I disagree. A cheater would desperately attempt to latch on to anything they can to show they are not a cheater. So they would generally refuse even more to give back any money and just repeat the “not cheating” mantra ever more and more— and would definitely never give back the money that they cheated so hard to get… just my opinion. The fact that she gives back the money (and I see no reason to disbelieve that she was likely cornered and intimidated in the hallway) shows that she’s not really that concerned about it and doesn’t really even care that much. A cheater would be grasping on to those chips at all costs/odds.
Admitedly, I have zero experience of this level of cheating, so I honestly don't know what someone would do. However, "from the movies" (ha!) professional cheaters expect to be caught on occasion and consider it cost of doing business. For cards, I'm thinking about Rounders as an example. Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, right?
On the one hand, crazy shit happens all the time, and folks win by sucking out or by insane bluffs.
On the other hand, it's not considered honorable to win by mistake. Winning by catching a 3% is luck - but just screwing up isn't cool.
So, even though $130k (or whatever it was) seems like a lot of money - there is honor among (some/most) poker players, so it seems totally honorable to me that she gave him the money, as she doesn't feel she deserves it.
I don't know how she would have cheated. Maybe she did but it doesn't seem to me like she did.
The RFID only works at a few millimeters distance. It's useless when trying to read a deck of cards since you'd get multiple responses and would be unable to determine the order of cards.
The inside person doesn't bear scrutiny either. What would this inside person do to pull this off exactly?
At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely to lose. So she would also need to know the next cards to be played. It seems even less likely the house or dealer are in on it. How would RFID know the top cards yet to come? They are still in the deck.
> At the time of calling the all-in, she was more likely to lose.
This is based on the equity shown on the stream which takes into account the dead cards, if you only know the board and their hole cards, she has 54.55% equity. Either way she should call because she needs 40.3% equity to break even (109/(109+161)), any equity more than that is a call and she doesn't need to know what cards will come for that call to be profitable.
