Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="MrHachiman, post: 6480805, member: 279753"]
It's not that I'm not open to that idea, it's just that there is no evidence that points in that direction and common sense tells me the opposite.
Cheating on a 50% spot with a marginal hand doesn't make sense. As I said before, you want to call with the certainty that you are winning. Why cheat and take a flip coin as your best spot?
Assuming it's the case that she cheated, are you going to run the river twice?
Assuming you've cheated on a flip coin, win both rivers, are you going to pay the money back after taking all that risk? what kind of scammer would that be?
Mike postle's case was very different from this. This case has been an isolated event,  there is literally nothing to make a case against her other than that hand and the accusation of the player who has been hero called.
I would be more open to believing that she may have cheated as I said before, if the call had been on the river or it was discovered that she had made money with controversial hands. But is not the case.
So, if there are no objective facts and no evidence, beyond an isolated and unintuitive event to cheat. Why say that it is likely that she cheated? who is biased?

And the fact that you mention that I may be biased because she is a woman, speaks more about you than me. At no time have I considered her being male or female as a factor.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language