Quote:
Originally Posted by
bukowski72
I would appreciate if you or Drex (or Druff) would comment on the OP's comments about the play. I have only played 2-7 triple draw about 3 times and have no room to comment on the play.
Drex is the better 2-7 player than me, but I'll give it a shot.
For those of you that don't know, in 2-7 triple draw, you are trying to make the lowest possible 5-card hand (23457, no flush), and you have three drawing rounds to improve your hand.
In addition to attempting to avoid flushes and straights (which are terrible for obvious reasons), you also need to avoid pairs. If you finish with a pair in your hand, there is a good chance you have the worst hand.
Regarding the drawing, that can be a giveaway that your hand is weak. That is, if you "stand pat" and don't draw anything, you either like your hand or are trying to fool your opponent into thinking you like your hand. If you are drawing something like 3 cards, then your hand is obviously bad, and it's rare that all 3 cards will combine to make your hand good.
A common strategy in 2-7 triple draw is to hammer your opponent who is drawing a lot, assuming that he isn't likely to improve to like his hand much, and you can bet him off his hand without making much yourself. This is the holdem equivalent to betting when checked to, but with an additional dimension.
Going back to what this guy was saying....
He complained of the following (I will refer to his opponent has "the cheater", even though cheating hasn't been proven yet):
1) His friend, who had a pair of 8s after the third draw, tried to bluff the cheater. The cheater called him with a pair of 6s (a bad hand), which was shocking. Then the cheater again called his friend bluffing with 8s, this time holding a pair of 7s. So not only did the cheater call twice while holding a pair, but both times he called with a pair that was slightly lower (i.e. better) than the guy bluffing him.
2) John Locke (the accuser) noticed his opponent was hyper-aggressive, but oddly got super passive or foldy whenever John made a hand, no matter how many cards he drew. In one case, John drew 3 cards and the cheater just drew 1. John lucked out and improved to 2357x on his first draw (a great hand at this point, but his opponent should assume he is super weak), and tried to check-raise. Oddly the cheater checked back despite only drawing 1. Any good/aggressive player is auto-betting there in position when his opponent draws 3 and he only draws 1 card.
3) In another spot, John came within 2 spots of 23457 after the second draw after drawing two cards, with the cheater only drawing 1. John checked, and the cheater checked -- again peculiar for an aggressive player. When John bet the river after lucking into making 23457, the cheater folded.
4) When both players were drawing 1 card (referred to as a "1-1 spot"), the cheater was always getting hyperaggressive if John paired up. In one case, the cheater value bet king high after John's hand worsened by drawing one and getting an ace.
John has over 2,000 posts on 2+2. I think I believe that he was being cheated there.
The question is who did it, and how.
While it's possible that a screengrabber trojan was installed onto the victims' computers (thereby not being SWC's fault), it's also very possible that the cheater cracked the system or the RNG in some way.
For SWC management to stonewall them on the results of the investigation is bullshit, and highly suspicious.
