Not true. You're allowed to entertain ideas with j4 and j3. And the best poker players itt think j4 is defensible, although unnecessary since it is much more likely she thought she had j3 . You are right when you say people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, but not this one.

Also, me and eskobarr are never going to get that solve lol.

Man you're great at spinning things and changing the topic. You clearly deleted my list of 100% verifiable facts from your quote, and then mischaracterized it as "conjecture."

Things like this and the other guy just straight up lying about me in an attempt to character assassinate, show pretty well you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith.

Can you quote me those defenses? Genuinely intrigued

Also the best poker players itt argument is fairly asinine, since there is no possible defense from a strategic point of view

No I had you confused with a different poster, but during my research I found your easily untrue statements.

lol what a bunch of bullshit. You just lied.

i'm on my phone, it's been like a 1000 comments ago, and it requires a nuanced thought process that's not going to be perceived well by the typical poster here. so no.
I will say some people make sick calls sometimes and I've made sick calls before and leave it at that. Far from impossible imo.

It might be helpful if I (we) knew more about you. Age, education, level, life experience. Things of that nature. I mean I have no idea if you even know what formal logic is. Not commons sense or lack there of. Actual formal logic. If this, that, and the other then yada yad yada type of stuff.

.

I was quoting RTJ or something and you responded with some nonsense. I'm sorry I was mistaken as to what nonsense you were wrong about

Surely if you are capable of such nuanced thought you wouldn’t need to go back 1000 pages, you could just regurgitate it on the spot?

Spare me the pat on my head, I’ve played enough hands and hours for multiple lifetimes. We aren’t looking at an OBORRA or RedBaron hand before solvers were commonplace here. This is not a ‘sick call’

One of the reasons anyone at that table agreed with Robi is so that the game can keep going and their EV increases. The moment they verbally agree she is cheating, their EV goes down.

Ivey didnt want to get involved, plain and simple.


Its not a sick call, its an ego-equity call. She didnt have the equity needed to call, so she decided to pay it out of her own wallet aka a -EV move aka GAMBLING. Her ego needed her to win, it has nothing to do with strategy or plus EV decisions.

she was gambling to beat garrett.

Ivey said something to the effect of ‘she misread her hand and was embarrassed to say’

Andy confirmed he thought the same

The last paragraph is certainly pointless words

Happy to know at least one person read my post. Thanks for that heads up.

It’s probably too late for me to edit and add she has to prove how she cheated. Which is so ironic because no one else seems to care the how in trying to explain her guilt.

youre telling me what people said, that doesnt mean they felt or thought that. Please dont ignore the incentives they have to play nice.

I dont think she cheated but I also dont think using these peoples words proves anything

Not that this matters but I think you mean Phil and Eric, not Andy. Unless Andy confirmed it after they gave their take.

I honestly thought you were talking about an exchange I had with someone else. Let me go back and see wtf are talking about.


How far back are you going here? don’t recall saying word salad within the last few weeks.

I'm not saying you wouldn't understand, what i'm saying is I don't have time or patience right now to argue it out with someone who thinks it's indefensible, we can just disagree.

You're better at spinning than playing the fool.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=8401
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=8436

Dude you are going to have to go back an reference wtf post you are talking about.

I’ll need your post # I’m commenting on and my reply post #.

Let’s keep the language clean in here

On another note, I just remembered that one time I played 1/2 nlhe with my parents. My mom made a sick river call with queen high and some hoody kid had eight high and jumped out of shoes

This was before the solver days though, she wouldn’t make the same play now ha ha

I don't know, and I don't have to know. But if it's J4, the most straightforward explanation for making an insane play is temporary insanity. Not in the clinical sense, but in the human sense that not everything we do is totally rational.

Why is it so hard to believe that a person playing a gambling game can get caught up in the excitement and rush of playing on a live stream for a lot of money (and maybe fame), with some of the top players, and maybe get convinced they have a read on someone, or that luck is with them that day, or that they're sick of being bullied into folding, or just seeing a pile of chips and momentarily forgetting the insane amounts of money they represent, or simply decide to go with a gut feeling instead of running the math and playing the way they're supposed to?

If I had to guess at what makes someone succeed at poker under high pressure over the long term, it's probably got a lot to do with the ability to conquer what's going on in their own heads, the way it does in professional sports and other high-level skills.

What was Robbi saying just before she called? "I really want to see your cards" or something like that. Maybe the smart move was to not act on that impulse, but most people don't make the smart move 100% of the time. Then afterwards she says "You think I'm not embarrassed to win with these cards?"

You guys are embarrassing yourselves trying to dunk on Strange fwiw.

Are you off your meds?

You come at me tonight at 8:22PM Post #8558 and start with a quote that looks like mine. But it’s my post with you having changed words. And I’m supposed to know wtf you are talking about? I thought you were referencing a completely different conversation I had with another poster.

Let’s just start over. At 8:22PM # 8558 (I still have no idea what you point tonight is.)

This is you misquoting me:

“*****word salad deleted for brevity*****”
Then you say:

“The fact you deleted a list of 100% verifiable and factual statements, and then mischaracterized it as “conjecture" just shows how incredibly disingenuous you are in this whole conversation.”


Now that I know what you are referring to I’ll do it this way if it makes you happy. I still have no idea of how your post 8558 at 8:22PM relates to this though. Here it is the way you need it done.

This is Strange Occurrence Talking:

This is RJT replying to that

So now your 6th quote on this topic is to get overly defensive and insulting?

You knew exactly which post I was talking about, because I quoted it, and that's the post you accused me of "conjecture" in.

I've also told you before that you can click on the double arrows in the quote to get to the OP, and you're still trying to claim you don't know this. You've supposedly been posting here since 2004 you really don't know this?

You intentionally deleted a list of 100% verifiable facts, and mischaracterized it as "conjecture." The more you try to deny this, the more obvious it is you're not acting in good faith. You should just drop this. It's not a good look.

"——all conjecture deleted for brevity——"

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=8401
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=8436

There was no need to reiterate your litany of “factual “statements” in my reply. It would be superfluous to do so. The reason I quoted you was so that you would know my reply with its questions was direct at you. For you to answer.

The word salad (your words);deletion was because it was superfluous not censorship.