Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="MrHachiman, post: 6480598, member: 279753"]
1) So basically your argument is that she was given some kind of green light to call by telling her to "go ahead" when in reality she only had a 50% chance of winning the pot, and that the person who gave her the green light, in turn he know that given the money she had already put in the pot, that call was better than folding?
Wow, what a sophisticated way to cheat.
I imagine that if she were to cheat, she would prefer to go to the river more often to make calldowns, than to be in a situation of this type
But no matter what common sense says, when you are biased to see a certain situation one way or another, you can come up with sophisticated conspiracy theories to back up your position.

2) It does become "judging" when you make public statements claiming that someone has cheated. Before the casino has investigated the case.

3) So your argument is that a recreational player can't know a preflop hand selection and play decently and sometimes just blow the pot? Your stereotype of a recreational player is that he has to make crazy plays all the time?
I do not agree at all. My concept to define a recreational player is that unlike Garrett, she doesn't live from poker. As simple as that.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us