Did this chick cheat on this poker hand ?

[spurraider21]

old post but 53 to 47 with one card on the turn is not a coin flip especially when you run it twice, "close enough to being a coin flip" is litterally how casinos make millions of dollars on their games

So yes, her epic cheat was the ability to call an all in bet with a 53% chance of prevailing

[MultiTroll]

So yes, her epic cheat was the ability to call an all in bet with a 53% chance of prevailing

47%.

She was 47%, he was 53 for the record.
It's merely one factor, not the factor.

[spurraider21]

47%.

She was 47%, he was 53 for the record.
It's merely one factor, not the factor.

old post but 53 to 47 with one card on the turn is not a coin flip especially when you run it twice, "close enough to being a coin flip" is litterally how casinos make millions of dollars on their games

good call

so in her epic cheat strategy, she called an all-in bet when she was the UNDERDOG and had a 47% chance of winning.

and as ya just said, 47% to 53% is very very significant tbh... its literally how casinos make millions of dollars on their game

[MultiTroll]

and as ya just said, 47% to 53% is very very significant tbh... its literally how casinos make millions of dollars on their game

Off millions of calls.
Not one huge one once in a while like this individual one.

Still not enough info on this one to definitely call this a cheat or just she got lucky.

[SpursforSix]

old post but 53 to 47 with one card on the turn is not a coin flip especially when you run it twice, "close enough to being a coin flip" is litterally how casinos make millions of dollars on their games

Running it twice benefits her if she's the underdog. Especially at 53-47. She has a 53% chance of losing on one run. But running it twice, decreases her odds of losing (instead of splitting) to 28%.

[SpursforSix]

and as ya just said, 47% to 53% is very very significant tbh... its literally how casinos make millions of dollars on their game

You can't just look at the odds on one particular hand though in poker. You also have to look at the expected return. It often makes sense to make a bet or call even if you're the underdog as long as the expected return is positive.
In this hand, I don't think it applies. But to look at each hand in a vacuum isn't the right way to analyze things. Maybe you've got a 33% chance to win a hand but if you're getting 10 to 1 as your potential return on that hand, it's a good bet.
But that wasn't the case here.

[MultiTroll]

'No Deception Detected': Robbi Jade Lew Passes Polygraph Test | PokerNews

* It should be noted that polygraph tests are not admissible in court — not that this cheating scandal was ever going to see a court of law — because they aren't always accurate. According to PsychologyToday.com, lie detector tests are only accurate an estimated 87% of the time.

[MultiTroll]

Whoa hold the phone on s passing the polygraph. Arranged by her own PR firm and given in Vegas rather then near her home in L.A. Sounds more like a Brady or Lakers-Warriors playoff win.

Well known player at the table at the time had suggested a legit 3rd party Polygraph joint perform the test.

https://highstakesdb.com/news/high-s...o-live-scandal

[spurraider21]

let it go lol

the theory is that she cheated so she could call a massive hand where she was statistically more likely to lose? lmao

[MultiTroll]

let it go lol

the theory is that she cheated so she could call a massive hand where she was statistically more likely to lose? lmao

What is "it" that you are claiming be let go?
I don't know if she cheated or not.

But Ralphie, you keep referring to 47% when the point is it's possible she knew what the river card was. In which case it wouldn't matter if she only had a 1% chance if she knew the river card made her a winner.

One thing for sure, Hustler, like many casinos is full of sleaze balls.

The irony of having your own PR firm administer the polygraph, and 3 hours from your home. Real credible.

[MultiTroll]

[Millennial_Messiah]

nice cleavage imo