Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Re: giving the money back

Daniel Negreanu [0] has the opposite read from you:

"The fact that she gave him the money back isn’t an admission of guilt, but likely the contrary.

A money hungry scumbag cheat isn’t likely to give money back in that spot.

Felt like she didn’t want to deal with conflict and can afford it."

[0]https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1575726681117011968?...

Re: 3 vs 4. I think both the cheaters and the non-cheater followers of this story believe that she was rattled and made a bad move. Even if she was cheating and KNEW his hand, she had no way of knowing that her Jack-high would hold up, unless people believe the entire casino is on in it and she knows all the cards coming.

If we accept that she was rattled, and stressed, and made a rash move, and got away with it, then it's equally believable that in the moment she briefly got confused and remembered the wrong hand. Memory isn't foolproof, and in the emotional decision to decide to call she confused the last 2 hands or ipso-facto justified what she could tell was a terrible decision but needed to cover up with bravado because the game had to continue after this hand.

Once you understand all of the above, it's clear she didn't need to cheat to wind up in this position, and in fact it makes LESS sense.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: