Cheating scandals in chess, poker, and fishing!

[Flabbibulin]

So three fairly big cheating scandals going on in the chess, poker, and fishing worlds. Each worthy of conversation and debate, although the fishing one seems to be the most clear cut.

The chess cheating scandal has been going on for about a month, and is definitely the one that I am most uncertain about. Presumably the case is built on the fact that Hans Niemann apparently cheated (online) when he was much younger, and is simply not at the level to beat Magnus- particularly when Magnus is playing white.

I have watched the poker clip a couple times and read up on exactly what makes it so bizarre, but I am simply not knowledgeable enough in the game to understand why it can't be a case of a not too bright player (in poker terms anyway) getting lucky on a hero call? I am wondering if the poker analysts are looking at this too technically and giving the accused too much credit when perhaps she didn't really know in the moment why she was betting and calling the way she was.

edit- I forgot to mention one of the most bizarre details of the poker scandal- Robbi agreed to give back the money to her accuser, almost immediately after it happened. Why the hell would she do that if she was not cheating?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63108879

[Slava]

The chess scandal is quite fascinating to me. I read an article where they were talking about perfect games (because in chess all of the moves are known, and you can play a perfect game in theory). Carlsen has done that twice, I think. Which is incredible, and suddenly Niemann has played a number of perfect games. (I wish I could find this article now!)

Anyway...if that's legitimate, it's somewhat measurable and Niemann was almost surely cheating. No one plays perfect games that regularly and it's so statistically improbable that it would be enough to convince me, although I'm a layman.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The rumour that the chess guy was getting his moves relayed to him via Morse code using a butt plug is amazing. What a crappy thing to do.

[nfotiu]

I'm in a lot of fishing FB groups, and that fishing video was all over this weekend. According to comments, the guys had won a $300,000 tournament last year and a boat in another one. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of lawsuits trying to get that money back, but it's going to be tough to prove.

The poker seemed like she tried call out his bluff and clumsingly ended up committed and had to call at the end. Is she playing with her own money?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I'm in a lot of fishing FB groups, and that fishing video was all over this weekend. According to comments, the guys had won a $300,000 tournament last year and a boat in another one. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of lawsuits trying to get that money back, but it's going to be tough to prove.

The poker seemed like she tried call out his bluff and clumsingly ended up committed and had to call at the end. Is she playing with her own money?

The cowboy hat guy at the other end in of the table is apparently her bf, or at the very least some sort of business partner. I guess he is Logan or Jake Paul's boxing coach- so you know integrity isn't an issue with this guy ... Anyway, the suggestion has been that he is bankrolling her, evidenced by her sudden move from fairly low level games in the past to suddenly being high stakes. You will have to watch the full game clip, but he definitely gets outraged when she agrees to give back the money.

And for what it is worth, it looks to me like he is wearing a Richard Mille watch, which can be around $500K.

[Firebot]

The poker hand isn't cheating...just a questionable hero call even with the reasoning, in stakes games you have some crazy bad calls that make no sense precisely because stakes games can be very loose especially if you do not care about the money. She was running behind even with the call which is why her percentage is lower. (Garret had pretty much nearly half the deck as outs). They ran it twice and he lost both, but he was slight favourite to win both.

The board was also very drawy, whether she called to make a stand and had a range on him and truly believed he had nothing (a draw is not a made hand) no one would have questioned her of cheating if she lost both run outs. Bluffs and hero calls are a part of poker. There's no controversy outside of Garrett making the accusation (and to be honest there is a big misogynistic stereotype about poker players like Robbi).

I've seen the chess scandal, and there has been zero evidence of actual cheating, but Magnus Carlsen is determined that he was beat by a cheater.

Niemann did not play a perfect game, he just played a better game then Carlsen which markedly some of his moves were seen as questionable. Carlsen has refused to elaborate on why he thinks Niemann cheated and let the allegations fester with zero evidence.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The poker hand isn't cheating...just a questionable hero call even with the reasoning, in stakes games you have some crazy bad calls that make no sense precisely because stakes games can be very loose. She was running behind even with the call which is why her percentage is lower. (Garret had pretty much nearly half the deck as outs). They ran it twice and he lost both, but he was slight favourite to win both.

The board was also very drawy, whether she called to make a stand and had a range on him and truly believed he had nothing (a draw is not a made hand) no one would have questioned her of cheating if she lost both run outs. Bluffs and hero calls are a part of poker.

I've seen the chess scandal, and there has been zero evidence of actual cheating, but Magnus Carlsen is determined that he was beat by a cheater.

Niemann did not play a perfect game, he just played a better game then Carlsen which markedly some of his moves were seen as questionable. Carlsen has refused to elaborate on why he thinks Niemann cheated and let the allegations fester with zero evidence.

I'm not saying he played a perfect game in that particular game, but he had played a significant number of perfect games (something like 12-13, which is astounding). It's not the kind of thing that you or I just fluke into doing.

[Derek Sutton]

The poker case, the man involved in this hand has the story on his twitter @GmanPoker

https://twitter.com/GmanPoker

Even if she knows what he has, it is still a terrible call given his outs. Something doesn't seem right but it could be that she was on something in not in the right frame of mind? You cannot call that all in with nothing.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

The poker case, the man involved in this hand has the story on his twitter @GmanPoker

https://twitter.com/GmanPoker

Even if she knows what he has, it is still a terrible call given his outs. Something doesn't seem right but it could be that she was on something in not in the right frame of mind? You cannot call that all in with nothing.

Standing up to a bully, tilt, in cash games rationality and odds doesn't always become the only factor, no matter the stakes.

If she had called with J high on the river, that would be a little more suspicious, but would just be a bluff catcher if she believed he was on a straight draw.

Just someone with sour grapes about losing a hand IMO to someone he clearly feels he is better (so she didn't cheat all the other hands but did this one because it was out of character despite he still having the best odds?)

[Raekwon]

Yeah why would you blow your cover on a cheat that was 50/50 at best. Only if she knew what he had and what was coming up in the deck would it make sense and that just isn't possible.

First tournament I played in I made it to the showdown, I offered to splitt as I was already scared and just wanted to come out with something as the other guy was a serious player. He refused and we played a few hands, by this time I already had a massive headache as I stopped drinking as I was driving and we were 8 hours in. I don't remember what I had but it wasn't a good hand at all I just wanted to get out of there so I went all in, I ended up winning on a hand I had no business winning on and the guy was right pissed. What the F%# were doing doing going all in with that hand, etc.

All in all it was a bad situation for both of us, he lost that night but winning made me over confident and I never came close to winning again.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Standing up to a bully, tilt, in cash games rationality and odds doesn't always become the only factor, no matter the stakes.

If she had called with J high on the river, that would be a little more suspicious, but would just be a bluff catcher if she believed he was on a straight draw.

Just someone with sour grapes about losing a hand IMO to someone he clearly feels he is better (so she didn't cheat all the other hands but did this one because it was out of character despite he still having the best odds?)

Yep, and why would she let the river run twice if she knew what he had? And why would she call after the flop? Every move she made was the wrong one if she knew what he had. I guess if she knew what he had and knew which cards were coming up, she did the right thing. But if they had a system that knew all that, then why pick less obvious moments to take advantage?

It seems like she is probably staked, not for her poker skills, and made some questionable decisions about money she didn't care about that snowballed.

[Jacks]

Ya I highly doubt the poker one is cheating. It would have to be a really sophisticated system to be running a cheat there, if so surely she would pick better spots than that. Those cash games are pretty loose quite often, she could pick up a lot of pots making big raises with the best hand when the other player is bluffing and never have to show her hand.

[chemgear]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1576269287454806016

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://twitter.com/user/status/1576269287454806016

and Jake just stood there taking it all

[Erick Estrada]

Cheaters are the worst.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://twitter.com/user/status/1576269287454806016

Is nothing ####ing sacred anymore.

[TheIronMaiden]

With respect to the Chess cheating scandal, FIDE is launching an investigation, and to date, leading chess detectives have not found anything suspicious. The Claims of perfect games are done by amateurs using ham fisted analysis.

The people who are pushing the cheating narrative are Carlsen and a handful of folks in the chess entertainment industry.

I am not saying that Nieman did not cheat, but if he did not than it is a really sad story. Nieman who is 19 is just starting his chess career and allegations of cheating could de-rail his career forever, while those who are claiming he cheated, with very limited evidence, will suffer no consequence.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is nothing ####ing sacred anymore.

Those guys had clearly done it before with the fish inside the fish move. The weights inside the fish seems like flying a little too close to the sun.

[jg13]

My thoughts on the cheating scandals.

Poker: This one is very interesting because there are a lot of things that could make you believe that she was cheating however I don't think this was the case. The hand exactly previous to the one she made that hero call on she had J3. The next hand when she made the hero call she had J4 and a 3 was the turn card. She said "Is a 3 good?" which I believe makes it seem like she believed she had a 3 and bottom pair. Once she ended up winning with J high I believe she was embarrassed and flustered in the moment and tried to make an excuse for making such a strange call which unfortunately for her makes it look worse because what she said immediately after winning the hand didn't make sense. Looks like Phil Ivey agrees that is most likely what happened.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577000868297048064

Chess: I follow chess quite a bit and it sounds like when Neimann was invited to the tournament as a last minute replacement a couple of players including Carlsen contemplated dropping out prior to the tournament starting but since a lot of them already had their accommodation booked, already were in the St Louis area from across the world they decided to play anyways. Not only has Hans admitted to cheating in the past but his mentor has been busted for cheating as well https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34q...om-emails-show. I don't believe Hans cheated in the game that he beat Magnus in during the Sinquefield cup however I think knowing Hans is capable of cheating threw Magnus off his game which led him to play very poorly.

I believe these two tweets below are pretty convincing evidence that Hans has cheated more recently than he claims. (Claimed the last time he cheated was when he was 16 back in 2019)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1574780445744668673

https://twitter.com/user/status/1574780448328359943

Either Hans is the most impressive American talent of all time or he's a fraud IMO.

Fishing: First i've heard of this scandal.

Edit: Adding Phil Ivy take video.

[mrkajz44]

I've followed both the chess and poker stories a bit and both of them are extremely similar:

- Well respected vet gets beat by a relatively inexperienced player
- Well respected vet accused the other one of cheating because their ego has a hard time handling the loss
- Zero evidence is presented other than "this is odd / unusual"
- Most people side with well respected vet and form all sorts wild theories about how/why the other player cheated

It's clearly an abuse of power and the chess one is even worse because Carlsen is basically the GOAT so his word carries a ton of weight. I've seen some commentary thrown around legal defamation because these top players are obviously harming the reputation of the lower players with no actual evidence other than "they shouldn't have beat me and they played unusual".

I had no idea about the fishing story, but that one seems pretty clear.