be quiet and go get Dragline a cold drink.
 
2022-10-03 1:43:22 PM  
The new strategy:

Whine like a little biatch when you lose and accuse the opponent of cheating even though you have -zilch- for evidence to support you.

Fecking sad that no one can just take a loss with dignity.
 
2022-10-03 1:57:12 PM  

Snapper Carr: bhcompy: Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.

I wish iat was Phil because it would've been a 30 minute rant for the ages

"You called me with a Jack high, honey!"

/In his defense, I've never seen Helmuth accuse someone of cheating.  He just hates losing to suboptimal play.


He implies cheating a LOT.  His rants almost always include some allusions to something "going on", or mean mugs at the dealer, etc.  Always an implication that things are "broken" or he's being ganged up against, or he loses because others aren't being "professional".

He's also a whiny toddler.
 
2022-10-03 1:57:14 PM  
Definitely seems the wrong move paying him back if she didn't sheat
 
2022-10-03 1:57:29 PM  
Cheat*
 
2022-10-03 2:00:15 PM  
He was being too aggressive, and she didn't think he had anything.  She called him, and busted his empty image of strength.  He got mad.

Players get tired of being bullied by chip stacks and heavy raises.  It works for a while, but eventually someone gets sick of losing and calls you.  Jack high isn't typically the moment, but it worked.  And he didn't like that he got busted against a completely shiat hand.
 
2022-10-03 2:02:51 PM  

kyuzokai: quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?

Basically... anyone that's any good at live poker anymore plays purely math-based. The days of Doyle Brunson and the like "reading" people and doing crazy bluffing/plays is pretty much over. All the top players are using ranges and bet sizing (basically, based on betting patterns, you can eliminate certain possibilities of your opponents cards and put them in a range of possible hands) in an attempt to play like computers (that is, play the odds over time based on statistical analysis) and not play the person (that is, try to figure out if they're actually bluffing). Basically, they believe that no one with any mathematical analysis of the game overall would make this play, and such a person wouldn't be at this table.

That said, I don't know if she's cheating or not as I don't know anything about her, maybe she sometimes throws theory out the window and just plays her gut, but almost none of the younger players do. Nor, do I know what the 'correct' way to have played this hand is since I'm not into the modern game, just get that that's the argument.


You don't holler "Cheat" unless you can prove it, period.
 
2022-10-03 2:20:26 PM  

Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.


Exactly.    Speaking of the devil, I watched ol Phil hero call some cannon even after he read the man's hand perfectly, then come back and carry on about it as usual.   It was so stupid the other players called him out on it, telling him that the winner was some school teacher ffs, and besides, Phil really did call this guys hand on the turn.


And for the last time, poker is not chess.   Say it with me.  Poiker is not chess.
 
2022-10-03 2:21:49 PM  

Khellendros: Snapper Carr: bhcompy: Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.

I wish iat was Phil because it would've been a 30 minute rant for the ages

"You called me with a Jack high, honey!"

/In his defense, I've never seen Helmuth accuse someone of cheating.  He just hates losing to suboptimal play.

He implies cheating a LOT.  His rants almost always include some allusions to something "going on", or mean mugs at the dealer, etc.  Always an implication that things are "broken" or he's being ganged up against, or he loses because others aren't being "professional".

He's also a whiny toddler.


I always take it more like he's accusing them of being idiots because they didn't fold given their odds, but I haven't seen every one of his many rants so I can't say he hasn't also done what you're saying
 
2022-10-03 2:22:58 PM  
This will ruin the integrity of poker forever.
 
2022-10-03 2:25:12 PM  

lindalouwho: kyuzokai: quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?

Basically... anyone that's any good at live poker anymore plays purely math-based. The days of Doyle Brunson and the like "reading" people and doing crazy bluffing/plays is pretty much over. All the top players are using ranges and bet sizing (basically, based on betting patterns, you can eliminate certain possibilities of your opponents cards and put them in a range of possible hands) in an attempt to play like computers (that is, play the odds over time based on statistical analysis) and not play the person (that is, try to figure out if they're actually bluffing). Basically, they believe that no one with any mathematical analysis of the game overall would make this play, and such a person wouldn't be at this table.

That said, I don't know if she's cheating or not as I don't know anything about her, maybe she sometimes throws theory out the window and just plays her gut, but almost none of the younger players do. Nor, do I know what the 'correct' way to have played this hand is since I'm not into the modern game, just get that that's the argument.

You don't holler "Cheat" unless you can prove it, period.


The thing that set this one off was two things that the winner said.  First she claimed that she thought she had J-3, not J-4, and her giving the money back.   It would've been far better for her to not say anything or do anything.   Never apologize for winning a hand.
 
2022-10-03 2:37:25 PM  

scottydoesntknow: So if I'm reading this right, he's accusing her of cheating because he tried to bluff her, and she called his bluff, but she didn't have shiat either and happened to win on a high card. His entire argument is "she didn't fold when I went all-in, even though she should have."

Granted, I couldn't read the whole article, but I'm going by what I saw of the actual game clips.


Yeah, he's being a whiny biatch. A draw is a chance, he went all in, and she had a slight card advantage and a huge chip advantage. If she wants to play that way it's her choice. And it was the correct one here. Maybe he's trying to republican his way to victory: obvious loss = "I was cheated!"
 
2022-10-03 2:42:10 PM  
She even said "you have a tell," and mentioned she saw it the night before.

She knew he had nothing and called.
 
2022-10-03 2:42:43 PM  

Khellendros: He was being too aggressive, and she didn't think he had anything.  She called him, and busted his empty image of strength.  He got mad.

Players get tired of being bullied by chip stacks and heavy raises.  It works for a while, but eventually someone gets sick of losing and calls you.  Jack high isn't typically the moment, but it worked.  And he didn't like that he got busted against a completely shiat hand.


It is really satisfying to stomp bullies at a table. The added 'fark you' reward has high monetary value and removes an erratic threat.
 
2022-10-03 2:49:23 PM  

Stud Gerbil: Snapper Carr: Just because you missed your straight is no reason to go all Phil Helmuth at the table

Sometimes the cards don't fall.  That's the game.

Exactly.    Speaking of the devil, I watched ol Phil hero call some cannon even after he read the man's hand perfectly, then come back and carry on about it as usual.   It was so stupid the other players called him out on it, telling him that the winner was some school teacher ffs, and besides, Phil really did call this guys hand on the turn.


And for the last time, poker is not chess.   Say it with me.  Poiker is not chess.


It's only compelling because it's money. Replace money with valueless tokens and see how many people watch.
 
2022-10-03 3:11:12 PM  
Why would she give him the whole pot? I don't understand that part at all. If she wanted to give him his money back to be nice it would still be stupid but why give him the whole pot when she won the hand?
 
2022-10-03 3:39:22 PM  
Maybe he could have read her better if he had been looking her in the eye.
 
2022-10-03 3:41:27 PM  
I think she was afraid of him. The guy behaved as if he might attack her. She knows she can win that money from him again later, and he's ruined his already shtty reputation further.
 
2022-10-03 4:13:11 PM  
Solution: naked heads up poker to ensure nobody is wearing any devices.
 
2022-10-03 5:05:06 PM  

quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.



Even if she had perfect information that he was bluffing, many of his bluffing hands would still be better than Jack-high (say ace-high, or a pair of twos). Add in all these bluffing hands better than Jack high, with actual made hands better than hers (any ten, pocket nines, jacks, queens, kings, aces), and she would definitely be behind almost all the time. There are only a couple conceivable hands, bluffing or not, that she's actually ahead of, and one of them happens to be the hand he's holding.
 
2022-10-03 5:05:36 PM  

quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?


I don't get it either.  High stakes poker players are either wealthy (like Ben Affleck), or people who don't mind betting their life savings on one hand of poker, and rebuilding.
I don't think this is surprising at all.
 
2022-10-03 5:35:39 PM  

taglius: quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.


Even if she had perfect information that he was bluffing, many of his bluffing hands would still be better than Jack-high (say ace-high, or a pair of twos). Add in all these bluffing hands better than Jack high, with actual made hands better than hers (any ten, pocket nines, jacks, queens, kings, aces), and she would definitely be behind almost all the time. There are only a couple conceivable hands, bluffing or not, that she's actually ahead of, and one of them happens to be the hand he's holding.


This. Even if she was 100% sure he was bluffing, she only wins 2 hands out of how many ever possible. Still does not preclude luck + a brain fart.
 
2022-10-03 6:02:58 PM  

Invincible: KRSESQ: quinxy: I wish somebody could explain this in a way that makes sense to me.  I may be super dumb, but reading most poker players explain this scandal feels like reading NFT bros trying to explain the value in NFTs.  I am just not understanding why this is so likely to be cheating, and why this can't just be a bold and/or stupid play by the accused, what makes so many so confident that this is cheating?

It's the age we live in. If something doesn't break your way, scream "Cheater!" at the top of your voice.

She called his all-in bluff with a jack high hand. That's not a winning move. Likely she knew he was bluffing but to call it with a jack? Epic call.


She was the one who bluffed holding nothing. He called her bluff while holding nothing. Her nothing was was still the better hand.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.