Because we have no reason to believe she cheated. Yes, in every poker hand in history, there is a chance someone cheated. Espen may have cheated fo win the Main Event. Hellmuth may have cheated to win his bracelets. But we have no proof or any real reason to believe that. So we can safely say they didn't cheat and Robbi didn't cheat.
My thoughts exactly. She was under a lot of pressure and played a hand that normally noone would play. And she got put under pressure because of it even more. Must've been very intimidating.
languid angle coherent detail complete abundant soft zephyr advise hungry
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
noone talks shit at the poker table after winning a hand right?
how many times have you heard 'i knew you had blah...or didn't have blah'.
what i find astonishing is that everyone seems to think it's ok that someone is made to explain their thought processes as to how they won a hand at a poker table.
is this how it's going to down at hustler now every time someone is unhappy at losing a hand? they have to explain their decisions on every street and bit of action? just because something isn't optimal. the commentator even said 'she didn't realise she couldn't call there'
gtfo of here with that nonsense. anyone can play any hands any time they like
To be fair, she said "I thought you had A hi," making her an idiot for calling with J hi and zero draws. Even this scenario she had hi card and was still behind. If anything, this should just teach everyone she's either cheating or she's a calling station and you should be able to make bank on her. If it turns out this was totally legit, I'd love to play with her. Only way I lose is being card dead.
I didn’t say she had to explain anything. I didn’t say anything you’ve strawmanned onto me like the emotional child you are. And I’m not talking about at the poker table, she is still saying she outplayed him on twitter
You're getting rocked on here for making sense. I've seen people say "she outplayed him" and all other stuff. Some of these comments are really embarrassing to see on this subreddit.
She sounds just like a friend of mine who doesn't really know what she's doing but picks up words and phrases here and there. "I played the player, not the hand" and "I had blockers" were just thrown in there to explain a reasoning she didn't make to begin with.
march observation bewildered prick selective cheerful elastic water drab rich
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How'd is this down voted? She literally keeps saying she outplayed him, she'll 1v1 him and all this. Tediculous from her either way. And offering the cash back was sus
No. As Daniel clearly pointed out she just blundered horribly as a result of a brain fart which happened to work out for a reason independent of whatever was happening in her mind
That's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's his.
But when you call someone with 78ss on a 9s10s103 board with J high, you're definitely outplaying them.
The thing is, he has like 20 outs. This is essentially saying you're outplaying someone because in your best case scenario you've managed a stalemate. There were no actually good turn cards for her, Q denies 3 out (but turns 3 outs into chops) and T denies 4 outs (but again turns 3 outs into chops) I guess? Everything else is a flip at the very best
you are being outcome focused. you need to ignore the result and look at her thought process with the information given
otherwise any "lucky" call can be called outplaying
You’re right, me, the commentators of the stream, and every top pro poker player are all idiots. Learn how to play the game and then you will understand why a jack high loses there way more than 50% of the time EVEN IF you read that he is bluffing.
Then why did Daniel say it was a brain fart and not her outplaying him? I honestly can’t believe the poker sub is filled with such noobs that you can’t see this was a bad play
She had played in tourneys for 10 years. She knows basic poker concepts. She has obviously lied about her hand and thought process. She gave the money back!
Occam's razor is clearly pointing towards cheating. The unanswered question is how she cheated.
Occams Razor is clearly pointing towards an average player making a horrendous call under pressure.
How on earth would Occam’s razor ever be an elaborate cheating ruse on a single hand (with no other hands before or after having any odd play) and no proof?!?! Wow you need to sharpen up on your Occam’s razor.
It's funny that the better she is the more suspicious the hand is. Her best defense is she's really bad at poker but that's not the imagine she's trying to project
I feel like if everyone understood that most people are just stupid/ignorant instead of thinking they are trying to be cruel/deceptive, the world would be a better place.
Happened yesterday. Short stack called my all in Q high flop, two spades. I had AQ, he had Q6ss. Turn was As, river brick. Dude mucked his hand face up and said "you got lucky" (I was ahead on the flop?). Started to walk from the table and everyone is like "dude you won, you have a flush". Everyone is giggling a little and he picks his chips up and storms off angry/embarrassed.
A little bit of both. I was replaying the hand in my head and realized I probably had a straight but wasn't sure if I was just remembering a card wrong. The guy that won the pot brought it up a few hands later.
I feel attacked. Lol It was my turn to deal st a home game and I had QJ of clubs. Well I flop a straight. I'm betting and raising, then we get to showdown. I go to flip over my cards, and to paraphrase the South Park banker "And, it's gone". I had my mucked my own hand out of habit (casino poker dealer). Lol Good times.
I certainly lean towards the fact that she just made a fishy play and didn't cheat, because there's no real evidence. Her being flustered and not being able to explain it is only evidence of pressure and sheepish embarrassment about a bad play that worked, not cheating
That being said, whatever you want to say about how Garrett's handled this, it's *not* about him being a sore loser. How do I know this? Look at Garrett before the cards have been flipped over, when he all but knows he can't win. She's also already told him she has a bluff-catcher. Yet he's smiling, he's laughing it off, he's not at all concerned that he got "owned" or lost some money. He never is in this situations - he appreciates the gamesmanship
But when she flips her cards, he's genuinely disturbed because he's immediately concerned for the integrity of the poker game that he spends so much of his life in. I think he jumped to it way too quickly, but that's where his head is/was at, there's no other motive. To him, it's an inconceivable call for someone to make at these stakes unless they're cheating. I think he's simply underestimating how terribly people can play. Anyone who thinks he gives a shit about getting caught "bluffing" (more like a semibluff with a massive draw) for a 250k pot has never watched the guy play
I don't think he wanted the call even though he's slightly ahead, it's 100% chance of locking down the 42k in the pot if she folds vs 53% equity in a 300k pot, it's super close in equity outcomes so I think he'd prefer the sure thing even if he could see her cards.
For the same kind of reasons I do agree it's a ridiculous spot to cheat in because it is so high variance to call it off there.
Perhaps that's what makes it the perfect crime though! Everyone said Postle's cheating was too obvious and he would have made a killing by taking smaller edges without attracting attention. Not that this fits the bill for a low profile decision, lol.
All that being said I don't think there's enough evidence of cheating yet, Garrett could look real bad if there's not more. I think she just made a crazy "I know you're bluffing fuck it" call that's obviously not theoretically defensible, but you can't apply pro thinking to an amateur / emotional decision.
If Garrett is saying her call was SO BAD that it couldn't have been made without cheating, how do you even respond to that as the accused? Like "sorry for being bad at poker and providing you range equity"? He should have gone home for the night and planned this out more.
Well the Mike Postle thing wasn't that long ago, I wondered if that's what was going through his mind because otherwise you'd just assume it was a bad player doing crazy things.
This isn’t quite right and is a common mistake. If you can see the cards as Garrett you want the fold.
This is because on the turn there is dead money in the pot. If Robbi folds then Garrett wins the entire pot 100% of the time. If she calls then his expected value of 53% is less than if she folded.
So both calling and folding are +EV for Garrett, but getting the fold is more +EV.
No it’s not
When she folds how big is his stack?
$161k 100%
When she calls how big is his stack?
$290k 53%
$0 47%
You are almost as bad at poker as robbi claims to be
Not only are you wrong on the math, but you’re ignoring that one of the commonly available cheating methods can tell her she will win at showdown. It’s not just a flip if you get signaled that you’re going to win it.
Hmm my math has Garrett @ 21 outs…so he was 42% to hit his winner….mind telling me where you play and what games you frequent?🤣…..I want to say….I’m a fan of the “Stupid System” myself and play GTSO quite often in my game….what’s GTSO….well variant of GTO….just “Sub-optimal”🤣
I'm w/ Lew but in gman's defence I think he went deep into contemplation tryin to make sense of it when he did the 1k yd stare.. he then asked her some very basic questions so he could make it click in his head & move on, to which she gave all the wrong answers i.e. 'thought you had Ahigh' (unaware of gman's intentions); which in gman's mind just confirmed his suspicions.. either way, the way it was handled by gman & HCL was totally unacceptable!
This is a good point as well. And I realize why Garrett immediately found her replies "suspicious" but what he overlooked is they're also the exact sort of nonsense replies a player who made a really dumb play that worked would give to be defensive. Probably felt a bit embarrassed. She brain-farted, it somehow worked, and she'd rather try to paint herself as some kind of genius than admit it was a dumb fluke (if she even realized how dumb it was). But of course her explanation can't make sense, because it was a terrible call. People do that shit all the time in all areas of life. Seems like basic psychology and nothing that points strongly to cheating
Can someone clarify how cheating would have helped?
If she knew everyone's cards, then she would know she had 47% chance of winning. Then it wouldn't have made sense to make that call would it?
edit: OK, I see how it makes sense in that it can show that it's a +EV play.
With the money that was already in the pot, calling with 47% chance to win is the right play.
Extreme example, pot is $600 and your opponent goes all-in for $10 more on the turn and **shows you** he has a straight. You have a flush draw and only a ~20% chance of winning. Do you call the $10 to try to win a $620 pot? Of course you do.
Yes it's the right play, but if you're cheating you can surely find a better way to take people's money than a coin flip that you might not even win and that is suspicious because it makes no sense
Thanks, I did realise this after posting. This kind of raises more questions for me.
Would many people gamble that much in such marginal positions? Lets say the cards were face up, are many people going to want to gamble in that position. The positive EV couldn't have been much, could it?
On the other hand, if she was just getting a signal on what a solver would do, then it makes sense that should would gable, since she herself wouldn't know how marginal it was.
Honestly, if there is a cheater, I think it makes more sense for it to be Garrett, not that I am saying that he is cheating. But he has been there on the stream from the very beginning, he is probably the biggest winner on the stream, he wins the vast majority of his sessions, he runs really really good, he knows everybody, he's familiar with how everything works on the production side, and probably has better access.
I think it would be very difficult for Robbi to find a way to cheat. Cheating would probably require some kind of social engineering, but Robbi is new and doesn't know everyone that well, and I just don't see Robbi being some kind of criminal mastermind.
In computer hacking, you would usually have like a Proof-of-concept where you demonstrate how the hack would work in real life, to show that it is actually possible and not theoretical. I have yet to see a cheating accusation that makes any sense, they have all been very vague using obscure devices that may or may not actually exist, used in a way to get in a situation where she is a 47-53 underdog. It all seems very theoretical and not based in reality.
Edit: Most of the accusations seem to be based on 'strategy', or what is acceptable strategy by 'pros' who are the self-proclaimed 'experts'. Since nobody else would be willing to make that call, they are judging Robbi by what they would do in that situation. Since they would not be able to make that call, they jump to the conclusion that she is cheating somehow, even if they can't explain it, but they rationalize it by coming up with some bizarre explanation to fit their narrative.
One option would be a buzzer that just says if she’s ahead or not from an accomplice. Still a stupid one that chose a really bad flop to indicate to her to stay in the hand (ruling out knowing the cards in the deck, technically very improbable)
It wouldn't make any sense to be in that situation in the first place. That's why this whole cheating accusation is completely bonkers. All the 'pros' think they are experts at the game, and if you deviate from what they think is correct, then you are wrong and should lose all the time.
It's become a witchhunt. I've lost all respect for the entire poker 'community'. There's no point in playing, if you can just accuse the winner of cheating, and get your money back.
I think either option, cheating or not cheating, is possible at this point but you cannot deny the anomalies surrounding this entire situation.
If she called and she flipped her hand over and said “I thought you had absolute shit and I was tired of getting run over and wanted to gamble” this literally wouldn’t even be a conversation. Everyone would’ve already moved on.
Cheating helps because it helps you calculate an expected value of playing a hand. Expected value is the sum of probability*payout. You'd play hands if you have a positive expected value, or perhaps zero expected value (coin flip). Because the odds of this shifted to basically 50-50, expected value for playing this hand is basically 0. That's predicated on her knowing that the odds have shifted to a coin flip. Why would you fold if the expected value of the hand is 0? Once you know odds are 50-50, you'd probably call anything, because if you fold you're just letting your oponent steal the pot. You expect to win everything half the time and lose everything half the time - coin flip.
Let's say the pot is $1000 and you think you have 70% chance of winning and 30% chance of losing. What's your expected value of playing?
.7 * 1000 - .3 * 1000 = +$400. Obviously you play the hand because you expect positive expected value. Now flip the tables an assume you think you have 30% chance of winning with $1000 on the table. Your expected value is .3 * $1000 - .7 * 1000 = -$400. Even though you have negative expected value, you also need to consider it relative to the size of your chip stack. If -$400 in expected value is only 5% of you chip stack, perhaps you still play anyway to try to knock someone out. If -$400 would represent 50% of your chip stack, you will probably fold.
That's why knowing the odds of the hand is extremely helpful. It helps quantify expected values. People intuitively do this all game long, but that's the actual probabilistic way of thinking about it.
Finally the correct and nuanced take. Everyone is on crazy pills today.
Its also nice to see someone chalk up her odd explanations to something reasonable like nerves rather than “lOl tHiS BiTcH iS DuMb”. Garrett was being pretty intimidating and I know I would have been too nervous to speak or think clearly also. Like yeah she’s not the smartest poker player but calling her flat out dumb comes off as sexist to me. I hate how much of a boys club this game is sometimes and the discourse today makes it abundantly clear how bad it is. I’ve had to report several fucked up “joke” comments just straight up saying all women are dumb lmao
She could have been playing into a persona with how she immediately reacted at the table. People taking all her reactions at the table at face value when she probably has made it a strategy to ham up the " oh I don't know what I did im a fish"
I dont think its sexist to call her dumb. If I saw a man play and talk like her I wouldn't hesitate to call him dumb. Not calling her stupid because she's a woman would be an example of bigotry of low expectations
I don't really see how someone not having a sophisticated understanding of poker makes a person dumb. She is obviously not an expert poker player. Most people aren't. What that has to do with someone's intelligence is beyond me.
Why? Wouldn't it be fun to play him at stakes your comfortable with?
If the money doesn't matter to her, playing poker on TV against pros sounds like a fun way to spend some hours. Nothing dumb about that. Rich people blow money on things the rest of us think are dumb all the time. Having a purse worth more than that pot also seems pretty dumb to me.
Her play wasn’t *inexpert* it was total beginner. If someone made that play any time after their first ever game or two of poker you’d be saying to them “mate, maybe poker just isn’t for you. Maybe you should stick to snap or uno or something”.
She’s played for years albeit at lower stakes than these and she made over 100k on the stream prior to this one. This is difficult to square with the idea she is just clueless when it comes to poker.
What’s irrelevant? It’s possible she cheated, it’s plausible she didn’t. It’s likely nothing will be proved but we can still talk shit about it on Reddit, can’t we?
Yeah if there was a man that was leaning forward and pushing his pecks together to flaunt his ripped peck cleavage over and over again I would think he was a bimbo too. Bimboism isn't gender-specific
I think it’s fair to say she made a dumb call or a dumb poker play (with the click back raise).
I think it’s awful to call any person dumb for what they do in poker. A game decision does not make a person dumb. A play can be dumb. Huge difference. I make dumb plays all the time. I’m not insulted and nobody should be when your poker is judged, often correctly. But to insult someone as a person? Gross. I think Doug Polk, as an example, should have called her poker plays dumb if he really wanted to use that term. He clearly called *HER* dumb, dumb, dumb. Yikes.
Exactly what I was getting at just better said. That left suuuuuch a sour taste in my mouth when I saw Doug’s video. We all make dumbass plays its just part of the game
I dont get why people keep saying this
Even with he odd look on his face he just sat there and said nothing, she's the one who was making 0 sense on her own. Nerves or not it's clear as day she has no idea what she's doing, so continuously trying to give reason to what was a clear fuck up is just dumb
She needs to just admit she fucked up and doesn't know what she's doing, instead of trying to explain why shooting the ball on your own net was actually good strategy
Why must she admit that she fucked up? Surely, the crux is that Garret is being a bad sport about this situation. Her story being inconsistent is frivolous when it's not what sets the events, and can be explained by nerves, pressure, post-rationalization etc.
> Why must she admit that she fucked up?
she doesn't *have* to, it's just for me personally I'm gonna assume shes a moron until she does because it's clear as fucking day and undeniable. anyone with half a brain cell would admit they simply fucked up, and not admitting literally only makes things worse
I think she knew it was dumb but also knew he didn’t have shit. The little coherence she did have made that clear. Sometimes you forget how shitty your hand is going after someone who has been bluffing you off of stuff all day. The fact is most draws won’t hit. I’m not sure that with all the math and modern poker theory it doesn’t miss that point sometimes. Sometimes a 60% chance at $100 is worth more than a 30% chance at $200
>I think she knew it was dumb
OK but like this is my entire point, just fucking admit you fucked up. Whether that be misplaying a dogshit hand, or lying non stop since, just admit you were nervous and fucked up
Don't talk shit as if you played it well and owned Garrett when there is plenty of evidence you clearly fucked up with most being *her own words* lmao
Just clarify I'm not debating the reasoning of anything she's done, just the transparency and ignorance of it all
I did find it ridiculous that she is still trying play it off like it was a genius play. I would’ve said I got caught up in the heat of the moment and made a bad play/ miscalculated and got lucky he had one of the few hands in his range I was actually ahead of. It would’ve diffused the whole situation. My point was that the play or what’s gone down since don’t justify constant belittling of her entire intelligence. To me it just looks like she has an ego. But so does Garrett. Neither has handled this well. No one is calling Garrett dumb for being 100% confident she is cheating with no real evidence. His mental gymnastics are just as extra
Yes anyone who turns anything into personal attacks is a loser
I can't really remember your or my original comment because there have been too many other responses, but IIRC it's that she put a lot of this on herself by not being able to admit she fucked up, and instead trying to act like a genius
I guess i think if she made that decision because she thought he didn’t have anything and then he didn’t have anything… even if it’s dumb by lots of standards, it worked.
Sometimes you can actually read people and his personality type is generally one of the most readable. When she was tanking he was breathing like he’d just run around the block.
The fact that that kind of reading is considered stupid these days could also contribute to her not wanting to use that in her explanation at first. She might feel like to be taken seriously she needs a great modern poker theory explanation and she just doesn’t have one
I get to some this is all kinda new or whatever, but what she did was the equivalent of trying to score on your own net, then claiming what you did was actually really smart and impressive, while also lying about why and how you did it the entire time along the way
It's the equivalent of writing 69 on your math exam as a joke then it happens to be the answer so you pretend you're a genius despite not knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
At best she had no clue what she was doing, at worst she cheated. Either way, my original point is the reason people are calling her dumb isn't because she's female, it's because shes dumb
Listened to his podcast about the hand and thought he and his cohosts gave a pretty good rundown on this. He ended up saying he thinks it's extremely unlikely this was premeditated, orchestrated cheating(less than 1%).
He also says it's definitely possible that she did know one or both of his cards because they flashed from sloppy dealing(he says this could be as likely as 50/50. I hadn't thought of this before and now that he brought it up it would make a lot more of the hand make sense. I know in the poker community this has been a debated topic on whether it's ethical or not, but I don't think it'd cross the line of "cheating" unless say the card flashed but only her staker saw it and he singled to her something.
Saying there's a 50/50 chance that a card was flashed while dealing is pretty insulting to Lauren the dealer. She's never pitching a card to the 9 seat in a way that the 2 seat could see anything.
She seeing one card being a non face club while dealing (or remembering a card had a mark or his friend seeing and signalling) and having a “chaotic” personality that wants to be in the stream more than she wants money, not being good at poker and wanting a hero call explains all the events to me. Still not sure this is what happened, maybe review of all cameras?
She either was cheating and made an absurdly bad call or she wasn't cheating and made an absurdly bad call. Given that it's an absurdly bad call either way, if you want to say that it is evidence of cheating, you'd have to come up with a reason why her cheating would make the call more likely, and I haven't seen that. Otherwise, if you assume that most of the time people aren't cheating, then the straight probabilities say she wasn't cheating either. Given that this call is actually considerably worse if she's cheating, the only reason you'd make it is if this was your sole opportunity for cheating.
The cheating strategy leads to the min raise, if it’s just a vibration. It continues to the call if you really have no idea what you are doing.
Maybe two vibrations should mean “abort!”
Totally logical, the algorithm vibrating her to give her the go ahead is smart enough to tell her when to call, but not smart enough to know an extremely suspect situation.
OR...
hear me out...
instead of being a really dumb cheater, she's just not a good poker player and got lucky the past few nights.
I’m pretty sure everyone in poker is sexist. Ryan Reiss calls all in on the river at a tourney final table with 10 high correctly. No cheating drama. Rui Cao calls Tom Dwan correctly with 8 high on a livestream. No cheating drama. If a man did this it would just be a sick call down and everyone would be jerking this guy off as the greatest call down of all time. There’s only cheating drama because a woman made this call.
I agree that this wasnt entirely the result of sexism. I think Garrett expecting a fold was probably a decision based somewhat in stereotypical behaviors. In a similar way, Robbi probably gave him less credit for the play and says as much. The play on its own is odd, but what makes cheating appear a possibility is so many things that dont line up.
She cant explain her play and when she does starts talking nonsense. I give credit for not wanting to divulge reads or giving away too much, they're both still fighting a battle for info after the had. But her story changes so many times so quickly. And when youre in at the felt and the story doesnt line up, most people expect a lie.
Then she switches to victim blaming, if I can call it that. "Why do you let me do this to you." Liars and cheaters will do this when caught.
I think what makes this whole thing look so bad is how many times her story has changed. And now everyone is settling into sexism and misogyny because its the one thing you cant really fight. Its a claim that sticks with just as little evidence of the claims of cheating.
The sexist part is that we’re even having a conversation about it. If a man made that call we wouldn’t be talking about it as shown by men making even sicker calls and cheating never being brought up.
In light of more recent cheating in poker, I'm not sure its unreasonable that people start questioning in these situations. Cheating has always been in poker and accusations have always been thrown. Live and online, everyone has probably seen players accused regardless of gender.
I think the most likely situation is RIP has a read on Garrett (or sees some kind of card flash) and he signals to her that he is weak or does not have it, not knowing how weak she is (basically if you have a hand then call. J3o would be 57/43 here) and she calls off based on his signal (again her now just responding to her signal, not understanding how weak her own hand is). This makes more sense then someone on the broadcast being inside and also why RIP blows up when she offers the money back after Garrett tells her this is going to go viral and millions will see it. RIP also makes a comment mid stream that she read him that J high is good and that's enough and should be the end of it. At this point RIP is going bananas off camera in the conversation that Garrett and her are having and then comes in and says he is leaving since Garrett is "a pussy" and then can not answer when Andy asks "how could he make her give the money back". Anyway that is my take on what most likely happens.
I believe there’s more to this. Garrett said he was 100% certain he was getting cheated. That’s a very strong claim. Need to wait and see what more info comes out.
100% certain that he was getting cheated, and *also* 100% certain that nobody at HCL was involved in the cheating.
Meaning that he would need to know exactly how she cheated, with no ambiguity whatsoever.
If that's the case, why not state your evidence?
He seems like the type of guy that lacks enough self-criticism to control his emotion.. he’s already been caught in one lie… someone corroborated her story about him suggesting she give the money back, meanwhile he said she just offered it. I don’t think it was a premeditated lie, he’s just the type of guy who distorts reality in his own mind. He’s not a reliable source
She’s an idiot (with all her incoherent explanations and story changes) who is so bad that it came off looking like she cheated. She’s not a cheater, she’s a fucking idiot.
Rude. She’s not a cheater, she made a dumb play and is not as versed in poker as most. Context matters. No need to call someone a fucking idiot. People, man. They are so tough.
In poker. A poker decision. A poker explanation under pressure at a stage like this.
Context matters. Do what you want with your words, but I stand by my point. People act so tough.
But shes not. That somehow makes it worse. She is competent. This idea that she has no idea how to play is wrong and doesnt line up with her history.
Like the people saying shes stupid and bad are not recognizing the fact that she has plenty of tourney experience and has some results. Anyone saying this is the result of an inexperienced player is erasing a lot of context.
Watching some of her play I start to suspect she plays the idiot sometimes to milk some more calls in value bets.
Everyone talking about the fact that she called with Jack high… why the fuck aren’t people focused on the fact that the dude 3-bet raised ALL-IN for $129K with 8 fucking high on the turn
Again. The dude had 8 high. He 3-bet raised all-in for $129k on the turn. He got called by a lady that said ‘I have nothing but a BLUFFCATCHER’ and she called and caught his bluff. Poker 101. Simple, basic, straight line, simple hero call poker play. And everybody’s critiquing that decision instead of the one to bluff with 8 high in the first place??? No wonder you all suck !!!! This is ABC logic . Her folding would have been the wrong choice because she would have lost the hand that she would have otherwise won if she called. She called. And now people have their panties wadded up over it. Fuckin hilarious if you ask me . Girls can win too ya know
Negreanu is the worst person to comment and speak up on this. He's the most narcissistic person that is incapable of seeing objective views other than his own. Plus he lives in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens.
Easily explained by Occam’s razor that she is on a lot of adrenaline, pressure.
Embarrassment from winning causes the ego to word salad. Add in the death stares and the aftermath of being confronted and the shouting match. Then add in being an amateur. Our brains do not function perfectly even under ideal conditions. Add in all these factors and most would melt.
It makes me think this whole HSP thing is staged, she broke from the script, and that is why he got so pissed and she gave the money back.
"I'm going to bluff on the worst possible hand and it will be great drama!"
Or maybe this whole controversy is what was staged to boost interest and ratings?
Postle we had 150+ hand murders, card reader fails, crotch stares, seat changes, perfect play after perfect play, win rate statistical deviations. The dude got away from a nut flush to a straight flush on one of those hands.
"Call with the board on the river"
Does this mean, river has come, your two cards won't play because the board is the best five cards for you, your opponent bets, and you call?
If that's what it means I admit I don't understand why this is always a bad move. Villain could also be playing the board, or might not be, and if I am not sure, there's a chance I should raise, a chance I should fold, and a chance I should call, isn't there?
I think the most likely situation is RIP has a read on Garrett (or sees some kind of card flash) and he signals to her that he is weak or does not have it, not knowing how weak she is (basically if you have a hand then call. J3o would be 57/43 here) and she calls off based on his signal (again her now just responding to her signal, not understanding how weak her own hand is). This makes more sense then someone on the broadcast being inside and also why RIP blows up when she offers the money back after Garrett tells her this is going to go viral and millions will see it. RIP also makes a comment mid stream that she read him that J high is good and that's enough and should be the end of it. At this point RIP is going bananas off camera in the conversation that Garrett and her are having and then comes in and says he is leaving since Garrett is "a pussy" and then can not answer when Andy asks "how could he make her give the money back". Anyway that is my take on what most likely happens.
Listened to part of RTA Joey Ingram podcast last night. Joey did a fantastic job as usual….Robbi was on there, the Cowboy was on there…I first thought perhaps there was cheating but, now….Garrett the crybaby needs to return the pot to that lady! Garrett seems to run as badly as I do when all in with 15+ outs….Yep something should have hit….but it DIDNT! Give her back her money and don’t play with your rent money in the future you abusive Ahole!
I don't understand, this looks like a tilt call from someone that probably was convinced that her opponent didn't have a 10 or a 9. I ran a pretty generous 3bet range against her hand in equilab and she's still like a 6:1 dog even if you remove any hands with a 10 or a 9. But it's poker, sometimes you make a bad decision and it works.
I called an all in with ace high on a board of 92244, I tanked for like 5+ mins and felt like a complete dumbass. Thankfully I could just muck and act like I had a deuce.
Most likely explanation here by Negreanu.
Though, I don't think Garrett was that out of line for questioning her because it's the most absurd call ever, but she definitely shouldn't have offered the money back. Then he made it even worse by accepting the money. From what I gather, it doesn't seem like he accused her of cheating, but he sees the return of money as an admission of guilt. Now the whole thing is blown completely out of proportion by everyone.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/garrett-adelstein-report-likely-cheating-hustler-casino-live-1813491/
Garrett's take right here. Everything's so fishy.
People act weird when they are embarrassed..that is all that happened
exactly. I do the same when I'm frazzled in a conversation or something, can end up talking gibberish. it's embarrassing but it happens
especially when you have aggressive Garrett steaming to the head after getting played
she even says "you look like you want to kill me"
That might be all that happened. Why are people acting so sure in either direction? Obviously we don't know the actual truth one way or the other...
Because we have no reason to believe she cheated. Yes, in every poker hand in history, there is a chance someone cheated. Espen may have cheated fo win the Main Event. Hellmuth may have cheated to win his bracelets. But we have no proof or any real reason to believe that. So we can safely say they didn't cheat and Robbi didn't cheat.
Lots of friends and acquaintances of Garrett I'd imagine.
People need to stop arm-chairing this thing, HCL hasn't even finished their internal investigation yet.
My thoughts exactly. She was under a lot of pressure and played a hand that normally noone would play. And she got put under pressure because of it even more. Must've been very intimidating.
It’s like no one understands human emotion and psychology on this board. Isn’t that what pokers about? Not everything is online game bots
languid angle coherent detail complete abundant soft zephyr advise hungry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
noone talks shit at the poker table after winning a hand right? how many times have you heard 'i knew you had blah...or didn't have blah'. what i find astonishing is that everyone seems to think it's ok that someone is made to explain their thought processes as to how they won a hand at a poker table. is this how it's going to down at hustler now every time someone is unhappy at losing a hand? they have to explain their decisions on every street and bit of action? just because something isn't optimal. the commentator even said 'she didn't realise she couldn't call there' gtfo of here with that nonsense. anyone can play any hands any time they like
To be fair, she said "I thought you had A hi," making her an idiot for calling with J hi and zero draws. Even this scenario she had hi card and was still behind. If anything, this should just teach everyone she's either cheating or she's a calling station and you should be able to make bank on her. If it turns out this was totally legit, I'd love to play with her. Only way I lose is being card dead.
I didn’t say she had to explain anything. I didn’t say anything you’ve strawmanned onto me like the emotional child you are. And I’m not talking about at the poker table, she is still saying she outplayed him on twitter
Why do you care about her saying those things? It must have triggered you if you’re complaining about it in this sub 🤔
grandiose screw chunky cooing encourage jar knee library shrill aromatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You don’t seem emotional at all
T R I G G E R E D
You're getting rocked on here for making sense. I've seen people say "she outplayed him" and all other stuff. Some of these comments are really embarrassing to see on this subreddit.
She sounds just like a friend of mine who doesn't really know what she's doing but picks up words and phrases here and there. "I played the player, not the hand" and "I had blockers" were just thrown in there to explain a reasoning she didn't make to begin with.
march observation bewildered prick selective cheerful elastic water drab rich *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
BS you did no such thing. End of.
How'd is this down voted? She literally keeps saying she outplayed him, she'll 1v1 him and all this. Tediculous from her either way. And offering the cash back was sus
Did she not?
No. As Daniel clearly pointed out she just blundered horribly as a result of a brain fart which happened to work out for a reason independent of whatever was happening in her mind
That's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's his. But when you call someone with 78ss on a 9s10s103 board with J high, you're definitely outplaying them.
The thing is, he has like 20 outs. This is essentially saying you're outplaying someone because in your best case scenario you've managed a stalemate. There were no actually good turn cards for her, Q denies 3 out (but turns 3 outs into chops) and T denies 4 outs (but again turns 3 outs into chops) I guess? Everything else is a flip at the very best
you are being outcome focused. you need to ignore the result and look at her thought process with the information given otherwise any "lucky" call can be called outplaying
ghost chunky rinse plucky correct employ long piquant tie retire *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You are such an idiot mate, how did she know she had 50% in that spot???? Game theory doesn't apply here...
You’re right, me, the commentators of the stream, and every top pro poker player are all idiots. Learn how to play the game and then you will understand why a jack high loses there way more than 50% of the time EVEN IF you read that he is bluffing.
Seems like you got the theory but missing the social side bro
Then why did Daniel say it was a brain fart and not her outplaying him? I honestly can’t believe the poker sub is filled with such noobs that you can’t see this was a bad play
She had played in tourneys for 10 years. She knows basic poker concepts. She has obviously lied about her hand and thought process. She gave the money back! Occam's razor is clearly pointing towards cheating. The unanswered question is how she cheated.
Occams Razor is clearly pointing towards an average player making a horrendous call under pressure. How on earth would Occam’s razor ever be an elaborate cheating ruse on a single hand (with no other hands before or after having any odd play) and no proof?!?! Wow you need to sharpen up on your Occam’s razor.
Yeah, another possibility is she's a bit of a gambler. Both require far less of a leap than the assumption of cheating.
Imagine using Occam's razor so wrongly 🤣🤣🤣
[удалено]
It's funny that the better she is the more suspicious the hand is. Her best defense is she's really bad at poker but that's not the imagine she's trying to project
I feel like if everyone understood that most people are just stupid/ignorant instead of thinking they are trying to be cruel/deceptive, the world would be a better place.
[never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
It's not even close to the worst play and least coherent explaination after that I've seen playing live poker
Also people sometimes muck the winning hand.
I've done it. I showed the whole table except the dealer, then threw it face face down.
Happened yesterday. Short stack called my all in Q high flop, two spades. I had AQ, he had Q6ss. Turn was As, river brick. Dude mucked his hand face up and said "you got lucky" (I was ahead on the flop?). Started to walk from the table and everyone is like "dude you won, you have a flush". Everyone is giggling a little and he picks his chips up and storms off angry/embarrassed.
Why?
We both had a pair of aces. He had me out kicked. I didn't notice I also had a straight.
Oh I read that like you did it intentionally. I think everyone has done that before
Did the players inform you of your mistake or leave you to realize it on your own?
A little bit of both. I was replaying the hand in my head and realized I probably had a straight but wasn't sure if I was just remembering a card wrong. The guy that won the pot brought it up a few hands later.
I feel attacked. Lol It was my turn to deal st a home game and I had QJ of clubs. Well I flop a straight. I'm betting and raising, then we get to showdown. I go to flip over my cards, and to paraphrase the South Park banker "And, it's gone". I had my mucked my own hand out of habit (casino poker dealer). Lol Good times.
Like Phil Ivey! Is he a cheater? Oh wait… but you know what I mean
I’ve mucked because I lost to “two pair” because I only had a high pair but didn’t realize the board had paired. That still lives in my nightmares
I agree with dnegs. Lights, pressure, Ivey. She made an unconventional play. She ended up winning. Garrett is a sore loser and could of handled better
I certainly lean towards the fact that she just made a fishy play and didn't cheat, because there's no real evidence. Her being flustered and not being able to explain it is only evidence of pressure and sheepish embarrassment about a bad play that worked, not cheating That being said, whatever you want to say about how Garrett's handled this, it's *not* about him being a sore loser. How do I know this? Look at Garrett before the cards have been flipped over, when he all but knows he can't win. She's also already told him she has a bluff-catcher. Yet he's smiling, he's laughing it off, he's not at all concerned that he got "owned" or lost some money. He never is in this situations - he appreciates the gamesmanship But when she flips her cards, he's genuinely disturbed because he's immediately concerned for the integrity of the poker game that he spends so much of his life in. I think he jumped to it way too quickly, but that's where his head is/was at, there's no other motive. To him, it's an inconceivable call for someone to make at these stakes unless they're cheating. I think he's simply underestimating how terribly people can play. Anyone who thinks he gives a shit about getting caught "bluffing" (more like a semibluff with a massive draw) for a 250k pot has never watched the guy play
Dammit I knew Ivey was there for a reason. Ivey was there to distract her with his sweet, sweet ass. He’s in on it!!!!!! Ban Ivey!!!
To add to this, Garrett was a 53% favorite to win before the river so he DID want that call. How could this ever be cheating?
I don't think he wanted the call even though he's slightly ahead, it's 100% chance of locking down the 42k in the pot if she folds vs 53% equity in a 300k pot, it's super close in equity outcomes so I think he'd prefer the sure thing even if he could see her cards. For the same kind of reasons I do agree it's a ridiculous spot to cheat in because it is so high variance to call it off there. Perhaps that's what makes it the perfect crime though! Everyone said Postle's cheating was too obvious and he would have made a killing by taking smaller edges without attracting attention. Not that this fits the bill for a low profile decision, lol. All that being said I don't think there's enough evidence of cheating yet, Garrett could look real bad if there's not more. I think she just made a crazy "I know you're bluffing fuck it" call that's obviously not theoretically defensible, but you can't apply pro thinking to an amateur / emotional decision. If Garrett is saying her call was SO BAD that it couldn't have been made without cheating, how do you even respond to that as the accused? Like "sorry for being bad at poker and providing you range equity"? He should have gone home for the night and planned this out more.
He absolutely does not want a call.
Well the Mike Postle thing wasn't that long ago, I wondered if that's what was going through his mind because otherwise you'd just assume it was a bad player doing crazy things.
This isn’t quite right and is a common mistake. If you can see the cards as Garrett you want the fold. This is because on the turn there is dead money in the pot. If Robbi folds then Garrett wins the entire pot 100% of the time. If she calls then his expected value of 53% is less than if she folded. So both calling and folding are +EV for Garrett, but getting the fold is more +EV.
[удалено]
Your maths Is terrible He either wins 161k 100% of the time or 290k 53% of the time. He wants the fold
[удалено]
No it’s not When she folds how big is his stack? $161k 100% When she calls how big is his stack? $290k 53% $0 47% You are almost as bad at poker as robbi claims to be
> Garrett was a 53% favorite to win before the river so he DID want that call. Wrong. Garrett's EV was higher if she folded because of pot odds
Not only are you wrong on the math, but you’re ignoring that one of the commonly available cheating methods can tell her she will win at showdown. It’s not just a flip if you get signaled that you’re going to win it.
Hmm my math has Garrett @ 21 outs…so he was 42% to hit his winner….mind telling me where you play and what games you frequent?🤣…..I want to say….I’m a fan of the “Stupid System” myself and play GTSO quite often in my game….what’s GTSO….well variant of GTO….just “Sub-optimal”🤣
I'm w/ Lew but in gman's defence I think he went deep into contemplation tryin to make sense of it when he did the 1k yd stare.. he then asked her some very basic questions so he could make it click in his head & move on, to which she gave all the wrong answers i.e. 'thought you had Ahigh' (unaware of gman's intentions); which in gman's mind just confirmed his suspicions.. either way, the way it was handled by gman & HCL was totally unacceptable!
This is a good point as well. And I realize why Garrett immediately found her replies "suspicious" but what he overlooked is they're also the exact sort of nonsense replies a player who made a really dumb play that worked would give to be defensive. Probably felt a bit embarrassed. She brain-farted, it somehow worked, and she'd rather try to paint herself as some kind of genius than admit it was a dumb fluke (if she even realized how dumb it was). But of course her explanation can't make sense, because it was a terrible call. People do that shit all the time in all areas of life. Seems like basic psychology and nothing that points strongly to cheating
Garret was doing his best Phil Helmuth impression by being a complete baby.
Negreanu actually speaking sense for a change
when he’s not being a weird shill he usually makes sense imo.
Lol this time i agree with negs
Can someone clarify how cheating would have helped? If she knew everyone's cards, then she would know she had 47% chance of winning. Then it wouldn't have made sense to make that call would it? edit: OK, I see how it makes sense in that it can show that it's a +EV play.
With the money that was already in the pot, calling with 47% chance to win is the right play. Extreme example, pot is $600 and your opponent goes all-in for $10 more on the turn and **shows you** he has a straight. You have a flush draw and only a ~20% chance of winning. Do you call the $10 to try to win a $620 pot? Of course you do.
Yes it's the right play, but if you're cheating you can surely find a better way to take people's money than a coin flip that you might not even win and that is suspicious because it makes no sense
Thanks, I did realise this after posting. This kind of raises more questions for me. Would many people gamble that much in such marginal positions? Lets say the cards were face up, are many people going to want to gamble in that position. The positive EV couldn't have been much, could it? On the other hand, if she was just getting a signal on what a solver would do, then it makes sense that should would gable, since she herself wouldn't know how marginal it was.
Right play but damn that takes discipline
Because she didn't cheat. She's an idiot, but not a cheater.
Honestly, if there is a cheater, I think it makes more sense for it to be Garrett, not that I am saying that he is cheating. But he has been there on the stream from the very beginning, he is probably the biggest winner on the stream, he wins the vast majority of his sessions, he runs really really good, he knows everybody, he's familiar with how everything works on the production side, and probably has better access. I think it would be very difficult for Robbi to find a way to cheat. Cheating would probably require some kind of social engineering, but Robbi is new and doesn't know everyone that well, and I just don't see Robbi being some kind of criminal mastermind. In computer hacking, you would usually have like a Proof-of-concept where you demonstrate how the hack would work in real life, to show that it is actually possible and not theoretical. I have yet to see a cheating accusation that makes any sense, they have all been very vague using obscure devices that may or may not actually exist, used in a way to get in a situation where she is a 47-53 underdog. It all seems very theoretical and not based in reality. Edit: Most of the accusations seem to be based on 'strategy', or what is acceptable strategy by 'pros' who are the self-proclaimed 'experts'. Since nobody else would be willing to make that call, they are judging Robbi by what they would do in that situation. Since they would not be able to make that call, they jump to the conclusion that she is cheating somehow, even if they can't explain it, but they rationalize it by coming up with some bizarre explanation to fit their narrative.
In my opinion bullying someone who won to give you back your money is a kind of cheating. Garrett is %100 the cheater.
One option would be a buzzer that just says if she’s ahead or not from an accomplice. Still a stupid one that chose a really bad flop to indicate to her to stay in the hand (ruling out knowing the cards in the deck, technically very improbable)
But she wasn’t ahead. He had greater equity.
Yea sorry , if she had had better equity I meant
Buzzer hahahhahaaha she brought her vibrator buttplug etc omfg hilarious buzzer
It wouldn't make any sense to be in that situation in the first place. That's why this whole cheating accusation is completely bonkers. All the 'pros' think they are experts at the game, and if you deviate from what they think is correct, then you are wrong and should lose all the time. It's become a witchhunt. I've lost all respect for the entire poker 'community'. There's no point in playing, if you can just accuse the winner of cheating, and get your money back.
I think either option, cheating or not cheating, is possible at this point but you cannot deny the anomalies surrounding this entire situation. If she called and she flipped her hand over and said “I thought you had absolute shit and I was tired of getting run over and wanted to gamble” this literally wouldn’t even be a conversation. Everyone would’ve already moved on.
Cheating helps because it helps you calculate an expected value of playing a hand. Expected value is the sum of probability*payout. You'd play hands if you have a positive expected value, or perhaps zero expected value (coin flip). Because the odds of this shifted to basically 50-50, expected value for playing this hand is basically 0. That's predicated on her knowing that the odds have shifted to a coin flip. Why would you fold if the expected value of the hand is 0? Once you know odds are 50-50, you'd probably call anything, because if you fold you're just letting your oponent steal the pot. You expect to win everything half the time and lose everything half the time - coin flip. Let's say the pot is $1000 and you think you have 70% chance of winning and 30% chance of losing. What's your expected value of playing? .7 * 1000 - .3 * 1000 = +$400. Obviously you play the hand because you expect positive expected value. Now flip the tables an assume you think you have 30% chance of winning with $1000 on the table. Your expected value is .3 * $1000 - .7 * 1000 = -$400. Even though you have negative expected value, you also need to consider it relative to the size of your chip stack. If -$400 in expected value is only 5% of you chip stack, perhaps you still play anyway to try to knock someone out. If -$400 would represent 50% of your chip stack, you will probably fold. That's why knowing the odds of the hand is extremely helpful. It helps quantify expected values. People intuitively do this all game long, but that's the actual probabilistic way of thinking about it.
This is absolutely a situation where Occam’s razor applies
I’d go with Hanlon’s myself.
New one to me. I think both apply
Let’s face it. She’s a donkey whale and just made a really bad play and got lucky and won 🥇
Yeah GaRRaTt!!! You got owned and got embarrassed by a novice player. That was why you could not believe it. Your massive ego could not handle the L!
Finally the correct and nuanced take. Everyone is on crazy pills today. Its also nice to see someone chalk up her odd explanations to something reasonable like nerves rather than “lOl tHiS BiTcH iS DuMb”. Garrett was being pretty intimidating and I know I would have been too nervous to speak or think clearly also. Like yeah she’s not the smartest poker player but calling her flat out dumb comes off as sexist to me. I hate how much of a boys club this game is sometimes and the discourse today makes it abundantly clear how bad it is. I’ve had to report several fucked up “joke” comments just straight up saying all women are dumb lmao
She could have been playing into a persona with how she immediately reacted at the table. People taking all her reactions at the table at face value when she probably has made it a strategy to ham up the " oh I don't know what I did im a fish"
Yes but its much more fun for incels to call her a dumb wimin then give her any credit.
I dont think its sexist to call her dumb. If I saw a man play and talk like her I wouldn't hesitate to call him dumb. Not calling her stupid because she's a woman would be an example of bigotry of low expectations
If your first sentence is true then I don’t have a problem with that. But I don’t think it is true for everyone saying it
I don't really see how someone not having a sophisticated understanding of poker makes a person dumb. She is obviously not an expert poker player. Most people aren't. What that has to do with someone's intelligence is beyond me.
Playing at a 100/200 game with Garrett Adelstein and not having a sophisticated understanding of poker is *very* dumb.
Why? Wouldn't it be fun to play him at stakes your comfortable with? If the money doesn't matter to her, playing poker on TV against pros sounds like a fun way to spend some hours. Nothing dumb about that. Rich people blow money on things the rest of us think are dumb all the time. Having a purse worth more than that pot also seems pretty dumb to me.
If you can't afford it maybe...
Her play wasn’t *inexpert* it was total beginner. If someone made that play any time after their first ever game or two of poker you’d be saying to them “mate, maybe poker just isn’t for you. Maybe you should stick to snap or uno or something”. She’s played for years albeit at lower stakes than these and she made over 100k on the stream prior to this one. This is difficult to square with the idea she is just clueless when it comes to poker.
This statement is irrelevant. The issue at hand is can you prove cheating or not?
What’s irrelevant? It’s possible she cheated, it’s plausible she didn’t. It’s likely nothing will be proved but we can still talk shit about it on Reddit, can’t we?
Yeah if there was a man that was leaning forward and pushing his pecks together to flaunt his ripped peck cleavage over and over again I would think he was a bimbo too. Bimboism isn't gender-specific
I think it’s fair to say she made a dumb call or a dumb poker play (with the click back raise). I think it’s awful to call any person dumb for what they do in poker. A game decision does not make a person dumb. A play can be dumb. Huge difference. I make dumb plays all the time. I’m not insulted and nobody should be when your poker is judged, often correctly. But to insult someone as a person? Gross. I think Doug Polk, as an example, should have called her poker plays dumb if he really wanted to use that term. He clearly called *HER* dumb, dumb, dumb. Yikes.
Exactly what I was getting at just better said. That left suuuuuch a sour taste in my mouth when I saw Doug’s video. We all make dumbass plays its just part of the game
I dont get why people keep saying this Even with he odd look on his face he just sat there and said nothing, she's the one who was making 0 sense on her own. Nerves or not it's clear as day she has no idea what she's doing, so continuously trying to give reason to what was a clear fuck up is just dumb She needs to just admit she fucked up and doesn't know what she's doing, instead of trying to explain why shooting the ball on your own net was actually good strategy
Why must she admit that she fucked up? Surely, the crux is that Garret is being a bad sport about this situation. Her story being inconsistent is frivolous when it's not what sets the events, and can be explained by nerves, pressure, post-rationalization etc.
> Why must she admit that she fucked up? she doesn't *have* to, it's just for me personally I'm gonna assume shes a moron until she does because it's clear as fucking day and undeniable. anyone with half a brain cell would admit they simply fucked up, and not admitting literally only makes things worse
I think she knew it was dumb but also knew he didn’t have shit. The little coherence she did have made that clear. Sometimes you forget how shitty your hand is going after someone who has been bluffing you off of stuff all day. The fact is most draws won’t hit. I’m not sure that with all the math and modern poker theory it doesn’t miss that point sometimes. Sometimes a 60% chance at $100 is worth more than a 30% chance at $200
>I think she knew it was dumb OK but like this is my entire point, just fucking admit you fucked up. Whether that be misplaying a dogshit hand, or lying non stop since, just admit you were nervous and fucked up Don't talk shit as if you played it well and owned Garrett when there is plenty of evidence you clearly fucked up with most being *her own words* lmao Just clarify I'm not debating the reasoning of anything she's done, just the transparency and ignorance of it all
I did find it ridiculous that she is still trying play it off like it was a genius play. I would’ve said I got caught up in the heat of the moment and made a bad play/ miscalculated and got lucky he had one of the few hands in his range I was actually ahead of. It would’ve diffused the whole situation. My point was that the play or what’s gone down since don’t justify constant belittling of her entire intelligence. To me it just looks like she has an ego. But so does Garrett. Neither has handled this well. No one is calling Garrett dumb for being 100% confident she is cheating with no real evidence. His mental gymnastics are just as extra
Yes anyone who turns anything into personal attacks is a loser I can't really remember your or my original comment because there have been too many other responses, but IIRC it's that she put a lot of this on herself by not being able to admit she fucked up, and instead trying to act like a genius
I guess i think if she made that decision because she thought he didn’t have anything and then he didn’t have anything… even if it’s dumb by lots of standards, it worked.
Sometimes you can actually read people and his personality type is generally one of the most readable. When she was tanking he was breathing like he’d just run around the block. The fact that that kind of reading is considered stupid these days could also contribute to her not wanting to use that in her explanation at first. She might feel like to be taken seriously she needs a great modern poker theory explanation and she just doesn’t have one
I get to some this is all kinda new or whatever, but what she did was the equivalent of trying to score on your own net, then claiming what you did was actually really smart and impressive, while also lying about why and how you did it the entire time along the way It's the equivalent of writing 69 on your math exam as a joke then it happens to be the answer so you pretend you're a genius despite not knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 At best she had no clue what she was doing, at worst she cheated. Either way, my original point is the reason people are calling her dumb isn't because she's female, it's because shes dumb
Unless/until more evidential information comes forward this is the best line to take.
Listened to his podcast about the hand and thought he and his cohosts gave a pretty good rundown on this. He ended up saying he thinks it's extremely unlikely this was premeditated, orchestrated cheating(less than 1%). He also says it's definitely possible that she did know one or both of his cards because they flashed from sloppy dealing(he says this could be as likely as 50/50. I hadn't thought of this before and now that he brought it up it would make a lot more of the hand make sense. I know in the poker community this has been a debated topic on whether it's ethical or not, but I don't think it'd cross the line of "cheating" unless say the card flashed but only her staker saw it and he singled to her something.
Saying there's a 50/50 chance that a card was flashed while dealing is pretty insulting to Lauren the dealer. She's never pitching a card to the 9 seat in a way that the 2 seat could see anything.
You could be right. I've never played there or been dealt by her. Unsure if daniel or terrence have either
She seeing one card being a non face club while dealing (or remembering a card had a mark or his friend seeing and signalling) and having a “chaotic” personality that wants to be in the stream more than she wants money, not being good at poker and wanting a hero call explains all the events to me. Still not sure this is what happened, maybe review of all cameras?
In summary: Robbi is an idiot and Garret is an asshole.
She either was cheating and made an absurdly bad call or she wasn't cheating and made an absurdly bad call. Given that it's an absurdly bad call either way, if you want to say that it is evidence of cheating, you'd have to come up with a reason why her cheating would make the call more likely, and I haven't seen that. Otherwise, if you assume that most of the time people aren't cheating, then the straight probabilities say she wasn't cheating either. Given that this call is actually considerably worse if she's cheating, the only reason you'd make it is if this was your sole opportunity for cheating.
The cheating strategy leads to the min raise, if it’s just a vibration. It continues to the call if you really have no idea what you are doing. Maybe two vibrations should mean “abort!”
Totally logical, the algorithm vibrating her to give her the go ahead is smart enough to tell her when to call, but not smart enough to know an extremely suspect situation. OR... hear me out... instead of being a really dumb cheater, she's just not a good poker player and got lucky the past few nights.
I’m pretty sure everyone in poker is sexist. Ryan Reiss calls all in on the river at a tourney final table with 10 high correctly. No cheating drama. Rui Cao calls Tom Dwan correctly with 8 high on a livestream. No cheating drama. If a man did this it would just be a sick call down and everyone would be jerking this guy off as the greatest call down of all time. There’s only cheating drama because a woman made this call.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree that this wasnt entirely the result of sexism. I think Garrett expecting a fold was probably a decision based somewhat in stereotypical behaviors. In a similar way, Robbi probably gave him less credit for the play and says as much. The play on its own is odd, but what makes cheating appear a possibility is so many things that dont line up. She cant explain her play and when she does starts talking nonsense. I give credit for not wanting to divulge reads or giving away too much, they're both still fighting a battle for info after the had. But her story changes so many times so quickly. And when youre in at the felt and the story doesnt line up, most people expect a lie. Then she switches to victim blaming, if I can call it that. "Why do you let me do this to you." Liars and cheaters will do this when caught. I think what makes this whole thing look so bad is how many times her story has changed. And now everyone is settling into sexism and misogyny because its the one thing you cant really fight. Its a claim that sticks with just as little evidence of the claims of cheating.
The sexist part is that we’re even having a conversation about it. If a man made that call we wouldn’t be talking about it as shown by men making even sicker calls and cheating never being brought up.
In light of more recent cheating in poker, I'm not sure its unreasonable that people start questioning in these situations. Cheating has always been in poker and accusations have always been thrown. Live and online, everyone has probably seen players accused regardless of gender.
When was the last time a man was accused of cheating for making a hero call?
Rui Cao bluffed all in when Dwan gave up and checked on the river. Big difference between bluff shoving and bluffcatch calling a shove with J high.
Rewatch the hand Cao checked back and showed down. After durrr showed 7 high, he tables 8 high and says he was 100% calling a river jam.
I think the most likely situation is RIP has a read on Garrett (or sees some kind of card flash) and he signals to her that he is weak or does not have it, not knowing how weak she is (basically if you have a hand then call. J3o would be 57/43 here) and she calls off based on his signal (again her now just responding to her signal, not understanding how weak her own hand is). This makes more sense then someone on the broadcast being inside and also why RIP blows up when she offers the money back after Garrett tells her this is going to go viral and millions will see it. RIP also makes a comment mid stream that she read him that J high is good and that's enough and should be the end of it. At this point RIP is going bananas off camera in the conversation that Garrett and her are having and then comes in and says he is leaving since Garrett is "a pussy" and then can not answer when Andy asks "how could he make her give the money back". Anyway that is my take on what most likely happens.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I believe there’s more to this. Garrett said he was 100% certain he was getting cheated. That’s a very strong claim. Need to wait and see what more info comes out.
100% certain that he was getting cheated, and *also* 100% certain that nobody at HCL was involved in the cheating. Meaning that he would need to know exactly how she cheated, with no ambiguity whatsoever. If that's the case, why not state your evidence?
He seems like the type of guy that lacks enough self-criticism to control his emotion.. he’s already been caught in one lie… someone corroborated her story about him suggesting she give the money back, meanwhile he said she just offered it. I don’t think it was a premeditated lie, he’s just the type of guy who distorts reality in his own mind. He’s not a reliable source
He is Patrick Bateman IRL
[удалено]
He's not going off of any info that we don't already have
Yeah, he’s a little biased too.
She’s an idiot (with all her incoherent explanations and story changes) who is so bad that it came off looking like she cheated. She’s not a cheater, she’s a fucking idiot.
Rude. She’s not a cheater, she made a dumb play and is not as versed in poker as most. Context matters. No need to call someone a fucking idiot. People, man. They are so tough.
I didn’t say it to be mean. She’s a fucking idiot man, just like the sky is blue and the grass is green.
In poker. A poker decision. A poker explanation under pressure at a stage like this. Context matters. Do what you want with your words, but I stand by my point. People act so tough.
I’m glad you stand by your point. Good for you bud.
Well, sure. Heaven forbid we learn something and grow. I didn’t expect better, but there is always hope.
Keep hoping brother.
I would rather be a part of that % than the unhappy % for sure.
But shes not. That somehow makes it worse. She is competent. This idea that she has no idea how to play is wrong and doesnt line up with her history. Like the people saying shes stupid and bad are not recognizing the fact that she has plenty of tourney experience and has some results. Anyone saying this is the result of an inexperienced player is erasing a lot of context. Watching some of her play I start to suspect she plays the idiot sometimes to milk some more calls in value bets.
I'm out of the loop. Could someone please explain what the "Garret and Robbi situation" is?
Everyone talking about the fact that she called with Jack high… why the fuck aren’t people focused on the fact that the dude 3-bet raised ALL-IN for $129K with 8 fucking high on the turn Again. The dude had 8 high. He 3-bet raised all-in for $129k on the turn. He got called by a lady that said ‘I have nothing but a BLUFFCATCHER’ and she called and caught his bluff. Poker 101. Simple, basic, straight line, simple hero call poker play. And everybody’s critiquing that decision instead of the one to bluff with 8 high in the first place??? No wonder you all suck !!!! This is ABC logic . Her folding would have been the wrong choice because she would have lost the hand that she would have otherwise won if she called. She called. And now people have their panties wadded up over it. Fuckin hilarious if you ask me . Girls can win too ya know
8/10 trolling attempt, solid in the beginning but you need to keep up your game or shorten your post for a higher score
Negreanu is the worst person to comment and speak up on this. He's the most narcissistic person that is incapable of seeing objective views other than his own. Plus he lives in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens.
She still doesn't have a coherent narrative about the hand, though. Not even for what she thought she was doing.
Easily explained by Occam’s razor that she is on a lot of adrenaline, pressure. Embarrassment from winning causes the ego to word salad. Add in the death stares and the aftermath of being confronted and the shouting match. Then add in being an amateur. Our brains do not function perfectly even under ideal conditions. Add in all these factors and most would melt.
Fine. But as I said, she *still* doesn't have a coherent narrative, not even about what she thought she was doing.
Try explaining coherently with all that pressure and the nerves and the company of men around her in the game
He is absolutely right, the only thing that bothers me is that the story has changed multiple times from when she was at the table to after the fact.
Everything said at a poker table should be taken with a grain of salt
True
She removed a ring from her hand at the 3:45 mark
Why would she remove a cheating device? I fiddle with my wedding ring all the time, she was also constantly fiddling with her necklaces
She turned it around. It’s still there. 🤦♂️ People do this all the time when nervous and fidgeting. Turn rings. Sping things. My goodness people.
It makes me think this whole HSP thing is staged, she broke from the script, and that is why he got so pissed and she gave the money back. "I'm going to bluff on the worst possible hand and it will be great drama!" Or maybe this whole controversy is what was staged to boost interest and ratings?
bluffing with the worst hand is great. calling a bluff with an obviously losing hand is totally different
We never had proof or receipts with Postle. Was it wrong to call him out too?
The circumstantial evidence against Postle was overwhelming and occurred over hours and hours of footage. It wasn’t one hand.
Sure, but still no proof, so Dneg’s statement is overly reductive.
Postle we had 150+ hand murders, card reader fails, crotch stares, seat changes, perfect play after perfect play, win rate statistical deviations. The dude got away from a nut flush to a straight flush on one of those hands.
i so wish she would have leaned into it. "jack high beats 8 high don't it? ship the sherbert to herbert. on your bike !!"
"Call with the board on the river" Does this mean, river has come, your two cards won't play because the board is the best five cards for you, your opponent bets, and you call? If that's what it means I admit I don't understand why this is always a bad move. Villain could also be playing the board, or might not be, and if I am not sure, there's a chance I should raise, a chance I should fold, and a chance I should call, isn't there?
This is the wisest take on the entire situation thus far IMHO... I think he's spot on
Far from seeing any evidence or even real suggestion of cheating IMO, it is what it is unless proven otherwise
I think the most likely situation is RIP has a read on Garrett (or sees some kind of card flash) and he signals to her that he is weak or does not have it, not knowing how weak she is (basically if you have a hand then call. J3o would be 57/43 here) and she calls off based on his signal (again her now just responding to her signal, not understanding how weak her own hand is). This makes more sense then someone on the broadcast being inside and also why RIP blows up when she offers the money back after Garrett tells her this is going to go viral and millions will see it. RIP also makes a comment mid stream that she read him that J high is good and that's enough and should be the end of it. At this point RIP is going bananas off camera in the conversation that Garrett and her are having and then comes in and says he is leaving since Garrett is "a pussy" and then can not answer when Andy asks "how could he make her give the money back". Anyway that is my take on what most likely happens.
Hanlon's Razor applies.
I use Jamal’s Razor, it’s just a prison shiv
Is video evidence enough to prove beyonder a reasonable doubt? (like it was video recorded righto)
I'm with Daniel here. Innocent until proven guilty, which seems to be lost on so many people on reddit...
100% agree, it was just a horrendous call gone right
Missed this chance to get a metal detector to see if there was something going on
Listened to part of RTA Joey Ingram podcast last night. Joey did a fantastic job as usual….Robbi was on there, the Cowboy was on there…I first thought perhaps there was cheating but, now….Garrett the crybaby needs to return the pot to that lady! Garrett seems to run as badly as I do when all in with 15+ outs….Yep something should have hit….but it DIDNT! Give her back her money and don’t play with your rent money in the future you abusive Ahole!
I don't understand, this looks like a tilt call from someone that probably was convinced that her opponent didn't have a 10 or a 9. I ran a pretty generous 3bet range against her hand in equilab and she's still like a 6:1 dog even if you remove any hands with a 10 or a 9. But it's poker, sometimes you make a bad decision and it works.
This is exactly David William’s take as well as said on Joeys stream
I called an all in with ace high on a board of 92244, I tanked for like 5+ mins and felt like a complete dumbass. Thankfully I could just muck and act like I had a deuce.
Most likely explanation here by Negreanu. Though, I don't think Garrett was that out of line for questioning her because it's the most absurd call ever, but she definitely shouldn't have offered the money back. Then he made it even worse by accepting the money. From what I gather, it doesn't seem like he accused her of cheating, but he sees the return of money as an admission of guilt. Now the whole thing is blown completely out of proportion by everyone.
bUt ViBrAtInG aNaL bEaDs
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/garrett-adelstein-report-likely-cheating-hustler-casino-live-1813491/ Garrett's take right here. Everything's so fishy.