[freyr]

This arguably makes cheating less likely. If someone in production knew both players’ hole cards, which was the theory, this would be a nonsensical place to cheat. It was still a coin flip to either lose everything or, best case scenario, win a hand with a remarkable call that was sure to draw scrutiny.

If they were that unbelievably reckless, this wouldn’t be the only hand they cheated in. Yet there weren’t other examples of notable calls or folds that indicated cheating.

The simplest explanation in my mind is that this rather inexperienced player made a very loose call and got lucky. I can’t rule out the possibility of cheating, but there’s not enough evidence to make it more than a conspiracy theory.

[RyanCavanaugh]

Yeah, if I had to rank the scenarios in order of likelihood:

1. Lew made a statistically awful call and got lucky

2. (yawning chasm of implausibility)

3. A rough tie between

3a. Lew made an extremely shrewd read and figured out the exact one hand Adelstein could have that she was ahead of and called on that basis

and

3b. Lew could cheat, and chose to do so in the one spot that gave her very little additional equity and immediately exposed the cheat at the same time

[freyr]

Yes, there were enough coincidences to at least make cheating a possibility, but without any credible evidence I don’t think the “100% guilty” people should be taken seriously.

[jstx1]

It seems very arbirtrary to claim that she can absolutely be this bad at poker but she can't possibly be this bad at cheating.

[kuboble]

> it would be a nonsensical spot to cheat in

I believe this observation doesn't make cheating less likely.

If you're bad enough to play like that without cheating, you're bad enough to cheat like that.

[freyr]

If you’re bad enough to cheat like that, you’re not good enough to avoid a pattern of suspicious behavior.