Robbi J4 v Garrett 87
October 1st, 2022 at 9:51:49 AM
permalink
Original Hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=2h07m30s
Info below from a Reddit comment
————-
She actually gave the money BACK to him, basically a 135k gift, after he threw a bit of a tantrum. This caused some men at the table to become upset, because she deserved the money and shouldn't have given it back (even if it was a dumb call)
She later claimed that she misread her hand and thought she had J3 (but didn't want to come clean and admit it because she was embarassed), which would mean she had a small pair and could beat most bluffs/draws
She gave an interview afterwards - for those on mobile where it doesn't work timestamp is 3h 37m 55s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=3h37m55s
Garrett's Response on twitter, claims she in fact did NOT misread her hand, goes into hand detail, and highlights other behavior as suspicious
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727417284382721
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727289932709888
Phil Ivey Interview (he was at the table) 4h 25m 26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=4h26m26s
Guy who got upset interview 4h19m21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=4h19m21s
_______________
She has thrown down the gauntlet and officially challenged him to a heads up match
https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575913730738511872
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=2h07m30s
Info below from a Reddit comment
————-
She actually gave the money BACK to him, basically a 135k gift, after he threw a bit of a tantrum. This caused some men at the table to become upset, because she deserved the money and shouldn't have given it back (even if it was a dumb call)
She later claimed that she misread her hand and thought she had J3 (but didn't want to come clean and admit it because she was embarassed), which would mean she had a small pair and could beat most bluffs/draws
She gave an interview afterwards - for those on mobile where it doesn't work timestamp is 3h 37m 55s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=3h37m55s
Garrett's Response on twitter, claims she in fact did NOT misread her hand, goes into hand detail, and highlights other behavior as suspicious
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727417284382721
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727289932709888
Phil Ivey Interview (he was at the table) 4h 25m 26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=4h26m26s
Guy who got upset interview 4h19m21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_PWVGUMVQ#t=4h19m21s
_______________
She has thrown down the gauntlet and officially challenged him to a heads up match
https://twitter.com/RobbiJadeLew/status/1575913730738511872
October 1st, 2022 at 10:08:00 AM
permalink
i saw this live this is a case of the internet over reacting imho this is a nothingburger\
edit
# ban baby garrett - until he gives the money back
edit
# ban baby garrett - until he gives the money back
Last edited by: heatmap on Oct 1, 2022
October 1st, 2022 at 10:29:21 AM
permalink
Quote: gamerfreak
Garrett's Response on twitter, claims she in fact did NOT misread her hand, goes into hand detail, and highlights other behavior as suspicious
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727417284382721
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727289932709888
link to original post
This guy is what happens when you take a game, become an expert at it, overanalyze it into the ground, and then assume that everyone else is the same way and going to play the exact, mathematically perfect way and never make any mistakes or deviate from perfect strategy. (This is why also why Chess grandmasters can lose to someone way below their skill level.)
You lost, dude...worst case scenario is she accidentally made a dumb play and you were on the receiving end of it. Best case scenario is she outsmarted you.
October 1st, 2022 at 10:30:09 AM
permalink
and what people dont understand about this is that she made the call because she knew garrett didnt want her in the pot any more
she felt the shove was too aggro for his range against her range - she played it passively and he played the entire hand aggro which was my understanding of why it didnt make any sense to shove he should have checked and let her bluff into him if he was nutted as much as he was repping
one streamer i watch i think its spraggy said that when they triple barrel they usually dont have it which most likely is untrue but in this situation it was
she felt the shove was too aggro for his range against her range - she played it passively and he played the entire hand aggro which was my understanding of why it didnt make any sense to shove he should have checked and let her bluff into him if he was nutted as much as he was repping
one streamer i watch i think its spraggy said that when they triple barrel they usually dont have it which most likely is untrue but in this situation it was
October 1st, 2022 at 10:50:24 AM
permalink
The call was bizarre but the reaction by Garrett was even more bizarre. He rashly accused someone of cheating without having any evidence of a cheating method.
Cheating could potentially be inferred if a player showed a pattern of making ridiculous calls against hands that all turned out to be as weak as Garrett's. But not from a single hand - especially one where the player was sitting with only 50% equity.
The river runouts could have easily given Garrett the win. Would he then have just assumed she was a bad player?
The fact that the player seemed unable to offer a clear and consistent explanation for her play is irrelevant. Poker players aren't obligated to provide accurate information about their strategy to other players. She could have misread her hand, but it seems more likely that in the moment she didn't want to admit she was a "bad" enough player to call with just a jack.
There are videos out there of poker pros calling with even worse hands who were never accused of cheating. In her mind, she had a chance to improve on the river. Tom Dwan once called with just a 9 on the river. (He lost.)
Cheating could potentially be inferred if a player showed a pattern of making ridiculous calls against hands that all turned out to be as weak as Garrett's. But not from a single hand - especially one where the player was sitting with only 50% equity.
The river runouts could have easily given Garrett the win. Would he then have just assumed she was a bad player?
The fact that the player seemed unable to offer a clear and consistent explanation for her play is irrelevant. Poker players aren't obligated to provide accurate information about their strategy to other players. She could have misread her hand, but it seems more likely that in the moment she didn't want to admit she was a "bad" enough player to call with just a jack.
There are videos out there of poker pros calling with even worse hands who were never accused of cheating. In her mind, she had a chance to improve on the river. Tom Dwan once called with just a 9 on the river. (He lost.)
October 1st, 2022 at 11:28:17 AM
permalink
I guess the first thing I would say is, if you don't want to be cheated, then you probably shouldn't play poker in the first place. I'd tend to hold that as even more true for cash games with the kind of technology that is available.
That said, every intuition that I have says that it's cheating, except for two problems:
1.) Why would she call the shove on a coin flip with slight odds against her?
2.) Why would she want to run the river twice?
I could see it if you somehow know what the river card is going to be, but is there anything that would enable her to know she would win on both river cards, and, if so, doesn't running it twice look even more suspicious than once?
Looking at the hand, the table folds around to Garrett on the small blind and has reasonable equity to try to steal blinds, raises to 3k.
The first weird decision is to defend the BB by calling for $2,200 with J-4 off. What raise are you actually ahead of, at that point?
The post-flop call really doesn't surprise me too much because $2500 is a really weak bet post-flop and there are no over cards (to her jack) on the board. Garrett got more money in pre-flop than his post-flop bet even was and it was definitely a drawing board, so with the benefit of knowing what his cards actually were (and probably ONLY for that reason--I am not a good poker player) it makes sense that he would bet that on some sort of draw.
Or, maybe I am a good poker player, because an opponent can just have my BB if I am holding J4o. lol
Turn comes out three and helps nobody; there's also not really any great reason to believe it would help anyone, especially not Garrett who, I would think, Robbi is putting on a draw anyway. Garrett bets 10k, which is more aggressive than his post-flop bet, but still less than pot by a little bit. Robbi raises to 20k, min raise.
I think Garrett is at least calling any raise in that situation with the equity he has in that draw. He knows there's no way she has a set, or he wouldn't have shoved. He shoves and she eventually calls.
Using the WoO calculator, she would actually slightly have the best of the coin flip, but for what was folded. In a heads-up game, she actually has a slight advantage based on what they both have going into the river.
The only problem that I run into is why doesn't Garrett have QcXc, KcXc or something like J-8 (suited or not) or QJ off? It's true that she has one Jack blocked, but she's still losing to a better jack. I guess he can't have J9, at least.
I think maybe she just guessed right and it was kind of a fluke. I still don't know how you call a shove there without being more confident than she had any right to be. I also think it's possible that she cheated somehow, but why run the river twice? My opinion, which is worthless on something like this, is that it is more likely than not that she did not cheat.
That said, every intuition that I have says that it's cheating, except for two problems:
1.) Why would she call the shove on a coin flip with slight odds against her?
2.) Why would she want to run the river twice?
I could see it if you somehow know what the river card is going to be, but is there anything that would enable her to know she would win on both river cards, and, if so, doesn't running it twice look even more suspicious than once?
Looking at the hand, the table folds around to Garrett on the small blind and has reasonable equity to try to steal blinds, raises to 3k.
The first weird decision is to defend the BB by calling for $2,200 with J-4 off. What raise are you actually ahead of, at that point?
The post-flop call really doesn't surprise me too much because $2500 is a really weak bet post-flop and there are no over cards (to her jack) on the board. Garrett got more money in pre-flop than his post-flop bet even was and it was definitely a drawing board, so with the benefit of knowing what his cards actually were (and probably ONLY for that reason--I am not a good poker player) it makes sense that he would bet that on some sort of draw.
Or, maybe I am a good poker player, because an opponent can just have my BB if I am holding J4o. lol
Turn comes out three and helps nobody; there's also not really any great reason to believe it would help anyone, especially not Garrett who, I would think, Robbi is putting on a draw anyway. Garrett bets 10k, which is more aggressive than his post-flop bet, but still less than pot by a little bit. Robbi raises to 20k, min raise.
I think Garrett is at least calling any raise in that situation with the equity he has in that draw. He knows there's no way she has a set, or he wouldn't have shoved. He shoves and she eventually calls.
Using the WoO calculator, she would actually slightly have the best of the coin flip, but for what was folded. In a heads-up game, she actually has a slight advantage based on what they both have going into the river.
The only problem that I run into is why doesn't Garrett have QcXc, KcXc or something like J-8 (suited or not) or QJ off? It's true that she has one Jack blocked, but she's still losing to a better jack. I guess he can't have J9, at least.
I think maybe she just guessed right and it was kind of a fluke. I still don't know how you call a shove there without being more confident than she had any right to be. I also think it's possible that she cheated somehow, but why run the river twice? My opinion, which is worthless on something like this, is that it is more likely than not that she did not cheat.
Last edited by: Mission146 on Oct 1, 2022
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 1st, 2022 at 11:53:42 AM
permalink
Third different thread this has been posted in. I’ll say what I said in the others. I think she thought she made a pair of 3s on the turn and made a hero call with a bluff catcher.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 1st, 2022 at 11:55:39 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonThird different thread this has been posted in. I’ll say what I said in the others. I think she thought she made a pair of 3s on the turn and made a hero call with a bluff catcher.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
link to original post
I tend to agree with this as long as she thought she made the 3's. If she did think that, then there's really no reason to think she's not ahead of Garrett.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 1st, 2022 at 12:04:33 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Quote: unJonThird different thread this has been posted in. I’ll say what I said in the others. I think she thought she made a pair of 3s on the turn and made a hero call with a bluff catcher.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
link to original post
I tend to agree with this as long as she thought she made the 3's. If she did think that, then there's really no reason to think she's not ahead of Garrett.
link to original post
during the hand she said "3s no good" and immediately after the announcer said "well she doesnt have a 3" and she looked at her hand right before she said what she said
October 1st, 2022 at 1:32:15 PM
permalink
yeah, i posted it here hrs before this thread because i didnt think it deserved a new thread:Quote: unJonThird different thread this has been posted in. I’ll say what I said in the others. I think she thought she made a pair of 3s on the turn and made a hero call with a bluff catcher.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/poker/33725-poker-god-or-cheating-scum/8/#post864829
i guess i was wrong.
And yeah, her giving back the $ was stupid.
and she said it was under duress?
that was crazy.
did he have her by the throat threatening her?
did she go into detail about this?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 1st, 2022 at 1:51:08 PM
permalink
Quote: 100xOdds
and she said it was under duress?
that was crazy.
did he have her by the throat threatening her?
did she go into detail about this?
link to original post
His side of the story is in those tweets.
She said:
Quote:I said that I wanted minimal destruction and asked, ‘What is going to make you happy?' He said, ‘To give me my money back.'
and
Quote:What an honest man. He cornered me & threatened me. If he has the audacity to give me the death stare ON camera, picture what it’s like OFF camera. I was pulled out of the game & forced to speak to him in a dark hallway. Full details to come.
So, their stories are at complete odds with each other.
October 1st, 2022 at 2:06:52 PM
permalink
woah.. being pulled from the game and forced to talk to him??Quote: TigerWuQuote: 100xOddsand she said it was under duress?
that was crazy.
did he have her by the throat threatening her?
did she go into detail about this?
link to original post
His side of the story is in those tweets.
She said:Quote:I said that I wanted minimal destruction and asked, ‘What is going to make you happy?' He said, ‘To give me my money back.'
andQuote:What an honest man. He cornered me & threatened me. If he has the audacity to give me the death stare ON camera, picture what it’s like OFF camera. I was pulled out of the game & forced to speak to him in a dark hallway. Full details to come.
So, their stories are at complete odds with each other.
link to original post
by who? mgm personnel? (video says betMGM)
can't wait for her details of the duress
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 1st, 2022 at 2:42:22 PM
permalink
LOL...The poker subreddit is destroying this guy...some of the memes are pretty funny. No one is on his side.
October 1st, 2022 at 3:48:52 PM
permalink
doug polk is:Quote: TigerWuLOL...The poker subreddit is destroying this guy...some of the memes are pretty funny. No one is on his side.
link to original post
90% sure she cheated or something like that.
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 1st, 2022 at 4:58:09 PM
permalink
Doug polk has a lot of bluffs in his range.
October 2nd, 2022 at 4:39:32 AM
permalink
First of all, Garrett WAS ON A DRAW! Seems pretty stupid to go all in with only 8 high and a draw.
Second, calling an all in with jack high was also stupid, even if she suspected he was on a draw. Ditto if she thought she had a pair of 3s.
Bottom line, remove the ‘,000’ from the bet amounts, and you can find similar stupid play at any card room any day of the week.
Pros make stupid mistakes from time to time. Remember when Phil Ivey folded a flush?
https://youtu.be/b6bIx76LJo8
Second, calling an all in with jack high was also stupid, even if she suspected he was on a draw. Ditto if she thought she had a pair of 3s.
Bottom line, remove the ‘,000’ from the bet amounts, and you can find similar stupid play at any card room any day of the week.
Pros make stupid mistakes from time to time. Remember when Phil Ivey folded a flush?
https://youtu.be/b6bIx76LJo8
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
October 2nd, 2022 at 6:25:48 AM
permalink
I don't know that I agree with that. He should have a good chance of pushing her off a hand. I suspect he didn't realize she had been taking mental notes on his previous all-in bluffs.Quote: DJTeddyBearFirst of all, Garrett WAS ON A DRAW! Seems pretty stupid to go all in with only 8 high and a draw.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:07:18 AM
permalink
My observation: She wants to be liked, respected/admired as a poker player, and be part of the higher steaks poker "in crowd"
IMHO she didn't make a mistake thinking she had J3. It's hard to understand why she played like that, but I think she just got caught up in the moment, had a brain fart, and made a crazy call.
Once she realized just how abnormally crazy her call was and how it made her look, she was embarrassed she called and embarrassed she won both. At that point, she went into excuse mode saying all kinds of defensive things, whatever she could think of. "I thought you had Ace high" "I had a blocker"(I think that was an idea put in her head from the table chatter)
I think she initially gave the money back because she... wants to be liked, respected/admired as a poker player, and be part of the higher steaks poker "in crowd"
But then she realized just how bad she looked by giving the money back and has now gone on the offensive.
Whatever the case, this is absolutely the best poker-related thing to have ever happened to her. Did anybody here really know who she was prior to this?
FYI she doesn't always play that bad, there are times she plays fairly well. She is even capable of running successful bluffs, slow playing, and she can get tricky(She's still learning). She likes to gamble too much, she's getting herself involved in way too many sketchy hands without any rhyme reason, or plan, she's just purely gambling on many hands without the skill to know when to back off or go aggressive. She should definitely be able to beat that Ruyskey guy who's totally just fish gambling with any 2.
IMHO she didn't make a mistake thinking she had J3. It's hard to understand why she played like that, but I think she just got caught up in the moment, had a brain fart, and made a crazy call.
Once she realized just how abnormally crazy her call was and how it made her look, she was embarrassed she called and embarrassed she won both. At that point, she went into excuse mode saying all kinds of defensive things, whatever she could think of. "I thought you had Ace high" "I had a blocker"(I think that was an idea put in her head from the table chatter)
I think she initially gave the money back because she... wants to be liked, respected/admired as a poker player, and be part of the higher steaks poker "in crowd"
But then she realized just how bad she looked by giving the money back and has now gone on the offensive.
Whatever the case, this is absolutely the best poker-related thing to have ever happened to her. Did anybody here really know who she was prior to this?
FYI she doesn't always play that bad, there are times she plays fairly well. She is even capable of running successful bluffs, slow playing, and she can get tricky(She's still learning). She likes to gamble too much, she's getting herself involved in way too many sketchy hands without any rhyme reason, or plan, she's just purely gambling on many hands without the skill to know when to back off or go aggressive. She should definitely be able to beat that Ruyskey guy who's totally just fish gambling with any 2.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:34:17 AM
permalink
If she won fair and square, and just outplayed her opponent,she should've told him to "F&ck off" when he asked for his money back and gotten facility security involved. If she didn't win fair and square, giving the money back was perhaps a good decision.
Gene
Gene
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:46:28 AM
permalink
Quote: TigerWuQuote: gamerfreak
Garrett's Response on twitter, claims she in fact did NOT misread her hand, goes into hand detail, and highlights other behavior as suspicious
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727417284382721
https://twitter.com/GmanPoker/status/1575727289932709888
link to original post
This guy is what happens when you take a game, become an expert at it, overanalyze it into the ground, and then assume that everyone else is the same way and going to play the exact, mathematically perfect way and never make any mistakes or deviate from perfect strategy. (This is why also why Chess grandmasters can lose to someone way below their skill level.)
You lost, dude...worst case scenario is she accidentally made a dumb play and you were on the receiving end of it. Best case scenario is she outsmarted you.
link to original post
The players you’re describing get so caught up in strategy they act like they aren’t gambling.
Literally all she should have said is “I wanted to gamble” and that should have been the end of it.
Last edited by: gamerfreak on Oct 2, 2022
October 2nd, 2022 at 9:32:27 AM
permalink
I've watched some videos now and put a little bit of my own thought into this and here's what I have:
1.) Garrett is an @$$, or was acting like one that day. The absolute bottom line is that he treated her as if she had cheated as an unassailable fact when the truth is he had not a shred of evidence, at that point.
2.) Garrett should not have asked for the money back, or if he didn't ask, should not have taken it back. Both parties are fairly well off, so I share an opinion that I saw elsewhere, which is that he should have (if he's going to do anything) asked for Hustler Live to hold it in escrow pending an investigation.
Additional Thoughts
The mechanism of cheating would almost have to involve the river card. Even if she had some idea as to Garrett's holdings, remember, she called the all-in whereas he was the one to shove.
I guess she was staked by someone else at the table for 50%, which I don't think should be permitted anyway. I don't think any two parties with a financial interest in the results of the other party should ever be at the same table, but apparently, this sort of thing is not uncommon. In this case, if Robbi did play this on the up-and-up, then the fact that her backer is at the same table at least lends to the appearance of possible impropriety. A tournament is one thing because you don't necessarily know you'll be at the same table, but in a cash game where seats are by invitation?
Imagine that she doesn't know the River card(s), do you really want to call there and look like a total donkey if you lose? I think Doug Polk, in particular, has been a bit loose with some of his verbiage, but he basically said that he could see her making that call because she is, 'Dumb.'
Okay, whether or not she thought she had a pair of 3's is kind of irrelevant as she would later say that she didn't. That said, poker players lie about their hands all the time, after all, the very concept of bluffing is, de facto, lying about the strength of your hand. Let's say that she knew she did not have threes, then she can ask the question about threes being no good and if she feels like he acts in a way where threes are beat, then she knows the jack must be bad.
Speaking of honesty, people are talking about what she should say or how she should answer questions. In my opinion, there is no should anything as she shouldn't be required to explain herself, much less do so accurately and forthrightly, particularly if she didn't cheat.
There's a theory that the backer signaled to her somehow that Garrett was weak or playing a draw. That theory makes some level of sense if the backer took her statement that she had a pair of threes at face value, so he could have cued her, "Yeah, threes are probably good here." She might have taken his cue (based on him thinking she had threes) to go ahead and call.
That would still be cheating, of course, but it would be a much lower level of cheating. Obviously, that guy shouldn't be giving her advice during a hand, but that's also why people with a financial stake in each other should not be at the same table during a cash game. Anyway, it would be a lower level of cheating also assuming he didn't know Garrett's cards. Further, if he did know Garrett's cards, one would think he'd signal her to fold. I believe she was ahead relative to her buy-in, so why would he want her to risk it all on a coin flip...unless he thought she had a pair of threes, of course.
With that, I think the most realistic way she could cheat was to have known Garrett's cards AND the River card. There are just too many bluffs he could have that would still beat her jack.
Also, why would a person ever want to cheat just to get a coin flip with their entire stack on the line? I just don't see it. If you were going to cheat there, then it could only be because you knew you were winning the hand.
Why run it twice? I don't know, unless she somehow knew she'd win both of them.
I also think some people want it to be cheating because they see this lady who is made approximately 40% of plastic and is married to some wealthy attorney, so are letting their perception of her as a person cloud their objectivity.
Anyway, I am still leaning towards NOT cheating and the only way I think she could have reasonably cheated would require her to know at least the first river card. I guess running it twice would look a little less suspicious (and the worst you do is chop) if she did in fact know the first one.
1.) Garrett is an @$$, or was acting like one that day. The absolute bottom line is that he treated her as if she had cheated as an unassailable fact when the truth is he had not a shred of evidence, at that point.
2.) Garrett should not have asked for the money back, or if he didn't ask, should not have taken it back. Both parties are fairly well off, so I share an opinion that I saw elsewhere, which is that he should have (if he's going to do anything) asked for Hustler Live to hold it in escrow pending an investigation.
Additional Thoughts
The mechanism of cheating would almost have to involve the river card. Even if she had some idea as to Garrett's holdings, remember, she called the all-in whereas he was the one to shove.
I guess she was staked by someone else at the table for 50%, which I don't think should be permitted anyway. I don't think any two parties with a financial interest in the results of the other party should ever be at the same table, but apparently, this sort of thing is not uncommon. In this case, if Robbi did play this on the up-and-up, then the fact that her backer is at the same table at least lends to the appearance of possible impropriety. A tournament is one thing because you don't necessarily know you'll be at the same table, but in a cash game where seats are by invitation?
Imagine that she doesn't know the River card(s), do you really want to call there and look like a total donkey if you lose? I think Doug Polk, in particular, has been a bit loose with some of his verbiage, but he basically said that he could see her making that call because she is, 'Dumb.'
Okay, whether or not she thought she had a pair of 3's is kind of irrelevant as she would later say that she didn't. That said, poker players lie about their hands all the time, after all, the very concept of bluffing is, de facto, lying about the strength of your hand. Let's say that she knew she did not have threes, then she can ask the question about threes being no good and if she feels like he acts in a way where threes are beat, then she knows the jack must be bad.
Speaking of honesty, people are talking about what she should say or how she should answer questions. In my opinion, there is no should anything as she shouldn't be required to explain herself, much less do so accurately and forthrightly, particularly if she didn't cheat.
There's a theory that the backer signaled to her somehow that Garrett was weak or playing a draw. That theory makes some level of sense if the backer took her statement that she had a pair of threes at face value, so he could have cued her, "Yeah, threes are probably good here." She might have taken his cue (based on him thinking she had threes) to go ahead and call.
That would still be cheating, of course, but it would be a much lower level of cheating. Obviously, that guy shouldn't be giving her advice during a hand, but that's also why people with a financial stake in each other should not be at the same table during a cash game. Anyway, it would be a lower level of cheating also assuming he didn't know Garrett's cards. Further, if he did know Garrett's cards, one would think he'd signal her to fold. I believe she was ahead relative to her buy-in, so why would he want her to risk it all on a coin flip...unless he thought she had a pair of threes, of course.
With that, I think the most realistic way she could cheat was to have known Garrett's cards AND the River card. There are just too many bluffs he could have that would still beat her jack.
Also, why would a person ever want to cheat just to get a coin flip with their entire stack on the line? I just don't see it. If you were going to cheat there, then it could only be because you knew you were winning the hand.
Why run it twice? I don't know, unless she somehow knew she'd win both of them.
I also think some people want it to be cheating because they see this lady who is made approximately 40% of plastic and is married to some wealthy attorney, so are letting their perception of her as a person cloud their objectivity.
Anyway, I am still leaning towards NOT cheating and the only way I think she could have reasonably cheated would require her to know at least the first river card. I guess running it twice would look a little less suspicious (and the worst you do is chop) if she did in fact know the first one.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 2nd, 2022 at 9:35:44 AM
permalink
Funny thing is, if her Jack had only been a King, then he would have probably just congratulated her on the hero call.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 2nd, 2022 at 1:40:39 PM
permalink
i think she said she called flop because her jack clubs was a blocker.Quote: Mission146Funny thing is, if her Jack had only been a King, then he would have probably just congratulated her on the hero call.
link to original post
it wasnt just a blocker, it was THE blocker to the nuts.
yeah, still a crazy call. he could have had A8 clubs and semi-bluffing with the Ace flush draw
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 2nd, 2022 at 1:47:22 PM
permalink
Quote: 100xOddsi think she said she called flop because her jack clubs was a blocker.Quote: Mission146Funny thing is, if her Jack had only been a King, then he would have probably just congratulated her on the hero call.
link to original post
it wasnt just a blocker, it was THE blocker to the nuts.
yeah, still a crazy call. he could have had A8 clubs and semi-bluffing with the Ace flush draw
link to original post
I was thinking king or queen suited would be the flush draw. The post-flop bet was too low to be a suited Ace, imo. Based on the action, I can say I'd never take him for having an Ace, which is why I didn't include that in my first post in this thread.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 2nd, 2022 at 4:36:03 PM
permalink
She didn't outplay anyone in this situation. She played terrible , And it just happened to be right and she won some coin flips. She's almost always a big dog in this spot.Quote: GenoDRPhIf she won fair and square, and just outplayed her opponent,she should've told him to "F&ck off" when he asked for his money back and gotten facility security involved. If she didn't win fair and square, giving the money back was perhaps a good decision.
Gene
link to original post
See the comintary from the the one guy who says. If she wants to CALl all in with Jack high____. Even Phil gets a chuckle when he says that.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 4:47:18 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfShe didn't outplay anyone in this situation. She played terrible , And it just happened to be right and she won some coin flips. She's almost always a big dog in this spot.Quote: GenoDRPhIf she won fair and square, and just outplayed her opponent,she should've told him to "F&ck off" when he asked for his money back and gotten facility security involved. If she didn't win fair and square, giving the money back was perhaps a good decision.
Gene
link to original post
See the comintary from the the one guy who says. If she wants to CALl all in with Jack high____. Even Phil gets a chuckle when he says that.
link to original post
Who won the hand? She should've told him to screw off.
Gene
October 2nd, 2022 at 5:57:48 PM
permalink
Quote: heatmapQuote: Mission146Quote: unJonThird different thread this has been posted in. I’ll say what I said in the others. I think she thought she made a pair of 3s on the turn and made a hero call with a bluff catcher.
The part after where she gave the money back under alleged duress is crazy.
link to original post
I tend to agree with this as long as she thought she made the 3's. If she did think that, then there's really no reason to think she's not ahead of Garrett.
link to original post
during the hand she said "3s no good" and immediately after the announcer said "well she doesnt have a 3" and she looked at her hand right before she said what she said
link to original post
Thanks. Just rewatched. Still think most likely she misread hand and thought she had 3. But I don’t have high confidence in that.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 2nd, 2022 at 6:41:30 PM
permalink
Why bet big with Ace draw on a paired board?Quote: Mission146Quote: 100xOddsi think she said she called flop because her jack clubs was a blocker.Quote: Mission146Funny thing is, if her Jack had only been a King, then he would have probably just congratulated her on the hero call.
link to original post
it wasnt just a blocker, it was THE blocker to the nuts.
yeah, still a crazy call. he could have had A8 clubs and semi-bluffing with the Ace flush draw
link to original post
I was thinking king or queen suited would be the flush draw. The post-flop bet was too low to be a suited Ace, imo. Based on the action, I can say I'd never take him for having an Ace, which is why I didn't include that in my first post in this thread.
link to original post
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:11:42 PM
permalink
Obviously she should've told him to F off. It would be hard to find any normal person to disagree. That doesn't mean she outplayed him.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfShe didn't outplay anyone in this situation. She played terrible , And it just happened to be right and she won some coin flips. She's almost always a big dog in this spot.Quote: GenoDRPhIf she won fair and square, and just outplayed her opponent,she should've told him to "F&ck off" when he asked for his money back and gotten facility security involved. If she didn't win fair and square, giving the money back was perhaps a good decision.
Gene
link to original post
See the comintary from the the one guy who says. If she wants to CALl all in with Jack high____. Even Phil gets a chuckle when he says that.
link to original post
Who won the hand? She should've told him to screw off.
Gene
link to original post
She certainly doesn't strike me as some weak innocent girl who's easily intimidated. So why did she give him back the money?
It seems as if he outplayed her at the time he got the money back. Time will only tell who outplayed who in the end. The poker community seems to easily forget/forgive past transgressions.
This could work out well for both of them if they play their cards right.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:19:55 PM
permalink
I'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
Gene
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:23:17 PM
permalink
A total afterthought and reaching for an excuse(Not that she needs one, but she certainly felt as if she did). Are you telling me you think she put him on a straight flush draw and factored her blocker into that calculation? I say... Zero chance. She also said something about thinking he only had an ace and that's why she called. That's a horrible reason.Quote: 100xOddsi think she said she called flop because her jack clubs was a blocker.Quote: Mission146Funny thing is, if her Jack had only been a King, then he would have probably just congratulated her on the hero call.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:26:20 PM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Poker is a game of skill and luck. Sometimes you only need one or the other to win. This hand she played unskillfully and got very lucky.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:32:02 PM
permalink
I didn't realize this. That definitely adds a twist to things. I couldn't figure out why Garrett was so suspicious. He may have some prior information or suspicions.Quote: Mission146
I guess she was staked by someone else at the table for 50%
There's a theory that the backer signaled to her somehow that Garrett was weak or playing a draw.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:37:33 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Poker is a game of skill and luck. Sometimes you only need one or the other to win. This hand she played unskillfully and got very lucky.
link to original post
She bluffed and he crumbled. Classic poker.
I also get a chuckle out of those people who think Epicenter ran a better Kentucky Derby, yet Rich Strike won the race.
Gene
October 2nd, 2022 at 7:44:27 PM
permalink
You gotta love those good old bluff CALLS all in. He crumbled and folded like a little B&$(h. Oh wait, he was all in first. We must be watching a different hand since you aren't making any sense.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Poker is a game of skill and luck. Sometimes you only need one or the other to win. This hand she played unskillfully and got very lucky.
link to original post
She bluffed and he crumbled. Classic poker.
I also get a chuckle out of those people who think Epicenter ran a better Kentucky Derby, yet Rich Strike won the race.
Gene
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:33:58 PM
permalink
yeah, that made no sense.Quote: AxelWolfShe also said something about thinking he only had an ace and that's why she called. That's a horrible reason.
link to original post
why did she call with jack high then? His Ace would be beating her.
i can understand her calling the flop bet since she had THE nut blocker.
floating the flop to see what he does next.
her reasons for calling the all-in on the turn made no sense.
And she knew she didnt have a pair of 3s (thus beating his possible Ace) because she looked at her cards again before she called.
yet that's not a reason to say she cheated.
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice).
Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:38:44 PM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Poker is a game of skill and luck. Sometimes you only need one or the other to win. This hand she played unskillfully and got very lucky.
link to original post
She bluffed and he crumbled. Classic poker.
I also get a chuckle out of those people who think Epicenter ran a better Kentucky Derby, yet Rich Strike won the race.
Gene
link to original post
She didn’t bluff. She called. He didn’t crumble, he ran out bad despite being ahead 53%/47%.
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:46:48 PM
permalink
Quote: unJon
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
/q] LOL... You just got me in trouble with the wife, she was telling me something as I read this, and I started laughing. Obviously, she couldn't understand why this was so funny.♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 8:46:54 PM
permalink
LOL... You just got me in trouble with the wife, she was telling me something as I read this, and I started laughing. Obviously, she couldn't understand why this was so funny.Quote: unJon
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 9:01:17 PM
permalink
I believe someone even asks her if her hand has a 3 in it, and she said, "NO". I really don't want to watch it again to confirm that but I believe I'm correct. I suggest one does their own research regarding that.Quote: 100xOddsyeah, that made no sense.Quote: AxelWolfShe also said something about thinking he only had an ace and that's why she called. That's a horrible reason.
link to original post
why did she call with jack high then? His Ace would be beating her.
i can understand her calling the flop bet since she had THE nut blocker.
floating the flop to see what he does next.
her reasons for calling the all-in on the turn made no sense.
And she knew she didnt have a pair of 3s (thus beating his possible Ace) because she looked at her cards again before she called.
yet that's not a reason to say she cheated.
link to original post
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 2nd, 2022 at 9:16:37 PM
permalink
Obviously, it's not what the title suggests, but this entire movement is a little odd.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
October 3rd, 2022 at 7:01:12 AM
permalink
Quote: 100xOddsWhy bet big with Ace draw on a paired board?
link to original post
(Quote clipped to remove previous quotes)
I'm not suggesting that he bet, 'Big,' but he made it $3,000 total pre-flop and then led post-flop with $2,500, or something. In any event, it was like 40% of pot (or so, not watching again just to confirm percentage) and was less than the previous total bet he had made pre-flop. It's just a really weak bet that removes Ace suited, imo. It's not a bet that necessarily wants a fold and Ace-suited, just in my unqualified opinion, would make a bet that potentially invites a fold. Full pot, something like that.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 3rd, 2022 at 7:06:08 AM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Let's suppose we are at the Turn with this board:
Jc Qc 8h 4d
In my hand I have:
8d 8c
In your hand you have:
10c 7c (For some reason; I gave you a ridiculous hand to mirror the ridiculousness of ever being in any hand with J4 off)
You take a stab at the pot with a 50% pot bet, I shove, you call---you catch a club on the river.
You may have won the pot in this hypothetical, but you didn't outplay me. Two over cards to your ten and you dead to anything except a club (or nine) AND the fact that I could even have better clubs and you call? That's just a river suck out. You win that hand less than 25% of the time.
Last edited by: Mission146 on Oct 3, 2022
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 3rd, 2022 at 7:13:34 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfA total afterthought and reaching for an excuse(Not that she needs one, but she certainly felt as if she did). Are you telling me you think she put him on a straight flush draw and factored her blocker into that calculation? I say... Zero chance. She also said something about thinking he only had an ace and that's why she called. That's a horrible reason.
link to original post
(Quote clipped, removal of previous quote)
I think she made a terrible call (for one reason or another) that she realized was a terrible call and got insanely lucky. However, for ego preservation, she kept trying to explain it off in different ways and it made her, "Look bad," only because (before ever getting up from the table) she never in a million years would have suspected that anyone thought she cheated.
Anyway, one of her reasonings was indeed that she had the jack of clubs.
Garrett called her out on her ace explanation when he said, "So, because you think I have an ace, you call with jack high?" Something to that effect. Obviously, it makes no sense to call a shove if you're putting your opponent on a specific card and that cards beats you.
I don't even think she was listening to herself (internally) as she was talking. Assume she's innocent---it's kind of a weird spot to be in being grilled about your play for five minutes...especially when you know you did something stupid.
I mean, if she didn't cheat, then Garrett should want to share a table with her all day. He can fire at her with mediocre holdings (like medium pairs and such) and expect that she calls with just about anything. Poker 101 kind of says that you never criticize bad play because you want your opponents to keep right on playing badly.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 3rd, 2022 at 7:18:22 AM
permalink
Quote: unJon
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
link to original post
(Quote clipped, relevance)
I'm stealing this line, but I will give you full credit when I do.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 3rd, 2022 at 7:59:36 AM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Quote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Let's suppose we are at the Turn with this board:
Jc Qc 8h 4d
In my hand I have:
8d 8c
In your hand you have:
10c 7c (For some reason; I gave you a ridiculous hand to mirror the ridiculousness of ever being in any hand with J4 off)
You take a stab at the pot with a 50% pot bet, I shove, you call---you catch a club on the river.
You may have won the pot in this hypothetical, but you didn't outplay me. Two over cards to your ten and you dead to anything except a club AND the fact that I could even have better clubs and you call? That's just a river suck out. You win that hand less than 25% of the time.
link to original post
Yeah, Garrett outplayed Robbi. Just like Atlanta outplayed the Patriots in SB LI, Miami outplayed BC in the Miracle in Miami game, the Yankees outplayed the Pirates in the 1960 World Series and Epicenter ran a better race than Rich Strike in the 2022 Kentucky Derby. At the end of a prize-fight, you look at the guy who's dancing around and that's who won. If she was cheating, she should've returned the money. If not, she should've told him to f off.
Gene
October 3rd, 2022 at 8:02:54 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhI'm not a poker player. So help me understand how someone can win the hand-and the pot-yet not outplay their head's up opponent? He should f off.
Gene
link to original post
Poker is a game of skill and luck. Sometimes you only need one or the other to win. This hand she played unskillfully and got very lucky.
link to original post
She bluffed and he crumbled. Classic poker.
I also get a chuckle out of those people who think Epicenter ran a better Kentucky Derby, yet Rich Strike won the race.
Gene
link to original post
She didn’t bluff. She called. He didn’t crumble, he ran out bad despite being ahead 53%/47%.
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
link to original post
At the end of a prize-fight, you look at the guy who's dancing around and that's who won. Do you understand that well enough?
Gene
October 3rd, 2022 at 8:08:41 AM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPh
At the end of a prize-fight, you look at the guy who's dancing around and that's who won. Do you understand that well enough?
Gene
link to original post
I understand your reasoning well-enough to know that I'll play you heads-up anytime---and I'm not even particularly good at poker. No offense, of course.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
October 3rd, 2022 at 8:13:51 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf
Obviously, it's not what the title suggests, but this entire movement is a little odd.
link to original post
She's fiddling with her ring, then shifts around in her chair looking for her water bottle. When her hand comes back up, it's obvious the ring has been turned around on her finger, i.e., the big gem part is now facing inwards. You can even still obviously see the ring band in the video, so I'm not exactly sure what the video poster is talking about.
October 3rd, 2022 at 9:22:47 AM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Quote: GenoDRPh
At the end of a prize-fight, you look at the guy who's dancing around and that's who won. Do you understand that well enough?
Gene
link to original post
I understand your reasoning well-enough to know that I'll play you heads-up anytime---and I'm not even particularly good at poker. No offense, of course.
link to original post
I'm glad you understand. You are apparently a rather intelligent person, who has been amiable to my questions in the recent past. Question is,would you play Ms.Hero-Call-Jack-Four or even Mr. Sore-Loser-Who-Threatens-The-Winner-Whenever-I'm-Ahead-In-The-Hand heads-up? I've already said I don't play poker, so playing me heads-up isn't much of a fight. Playing one of them, on the other hand.....
I already said I don't play poker. Nor do I bet on sports. The hand in question only affirms my decision.
Gene
