1) They stole the lucky charm from a competitor in a tournament, with the claim that "If he really was doing well because he believed in the lucky charm, he would now perform worse." So they illegally stole from him and messed with his livelihood. They didn't know if he was cheating or not, just suspected.
2) They claimed he was cheating because he had unusual statistics. But their reasons were based on unconvincing statistics -- sure, he could be cheating, but he could also not be! And how could we take them seriously anyway, when the professor looks at her for 3 seconds and then says "she's bluffing now, I know her tells after working with her for 3 years". Oh? So *he* can spot her tells quickly, but poker players in a tournament would not be able to, when she has been playing for a couple of years and is not the newbie? Ridiculous!
3) They act like these absolute morons are somehow "really smart". No, really smart people from a middle class background would not get 2 million dollars in debt in vegas. That is absolute stupidity. "You took a risk, you learned about yourself! I myself got suckered into losing 800 dollars here!" These people are just morons.
4) Because someone is drinking faster, they are guilty!?? Totally ridiculous! She could have just been nervous! She could have been hoping the female would win the tournament for publicity reasons. She could want to finish her drink before going to the bathroom. There are so many reasons! It would be fine if they said "we're going to follow these 3 people who were drinking quickly, since maybe one of them is involved", but not to just decide someone was "drinking quickly because they were guilty and surprised by how the tournament's round was going"!
5) The detective is working on an old case -- more than 10 years old or something like that? And cancels lunch dates with the person they are dating three times? Saying "this is important" ? It is stupid jerk behavior also. The case is not going anywhere. The detective should not be canceling their lunch date over a 10 year old case that can wait.
Still an enjoyable episode, but given the horrible aspects above, I have rated it low.
2) They claimed he was cheating because he had unusual statistics. But their reasons were based on unconvincing statistics -- sure, he could be cheating, but he could also not be! And how could we take them seriously anyway, when the professor looks at her for 3 seconds and then says "she's bluffing now, I know her tells after working with her for 3 years". Oh? So *he* can spot her tells quickly, but poker players in a tournament would not be able to, when she has been playing for a couple of years and is not the newbie? Ridiculous!
3) They act like these absolute morons are somehow "really smart". No, really smart people from a middle class background would not get 2 million dollars in debt in vegas. That is absolute stupidity. "You took a risk, you learned about yourself! I myself got suckered into losing 800 dollars here!" These people are just morons.
4) Because someone is drinking faster, they are guilty!?? Totally ridiculous! She could have just been nervous! She could have been hoping the female would win the tournament for publicity reasons. She could want to finish her drink before going to the bathroom. There are so many reasons! It would be fine if they said "we're going to follow these 3 people who were drinking quickly, since maybe one of them is involved", but not to just decide someone was "drinking quickly because they were guilty and surprised by how the tournament's round was going"!
5) The detective is working on an old case -- more than 10 years old or something like that? And cancels lunch dates with the person they are dating three times? Saying "this is important" ? It is stupid jerk behavior also. The case is not going anywhere. The detective should not be canceling their lunch date over a 10 year old case that can wait.
Still an enjoyable episode, but given the horrible aspects above, I have rated it low.
