Robbi J4 v Garrett 87
It is similar to an established principle in whistleblower harassment cases. Federal and state courts have determined that every employer has denied having intended to harrass the whistleblower in 100% of all prior cases - i.e., whether or not harrassment was actually intended. So courts now explicitly have a rule that the fact that an employer denies they had any intent to harass the whistleblower is given no weight in reaching a determination.
In this case a private investigation usually can only do the following:
1. study the existing video,
2. review emails on the corporate email system and public messages on social media,
3. interview the suspects (and the key guy is fleeing and thus can't be interviewed) and other players
4. review the physical space to see if any incriminating electronics have been left behind
5. review streaming computer software to see if any changes have been made (not relevant to this situation)
Unless the cheating team made an incredible blunder, one would expect this investigation to turn up no evidence. Any law enforcement agent or professional investigator (including those who performed the investigation) would tell you that. Therefore, a finding of "no evidence was found" should carry virtually no weight either way in judging guilt or innocence.
Quote: gordonm888No , I am saying that the lack of evidence of cheating is very far from being determinative; it is what would ordinarily be expected whether or not cheating occurred and thus shouldn't be weighed either way.
It is similar to an established principle in whistleblower harassment cases. Federal and state courts have determined that every employer has denied having intended to harrass the whistleblower in 100% of all prior cases - i.e., whether or not harrassment was actually intended. So courts now explicitly have a rule that the fact that an employer denies they had any intent to harass the whistleblower is given no weight in reaching a determination.
In this case a private investigation usually can only do the following:
1. study the existing video,
2. review emails on the corporate email system and public messages on social media,
3. interview the suspects (and the key guy is fleeing and thus can't be interviewed) and other players
4. review the physical space to see if any incriminating electronics have been left behind
5. review streaming computer software to see if any changes have been made (not relevant to this situation)
Unless the cheating team made an incredible blunder, one would expect this investigation to turn up no evidence. Any law enforcement agent or professional investigator (including those who performed the investigation) would tell you that. Therefore, a finding of "no evidence was found" should carry virtually no weight either way in judging guilt or innocence.
link to original post
In the absence of any evidence, I presume she is innocent. Present some evidence, and I could be convinced otherwise.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitIt feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post
You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,
Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post
Ganged up on? What were they gonna do? Beat her up. Highly unlikely. The evidence of cheating is she called. That’s it. Either she’s cheating on she’s a MASSIVE whale. Pick one.
Quote: TigerWuYou'd think if it was that obvious that she cheated, nobody would ever want to play with her again, but that doesn't seem to be the case...
link to original post
You would be surprised at how egotistical high stakes poker players are. A buddy of mine plays 25-25 NL and higher and these ego bums let people look at their cards before straddling(and plenty of other angles) and just let them keep playing
Quote: gordonm888No , I am saying that the lack of evidence of cheating is very far from being determinative; it is what would ordinarily be expected whether or not cheating occurred and thus shouldn't be weighed either way.
It is similar to an established principle in whistleblower harassment cases. Federal and state courts have determined that every employer has denied having intended to harrass the whistleblower in 100% of all prior cases - i.e., whether or not harrassment was actually intended. So courts now explicitly have a rule that the fact that an employer denies they had any intent to harass the whistleblower is given no weight in reaching a determination.
In this case a private investigation usually can only do the following:
1. study the existing video,
2. review emails on the corporate email system and public messages on social media,
3. interview the suspects (and the key guy is fleeing and thus can't be interviewed) and other players
4. review the physical space to see if any incriminating electronics have been left behind
5. review streaming computer software to see if any changes have been made (not relevant to this situation)
Unless the cheating team made an incredible blunder, one would expect this investigation to turn up no evidence. Any law enforcement agent or professional investigator (including those who performed the investigation) would tell you that. Therefore, a finding of "no evidence was found" should carry virtually no weight either way in judging guilt or innocence.
link to original post
What would you have done that the investigators didn't do?
Quote: PenguinsOfPitQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitIt feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post
You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,
Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post
Ganged up on? What were they gonna do? Beat her up. Highly unlikely. The evidence of cheating is she called. That’s it. Either she’s cheating on she’s a MASSIVE whale. Pick one.
link to original post
She admits to being a massive whale. She and her husband are wealthy and she started playing poker to find something to do during COVID.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitIt feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post
You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,
Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post
Ganged up on? What were they gonna do? Beat her up. Highly unlikely. The evidence of cheating is she called. That’s it. Either she’s cheating on she’s a MASSIVE whale. Pick one.
link to original post
She admits to being a massive whale. She and her husband are wealthy and she started playing poker to find something to do during COVID.
link to original post
It seems to me inescapable to conclude she’s a whale of some sort. It is covered by all the possibilities:
1) Misread hand in huge pot;
2) Made insanely bad play; or
3) Cheated in a moronic way.
Quote: gordonm888No , I am saying that the lack of evidence of cheating is very far from being determinative; it is what would ordinarily be expected whether or not cheating occurred and thus shouldn't be weighed either way.
It is similar to an established principle in whistleblower harassment cases. Federal and state courts have determined that every employer has denied having intended to harrass the whistleblower in 100% of all prior cases - i.e., whether or not harrassment was actually intended. So courts now explicitly have a rule that the fact that an employer denies they had any intent to harass the whistleblower is given no weight in reaching a determination.
In this case a private investigation usually can only do the following:
1. study the existing video,
2. review emails on the corporate email system and public messages on social media,
3. interview the suspects (and the key guy is fleeing and thus can't be interviewed) and other players
4. review the physical space to see if any incriminating electronics have been left behind
5. review streaming computer software to see if any changes have been made (not relevant to this situation)
Unless the cheating team made an incredible blunder, one would expect this investigation to turn up no evidence. Any law enforcement agent or professional investigator (including those who performed the investigation) would tell you that. Therefore, a finding of "no evidence was found" should carry virtually no weight either way in judging guilt or innocence.
link to original post
They could have looked for patterns of irregular play. Signals. Suspicious characters in the surveillance footage etc. They found nothing. This is how postle, Hamilton, Hans Niemann etc were caught. No such evidence here.
The appeal to authority of poker players has been debunked a few times. But... Daniel N and Ivey, the two biggest names in poker say innocent. No, Ivey's view doesn't magically vanish when he disagrees with you.
Others: Andy, who was there. David Williams, galfond, little, hanson. On poker forums most mid to hs players landed innocent.
Idk what's a high level for Gordon but I play 5/10 fairly often.
It doesn't matter though. Like if you make more mistakes 3 betting from the small blind than I do, my opinions are no more valid.
Don't need to be a chess GM to know Hans confessed to cheating or that chess.com determined he cheated.
Don't need to be a nosebleed poker pro to know that a 3 person cheating team w/ hole card access should beat the game or that 1 decision point in 1 hand proves nothing
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: gordonm888No , I am saying that the lack of evidence of cheating is very far from being determinative; it is what would ordinarily be expected whether or not cheating occurred and thus shouldn't be weighed either way.
It is similar to an established principle in whistleblower harassment cases. Federal and state courts have determined that every employer has denied having intended to harrass the whistleblower in 100% of all prior cases - i.e., whether or not harrassment was actually intended. So courts now explicitly have a rule that the fact that an employer denies they had any intent to harass the whistleblower is given no weight in reaching a determination.
In this case a private investigation usually can only do the following:
1. study the existing video,
2. review emails on the corporate email system and public messages on social media,
3. interview the suspects (and the key guy is fleeing and thus can't be interviewed) and other players
4. review the physical space to see if any incriminating electronics have been left behind
5. review streaming computer software to see if any changes have been made (not relevant to this situation)
Unless the cheating team made an incredible blunder, one would expect this investigation to turn up no evidence. Any law enforcement agent or professional investigator (including those who performed the investigation) would tell you that. Therefore, a finding of "no evidence was found" should carry virtually no weight either way in judging guilt or innocence.
link to original post
What would you have done that the investigators didn't do?
link to original post
Unless you have the powers of the police (with search warrants) to seize cell phones and personal computers, there's really nothing more that could have been done.
Look the poker club got what it wanted. A press conference where they announced they were contracting with people to do a professional investigation -which allowed them to avoid media criticism. The (small) possibility of finding direct evidence if the cheaters actually did something stupid (and finding such evidence before anyone else does). A long delay before results of the investigation were announced, to allow media interest to fade. A written press release months later saying that no evidence of cheating was found (that's good for business, isn't it? and which makes it impossible for any of the other poker players to successfully sue the poker club.) Maybe some recommendations on how to improve security (again something to reassure future players.) And no lawsuits against the poker club by Robbi about the findings of the investigation.
Also, the investigators got what they wanted - a nice payday, and customers who are delighted with the outcome and who may use them again some day.
Quote: DRichMy only question is are people still playing with her? If they are they don't seem to be as concerned as everybody else in this thread. And they are the ones putting their money on the line.
link to original post
As I said before, most players at that level have massive egos and think they can beat the game no matter what.
Quote: PenguinsOfPitQuote: DRichMy only question is are people still playing with her? If they are they don't seem to be as concerned as everybody else in this thread. And they are the ones putting their money on the line.
link to original post
As I said before, most players at that level have massive egos and think they can beat the game no matter what.
link to original post
"It's the only game in town..."
-- Canada Bill Jones
Quote: TigerWuQuote: PenguinsOfPitQuote: DRichMy only question is are people still playing with her? If they are they don't seem to be as concerned as everybody else in this thread. And they are the ones putting their money on the line.
link to original post
As I said before, most players at that level have massive egos and think they can beat the game no matter what.
link to original post
"It's the only game in town..."
-- Canada Bill Jones
link to original post
Speed : Well, you know Chick, like old momma said, next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing.
(From classic movie Hard Times)
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: PenguinsOfPitIt feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post
You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,
Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post
Ganged up on? What were they gonna do? Beat her up. Highly unlikely. The evidence of cheating is she called. That’s it. Either she’s cheating on she’s a MASSIVE whale. Pick one.
link to original post
She admits to being a massive whale. She and her husband are wealthy and she started playing poker to find something to do during COVID.
link to original post
What? No. She's no whale. She's one of the least wealthy poker players bankroll wise on that table. She has been staked by that electrician guy, the RIP character. Coming from a relatively wealthy family does not at all mean your parents or husband are pouring hundreds of thousands in your poker bankroll so you could have fun losing it all. The people these days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9rl7kpaJkw
Not liking her chances of not been involved in something shady about that hand any better. The more I learn and watch about her, the more she strikes me as being a con artist rather than being a legit poker enthusiast and HS cash specialist.
Quote: rawtuffI watched this recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9rl7kpaJkw
Not liking her chances of not been involved in something shady about that hand any better. The more I learn and watch about her, the more she strikes me as being a con artist rather than being a legit poker enthusiast and HS cash specialist.
link to original post
3 hours is a lot so some key quotes would be appreciated
