Robbi J4 v Garrett 87
Quote: gordonm888Reportedly, Brian was the only person in the control room. His work desk was in that room and it was his job to operate and oversee the video streaming system.
If the police choose to prosecute, they can arrest Brian for grand larceny (a felony) and threaten to put him in jail for a long time. They have video evidence of him palming chips and records that he immediately cashed them in. They can then propose a plea bargain arrangement in exchange for a signed statement of his role in the cheating activity. With that signed statement, they could move to charge Robbi and her boyfriend.
The critical difference between the Mike Postle case and this case is here the police have video evidence of Brian stealing $15,000 in chips.
link to original post
Lot's of "could" have to fall in to place for that to happen. And the cops already said they're not going to prosecute.
Gene
Quote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
Quote: AxelWolfhttps://youtu.be/oRA4xp2pXew
I suggest watching it from the start, but you can skip to -2:52:10 for Garrett's official statement/evidence/investigation. If after this you still think she's innocent, I say good luck in the gambling world and life in general.
link to original post
More conjecture...
Gene
Quote: gordonm888Reportedly, Brian was the only person in the control room. His work desk was in that room and it was his job to operate and oversee the video streaming system.
If the police choose to prosecute, they can arrest Brian for grand larceny (a felony) and threaten to put him in jail for a long time. They have video evidence of him palming chips and records that he immediately cashed them in. They can then propose a plea bargain arrangement in exchange for a signed statement of his role in the cheating activity. With that signed statement, they could move to charge Robbi and her boyfriend.
The critical difference between the Mike Postle case and this case is here the police have video evidence of Brian stealing $15,000 in chips.
link to original post
This is all specification.
Police do not file charges on speculation.
And even if she did cheat, I doubt there would be any repercussions other than a civil lawsuit.
But I’m still going with didn’t cheat, unless there’s some evidence other than twitter speculation.
There's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
Did you watch that/stream I posted ? if so, seriously, you don't see the hand signals, verbal communication, and obvious collusion?Quote: gamerfreakQuote: gordonm888Reportedly, Brian was the only person in the control room. His work desk was in that room and it was his job to operate and oversee the video streaming system.
If the police choose to prosecute, they can arrest Brian for grand larceny (a felony) and threaten to put him in jail for a long time. They have video evidence of him palming chips and records that he immediately cashed them in. They can then propose a plea bargain arrangement in exchange for a signed statement of his role in the cheating activity. With that signed statement, they could move to charge Robbi and her boyfriend.
The critical difference between the Mike Postle case and this case is here the police have video evidence of Brian stealing $15,000 in chips.
link to original post
This is all specification.
Police do not file charges on speculation.
And even if she did cheat, I doubt there would be any repercussions other than a civil lawsuit.
But I’m still going with didn’t cheat, unless there’s some evidence other than twitter speculation.
link to original post
It kinda makes sense as to why the cheating wasn't as strong/apparent as the Mike P stuff was. And why she may have chosen some bad spots and it seemed sloppy.
Bryan seems to have had multiple responsibilities. He was in what seemed to be an area that had easy access to multiple people in a none private workstation. He could probably only relay information intermittently when it was "safe" to do so. She only had limited opportunities to get the money in.
Do people realize approximately 3 weeks prior he was noted as having moved his desk within view of the real-time hole card and he moved a cabinet that just happened to block the camera to his work area?
Quote: AxelWolfDid you watch that/stream I posted ? if so, seriously, you don't see the hand signals, verbal communication, and obvious collusion?Quote: gamerfreakQuote: gordonm888Reportedly, Brian was the only person in the control room. His work desk was in that room and it was his job to operate and oversee the video streaming system.
If the police choose to prosecute, they can arrest Brian for grand larceny (a felony) and threaten to put him in jail for a long time. They have video evidence of him palming chips and records that he immediately cashed them in. They can then propose a plea bargain arrangement in exchange for a signed statement of his role in the cheating activity. With that signed statement, they could move to charge Robbi and her boyfriend.
The critical difference between the Mike Postle case and this case is here the police have video evidence of Brian stealing $15,000 in chips.
link to original post
This is all specification.
Police do not file charges on speculation.
And even if she did cheat, I doubt there would be any repercussions other than a civil lawsuit.
But I’m still going with didn’t cheat, unless there’s some evidence other than twitter speculation.
link to original post
It kinda makes sense as to why the cheating wasn't as strong/apparent as the Mike P stuff was. And why she may have chosen some bad spots and it seemed sloppy.
Bryan seems to have had multiple responsibilities. He was in what seemed to be an area that had easy access to multiple people in a none private workstation. He could probably only relay information intermittently when it was "safe" to do so. She only had limited opportunities to get the money in.
Do people realize approximately 3 weeks prior he was noted as having moved his desk within view of the real-time hole card and he moved a cabinet that just happened to block the camera to his work area?
link to original post
I tried watching the video. It put me to sleep. As far as Mr. Sore-Loser-Who-Likes-To-Intimidate-Women-Who-Beat-Him and his statement: When I was a kid we used to lie in the grass look up at the sky and look to see what shapes and figures we could see in the clouds passing overhead. His statement is nothing more than that-a figment of an imagination running wild.
Gene
Quote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
How many do you want me to post? And will it even matter? It seems to me that you would dispute any cheating claims, even if they found a cheating device implanted under her skin. You might claim It was probably the same aliens that were whispering in her ear(or whatever RIP said). Even if she admitted it, you would claim she was threatened to admit it. You admitted you don't know much about poker, you seem to ignore evidence and you haven't been willing to listen to all the evidence. I feel as if you're just playing devil's advocate. I feel like I'm being trolled.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
link to original post
Why did the detectives lie/make such a significant error? Seems like a piece of information they would want to get correct.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfHow many do you want me to post? And will it even matter? It seems to me that you would dispute any cheating claims, even if they found a cheating device implanted under her skin. You might claim It was probably the same aliens that were whispering in her ear(or whatever RIP said). Even if she admitted it, you would claim she was threatened to admit it. You admitted you don't know much about poker, you seem to ignore evidence and you haven't been willing to listen to all the evidence. I feel as if you're just playing devil's advocate. I feel like I'm being trolled.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
link to original post
link to original post
Never said I don't know much about poker, I said I'm a horrible poker player.
To answer you question, I'd like you to post them all. And back them up with verifiable truths that confirm they are lies. Can you do that?
Trolled? No. Just standing as a bulwark against a bunch of men who just can't get their heads around the fact that an inexperienced player made an inexperienced, yet gutsy, play that wasn't the "right" play, according to the "experts" and won the hand. People who supposedly know more about poker than I do should know that happens. Could be these are the same people who believed Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of yellow cake uranium, that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, the Illuminati control the world's governments, and airplane contrails are evidence the government is poisoning us.
It's bemusing that a forum populated with experts in math, statistics and science are willing to believe in nonsense without any compelling evidence.
Gene
My bad. Do you in fact know a significant amount about poker? Very few people understand the theory of being able to bluff someone by calling their opponents all in.(Bluff calling) That's some serious higher-level poker understanding.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfHow many do you want me to post? And will it even matter? It seems to me that you would dispute any cheating claims, even if they found a cheating device implanted under her skin. You might claim It was probably the same aliens that were whispering in her ear(or whatever RIP said). Even if she admitted it, you would claim she was threatened to admit it. You admitted you don't know much about poker, you seem to ignore evidence and you haven't been willing to listen to all the evidence. I feel as if you're just playing devil's advocate. I feel like I'm being trolled.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
link to original post
link to original post
Never said I don't know much about poker, I said I'm a horrible poker player.
I know from first-hand experience you can play good or bad and have unusual crazy stuff happen. I have been on both the giving and receiving end. I remember a hand I went all in with pre-flop(not sure how much but it was in the hundreds) with AA and got called with 2 3 off and lost to 2 pair (turn and river). I was being aggressive in that game, and I was doing well. The guy had raised pre-flop to $50(he was very loose aggressive)and he just said F it when I pushed, he was tired of my raising.
I was on she didn't cheat side until more and more circumstantial evidence came to light. As demonstrated in the Mike Postle case(people still believe he didn't cheat) and other cases poker players oftentimes don't have the luxury of getting 100% convincing hard evidence. If you're a poker player willing to take it on the chin while waiting for proof of cheating, then god bless you.
I'll wait and see what else comes to light regarding her lies and other things. I'm only taking mental notes at this time, it would be quite the chore to go back and provide links. Perhaps one at a time. Let's include flip-flops as well.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
- He somehow signaled to her that her hand is stronger than Garrets thus why she raised on the turn
- And that's why she immediately throws in a time chip to his 3bet all in to ponder about calling with jack high.
She has to ponder about this instead of insta-call because even though she's ahead, her instinct is saying it's only jack high no draw
And if this is true then the person helping her doesnt play much poker because he doesnt see that she's a slight underdog to his hand.
all he understands is her jack high is beating Garrets 8 high
Quote: AxelWolfMy bad. Do you in fact know a significant amount about poker? Very few people understand the theory of being able to bluff someone by calling their opponents all in.(Bluff calling) That's some serious higher-level poker understanding.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfHow many do you want me to post? And will it even matter? It seems to me that you would dispute any cheating claims, even if they found a cheating device implanted under her skin. You might claim It was probably the same aliens that were whispering in her ear(or whatever RIP said). Even if she admitted it, you would claim she was threatened to admit it. You admitted you don't know much about poker, you seem to ignore evidence and you haven't been willing to listen to all the evidence. I feel as if you're just playing devil's advocate. I feel like I'm being trolled.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
link to original post
link to original post
Never said I don't know much about poker, I said I'm a horrible poker player.
I know from first-hand experience you can play good or bad and have unusual crazy stuff happen. I have been on both the giving and receiving end. I remember a hand I went all in with pre-flop(not sure how much but it was in the hundreds) with AA and got called with 2 3 off and lost to 2 pair (turn and river). I was being aggressive in that game, and I was doing well. The guy had raised pre-flop to $50(he was very loose aggressive)and he just said F it when I pushed, he was tired of my raising.
I was on she didn't cheat side until more and more circumstantial evidence came to light. As demonstrated in the Mike Postle case(people still believe he didn't cheat) and other cases poker players oftentimes don't have the luxury of getting 100% convincing hard evidence. If you're a poker player willing to take it on the chin while waiting for proof of cheating, then god bless you.
I'll wait and see what else comes to light regarding her lies and other things. I'm only taking mental notes at this time, it would be quite the chore to go back and provide links. Perhaps one at a time. Let's include flip-flops as well.
link to original post
I know enough about poker to know I'll never ever be good at it, despite may attempts at trying. My cousin, on the other hand, used to go to Foxwoods every week to win at least enough to meet his living expenses which he usually did. Then he married way up, and is now living on easy street. Some guys have all the luck.
If you know first hand about how unusual crazy stuff can happen with each turn of the cards and each bet from each player, why is it so unusual to think it legit happened here?
Very little of the circumstantial evidence that supposedly exists holds up to scrutiny, or doesn't have more plausible or more innocuous explanations. As well, court of public opinion aside, Ms. Lew has no duty to explain her actions so analysis of her supposed "word salad" or her "lies" is irrelevant. Unless, of course, we also believe Trump's statements that can declassify documents just by thinking about them.
Gene
Quote: AxelWolfIt was suspected that Robbie faked/Wrote Bryan's message he sent to her. Not only did it sound very suspicious(I know you didn't cheat) but the (...) used seemed to match up with her tweets.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
link to original post
Could be a poor cut and paste job, or an innate misunderstanding about double negatives. One of the individuals in this exchange is, um, "unencumbered" by a higher education.
Gene
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfIt was suspected that Robbie faked/Wrote Bryan's message he sent to her. Not only did it sound very suspicious(I know you didn't cheat) but the (...) used seemed to match up with her tweets.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
link to original post
Could be a poor cut and paste job, or an innate misunderstanding about double negatives. One of the individuals in this exchange is, um, "unencumbered" by a higher education.
Gene
link to original post
I am very happy for this particular fellow member who lives is fairyland.
Quote: speedycrapQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfIt was suspected that Robbie faked/Wrote Bryan's message he sent to her. Not only did it sound very suspicious(I know you didn't cheat) but the (...) used seemed to match up with her tweets.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
link to original post
Could be a poor cut and paste job, or an innate misunderstanding about double negatives. One of the individuals in this exchange is, um, "unencumbered" by a higher education.
Gene
link to original post
I am very happy for this particular fellow member who lives is fairyland.
link to original post
At least I'm not one those who think that if an inexperienced woman wins at poker, she MUST be cheating...
Gene
Please elaborated.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfIt was suspected that Robbie faked/Wrote Bryan's message he sent to her. Not only did it sound very suspicious(I know you didn't cheat) but the (...) used seemed to match up with her tweets.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
link to original post
Could be a poor cut and paste job, or an innate misunderstanding about double negatives. One of the individuals in this exchange is, um, "unencumbered" by a higher education.
Gene
link to original post
Here's more.
https://youtu.be/Lp2W0e_OxrE
Quote: AxelWolfPlease elaborated.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfIt was suspected that Robbie faked/Wrote Bryan's message he sent to her. Not only did it sound very suspicious(I know you didn't cheat) but the (...) used seemed to match up with her tweets.
And now this. Both use the term "wouldn't not" That's not a F'en coincidence. Someone is either setting her up, or she wrote/dictated that for him, or totally faked it.
link to original post
Could be a poor cut and paste job, or an innate misunderstanding about double negatives. One of the individuals in this exchange is, um, "unencumbered" by a higher education.
Gene
link to original post
Here's more.
https://youtu.be/Lp2W0e_OxrE
link to original post
People use double negatives incorrectly and use malapropisms all the time. The Sopranos had en entire character and his story based upon this, which was based on a US President's malapropisms. And, by his own admission, Bryan is uneducated and a convicted felon with massive gambling debts because he's a apparently can't pick the winner in a one horse race. Robbi is, at least, college educated and held down a good job. Without further, direct evidence such as Bryan saying "I never wrote that", I won't ascribe to malice what can more easily and plausibly explained by ignorance.
As for the supposed similarities in the word choices, that's what "language" is for-so we understand what we're saying and writing to each other.
Anything else, including this bozo's video linked above, is nothing more than looking more to make Robbi a boogeyman.
Gene
Gene:"Ms. Lew has no duty to explain her actions"Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfMy bad. Do you in fact know a significant amount about poker? Very few people understand the theory of being able to bluff someone by calling their opponents all in.(Bluff calling) That's some serious higher-level poker understanding.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfHow many do you want me to post? And will it even matter? It seems to me that you would dispute any cheating claims, even if they found a cheating device implanted under her skin. You might claim It was probably the same aliens that were whispering in her ear(or whatever RIP said). Even if she admitted it, you would claim she was threatened to admit it. You admitted you don't know much about poker, you seem to ignore evidence and you haven't been willing to listen to all the evidence. I feel as if you're just playing devil's advocate. I feel like I'm being trolled.Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfThere's evidence she has told many lies, so I don't know if I can believe that's what she was told.Quote: TigerWuQuote: AxelWolfAnd yet, one of the reasons she claimed to have let him off the hook was something about him not having any prior history. It seemed as if she meant he didn't have a criminal history, but perhaps she was talking about a previous history of stealing chips. if so, how would she even know that?
link to original post
She claims she asked the detective involved in the case if the guy had a criminal record, and the detective flat out told her no. That's when she declined to press charges.
link to original post
link to original post
What lies did she tell?
Gene
link to original post
link to original post
Never said I don't know much about poker, I said I'm a horrible poker player.
I know from first-hand experience you can play good or bad and have unusual crazy stuff happen. I have been on both the giving and receiving end. I remember a hand I went all in with pre-flop(not sure how much but it was in the hundreds) with AA and got called with 2 3 off and lost to 2 pair (turn and river). I was being aggressive in that game, and I was doing well. The guy had raised pre-flop to $50(he was very loose aggressive)and he just said F it when I pushed, he was tired of my raising.
I was on she didn't cheat side until more and more circumstantial evidence came to light. As demonstrated in the Mike Postle case(people still believe he didn't cheat) and other cases poker players oftentimes don't have the luxury of getting 100% convincing hard evidence. If you're a poker player willing to take it on the chin while waiting for proof of cheating, then god bless you.
I'll wait and see what else comes to light regarding her lies and other things. I'm only taking mental notes at this time, it would be quite the chore to go back and provide links. Perhaps one at a time. Let's include flip-flops as well.
link to original post
I know enough about poker to know I'll never ever be good at it, despite may attempts at trying. My cousin, on the other hand, used to go to Foxwoods every week to win at least enough to meet his living expenses which he usually did. Then he married way up, and is now living on easy street. Some guys have all the luck.
If you know first hand about how unusual crazy stuff can happen with each turn of the cards and each bet from each player, why is it so unusual to think it legit happened here?
Very little of the circumstantial evidence that supposedly exists holds up to scrutiny, or doesn't have more plausible or more innocuous explanations. As well, court of public opinion aside, Ms. Lew has no duty to explain her actions so analysis of her supposed "word salad" or her "lies" is irrelevant. Unless, of course, we also believe Trump's statements that can declassify documents just by thinking about them.
Gene
link to original post
You are correct. This begs the question; Why all the strange excessive flippy floppy explanations about the hand and various other things? Why so many contradictions and lies? Why give the money back? Why not press charges against someone stealing money from your poker community? Supposedly, she's suddenly going to be pressing charges, but somehow, I get the feeling she's not even needed to press charges at this point for him to be scooped up. If she does, I would be suspicious that some type of deal was made and he suspects there will be little consequences, especially if he did retain an attorney.
If there was cheating, AND Bryan was involved AND Robbi presses charges, she's taking a big risk of him singing like a canary as soon as the cuffs come on. If there was cheating AND Bryan was involved AND Bryan stole chips from her stack in fear of not getting paid for his part in the caper, that makes him the stupidest accomplice in poker history.
Robbi used a certain amount of skill, received a certain amount of luck and outplayed her more experienced opponent. The opponent ended up being a sore loser and now accuses her of cheating, because in his mind there is no way she has the skill or the luck to beat him.
Gene
Quote: 100xOddsSo if she cheated with this employee who had access to hole card info:
- He somehow signaled to her that her hand is stronger than Garrets thus why she raised on the turn
- And that's why she immediately throws in a time chip to his 3bet all in to ponder about calling with jack high.
She has to ponder about this instead of insta-call because even though she's ahead, her instinct is saying it's only jack high no draw
And if this is true then the person helping her doesnt play much poker because he doesnt see that she's a slight underdog to his hand.
all he understands is her jack high is beating Garrets 8 high
link to original post
The most prominent theory currently is that the employee Brian electronically signaled her boyfriend sitting in the audience, and the boyfriend (who was in direct line-of sight of Robbi) then hand signaled her. In this way, the poker player (Robbi) did not have any incriminating electronic signaling equipment on her.
It is also hypothesized that putting in the time chips was Robbi's signal to the Brian (who was watching the video monitor of the game) that she wanted hole card info or guidance on whether to call or fold.
By the way, the call on the turn against 8c7c was technically correct from the viewpoint of pot odds if you know that Garrett has that exact holding. With only the river card to be dealt, Robbi's chance of winning, given knowledge of the hole cards, was 48% - which would justify making a $50,000 call to try to win the other $89,000. However, without knowing the hole cards this is a quick fold, because of the chance that Garrett has an A or K or Q or a pair.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: 100xOddsSo if she cheated with this employee who had access to hole card info:
- He somehow signaled to her that her hand is stronger than Garrets thus why she raised on the turn
- And that's why she immediately throws in a time chip to his 3bet all in to ponder about calling with jack high.
She has to ponder about this instead of insta-call because even though she's ahead, her instinct is saying it's only jack high no draw
And if this is true then the person helping her doesnt play much poker because he doesnt see that she's a slight underdog to his hand.
all he understands is her jack high is beating Garrets 8 high
link to original post
The most prominent theory currently is that the employee Brian electronically signaled her boyfriend sitting in the audience, and the boyfriend (who was in direct line-of sight of Robbi) then hand signaled her. In this way, the poker player (Robbi) did not have any incriminating electronic signaling equipment on her.
It is also hypothesized that putting in the time chips was Robbi's signal to the Brian (who was watching the video monitor of the game) that she wanted hole card info or guidance on whether to call or fold.
By the way, the call on the turn against 8c7c was technically correct from the viewpoint of pot odds if you know that Garrett has that exact holding. With only the river card to be dealt, Robbi's chance of winning, given knowledge of the hole cards, was 48% - which would justify making a $50,000 call to try to win the other $89,000. However, without knowing the hole cards this is a quick fold, because of the chance that Garrett has an A or K or Q or a pair.
link to original post
Nice hypothesis for both, without any evidence. Does Robbi's husband know she also has a boyfriend?
Gene
Quote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
All the hand signals, whispers and whatnot between her and RIP. during the game fairly convincing..
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
You make good points. Though you should drop the assertion that she outplayed him, because she didn’t. Outplay has a meaning in poker distinct from “she won the hand.”
Despite Seedvalue assertion, I am hard pressed to see how a cheating device discovers the River card(s). And the latest assertion of cheating about the thief in the video room would reveal hole cards but not River card(s).
So I’m still in the camp of likely not cheating, but can’t eliminate cheating + moron.
There is enough circumstantial evidence that I think the casino should do a proper investigation, but they don’t really have the incentives to do so.
Still waiting for evidence of her lies.
Gene
Quote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
You make good points. Though you should drop the assertion that she outplayed him, because she didn’t. Outplay has a meaning in poker distinct from “she won the hand.”
Despite Seedvalue assertion, I am hard pressed to see how a cheating device discovers the River card(s). And the latest assertion of cheating about the thief in the video room would reveal hole cards but not River card(s).
So I’m still in the camp of likely not cheating, but can’t eliminate cheating + moron.
There is enough circumstantial evidence that I think the casino should do a proper investigation, but they don’t really have the incentives to do so.
link to original post
She won the hand. She outplayed him. Which definition doesn't apply?
HCL poker has stated they have retained a law firm to do an investigation. Are they the casino, or just the production company?
Gene
Gene
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
You make good points. Though you should drop the assertion that she outplayed him, because she didn’t. Outplay has a meaning in poker distinct from “she won the hand.”
Despite Seedvalue assertion, I am hard pressed to see how a cheating device discovers the River card(s). And the latest assertion of cheating about the thief in the video room would reveal hole cards but not River card(s).
So I’m still in the camp of likely not cheating, but can’t eliminate cheating + moron.
There is enough circumstantial evidence that I think the casino should do a proper investigation, but they don’t really have the incentives to do so.
link to original post
She won the hand. She outplayed him. Which definition doesn't apply?
HCL poker has stated they have retained a law firm to do an investigation. Are they the casino, or just the production company?
Gene
Gene
link to original post
The “she outplayed him” doesn’t apply. It’s not a debatable point. Just the application of definition of terms as they are used in poker.
Re: investigation I don’t know if that’s the production company or casino. I’m jaded from the Postle “investigation.”
Quote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
You make good points. Though you should drop the assertion that she outplayed him, because she didn’t. Outplay has a meaning in poker distinct from “she won the hand.”
Despite Seedvalue assertion, I am hard pressed to see how a cheating device discovers the River card(s). And the latest assertion of cheating about the thief in the video room would reveal hole cards but not River card(s).
So I’m still in the camp of likely not cheating, but can’t eliminate cheating + moron.
There is enough circumstantial evidence that I think the casino should do a proper investigation, but they don’t really have the incentives to do so.
link to original post
She won the hand. She outplayed him. Which definition doesn't apply?
HCL poker has stated they have retained a law firm to do an investigation. Are they the casino, or just the production company?
Gene
Gene
link to original post
The “she outplayed him” doesn’t apply. It’s not a debatable point. Just the application of definition of terms as they are used in poker.
Re: investigation I don’t know if that’s the production company or casino. I’m jaded from the Postle “investigation.”
link to original post
Meh. Distinction without a difference. She won the hand. That's what mattered.
Gene
Quote: AxelWolfDid you watch that/stream I posted ? if so, seriously, you don't see the hand signals, verbal communication, and obvious collusion?Quote: gamerfreakQuote: gordonm888Reportedly, Brian was the only person in the control room. His work desk was in that room and it was his job to operate and oversee the video streaming system.
If the police choose to prosecute, they can arrest Brian for grand larceny (a felony) and threaten to put him in jail for a long time. They have video evidence of him palming chips and records that he immediately cashed them in. They can then propose a plea bargain arrangement in exchange for a signed statement of his role in the cheating activity. With that signed statement, they could move to charge Robbi and her boyfriend.
The critical difference between the Mike Postle case and this case is here the police have video evidence of Brian stealing $15,000 in chips.
link to original post
This is all specification.
Police do not file charges on speculation.
And even if she did cheat, I doubt there would be any repercussions other than a civil lawsuit.
But I’m still going with didn’t cheat, unless there’s some evidence other than twitter speculation.
link to original post
It kinda makes sense as to why the cheating wasn't as strong/apparent as the Mike P stuff was. And why she may have chosen some bad spots and it seemed sloppy.
Bryan seems to have had multiple responsibilities. He was in what seemed to be an area that had easy access to multiple people in a none private workstation. He could probably only relay information intermittently when it was "safe" to do so. She only had limited opportunities to get the money in.
Do people realize approximately 3 weeks prior he was noted as having moved his desk within view of the real-time hole card and he moved a cabinet that just happened to block the camera to his work area?
link to original post
Yea, I watched most of the video.
I don’t disagree that it’s all insanely suspicious, but the narrative being woven about Bryan stealing the $15k to get his cut back still feels highly speculative to me.
I don’t want to use the words “bimbo”, or “dutz”, but I still think there’s a chance this is mistaking malice for stupidity.
Quote: GenoDRPh
Meh. Distinction without a difference. She won the hand. That's what mattered.
Gene
link to original post
If you understood how that statement makes everything else you say in a poker thread just so much less credible, I wonder if you would still say it.
Also shows an unwillingness to keep an open mind, admit when you are wrong, evaluate new data, etc.
All very ironic and amusing.
Quote: unJonQuote: GenoDRPh
Meh. Distinction without a difference. She won the hand. That's what mattered.
Gene
link to original post
If you understood how that statement makes everything else you say in a poker thread just so much less credible, I wonder if you would still say it.
Also shows an unwillingness to keep an open mind, admit when you are wrong, evaluate new data, etc.
All very ironic and amusing.
link to original post
On the contrary, at your prompting I did indeed google "outplayed poker" and learned that to outplay someone in poker is to make them fold a winning hand. Hence my comment "distinction without a difference". You know why it makes no difference whether she "outplayed" Mr. Sore-Loser-Who-Can't-Accept-Being-Beat-By-A-Woman according to the poker definition of the term, or other definitions of the term? It's because she won the hand. That part is not in dispute. Irrespective of whatever else happened after the hand was over, she ended up stacking his chips in front of her. Where am I wrong? She didn't win the hand? Someone else won the hand?Point out where I'm wrong.
So my actions completely contradict your statements because I kept an open mind and learned something new. I've also asked multiple times for someone-anyone-to point out where my facts are wrong. So far, nobody has. Indirectly, I've asked for more information that makes my arguments less credible, but nobody has been able to present any data that is not more easily explained by innocent explanations. So what new data am I ignoring? What "etc" is out there that makes my position that she didn't cheat less credible than before.
Present your case, if you can.
Gene
You are still using outplay incorrectly. I’ll continue to point it out as you continue to do it.
ETA: Or try this if you want to research a poker concept: don’t focus on the whether you won or lost, focus on whether you made correct decisions.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
Gene, you are relatively new here. Vegas did not call you a troll. He said Axel is being trolled here. The implication is that your posts are indicative of trolling, which of course they clearly are.
To reiterate, all of Robbi’s actions before she called the all in are possible and just show she was a bad player. The call of the all in showed she was cheating.
Will there be enough evidence to convince those still in doubt? Possibly, possibly not.
Not sure what your motive is here, Gene, other than a joy of arguing when you really don’t know what you are talking about?
Quote: unJonFor the record, SOOPOO, I disagree the all in call shows she was cheating. I still think most likely she thought she had a pair of 3s and made a hero call, though I am troubled by the recent circumstantial evidence.
link to original post
The ‘thought I had 3’s’ is clearly a cover for explaining why she called when someone would only call if they knew the other player’s cards. I won’t give the ‘hero call’ after misreading her cards on a $100k pot much of a chance of being a reasonable explanation. When you add the circumstantial evidence it strains credulity to think she was not cheating.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: unJonFor the record, SOOPOO, I disagree the all in call shows she was cheating. I still think most likely she thought she had a pair of 3s and made a hero call, though I am troubled by the recent circumstantial evidence.
link to original post
The ‘thought I had 3’s’ is clearly a cover for explaining why she called when someone would only call if they knew the other player’s cards. I won’t give the ‘hero call’ after misreading her cards on a $100k pot much of a chance of being a reasonable explanation. When you add the circumstantial evidence it strains credulity to think she was not cheating.
link to original post
During the hand while contemplating the all in she asked “3s no good?” It’s also Phil Ivy’s thoughts on the hand (I learned that afterwards).
The later stuff is a bad look. I’ve revised the cheating hypothesis from super unlikely to probably not. But I would no longer be surprised if there was cheating.
Quote: unJonYou’re imputing to me arguments I’m not making. Show me what’s wrong in my posts in this thread.
You are still using outplay incorrectly. I’ll continue to point it out as you continue to do it.
ETA: Or try this if you want to research a poker concept: don’t focus on the whether you won or lost, focus on whether you made correct decisions.
link to original post
She won the hand. And I'll continue to point that out to you. Are you poker elitists so wrapped up with whether a play is "right" or "correct" that you keep missing that?
Gene
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: unJonYou’re imputing to me arguments I’m not making. Show me what’s wrong in my posts in this thread.
You are still using outplay incorrectly. I’ll continue to point it out as you continue to do it.
ETA: Or try this if you want to research a poker concept: don’t focus on the whether you won or lost, focus on whether you made correct decisions.
link to original post
She won the hand. And I'll continue to point that out to you. Are you poker elitists so wrapped up with whether a play is "right" or "correct" that you keep missing that?
Gene
link to original post
Right I’ll take that as an admission of defeat by you that you can find nothing wrong with my posts.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: vegasAxel, you are being trolled. Like trying to make a point to Coach Belly. just won't happen.
link to original post
I note that the same people calling others "trolls" also have no facts to back up the accusations of cheating.
Gene
link to original post
Gene, you are relatively new here. Vegas did not call you a troll. He said Axel is being trolled here. The implication is that your posts are indicative of trolling, which of course they clearly are.
To reiterate, all of Robbi’s actions before she called the all in are possible and just show she was a bad player. The call of the all in showed she was cheating.
Will there be enough evidence to convince those still in doubt? Possibly, possibly not.
Not sure what your motive is here, Gene, other than a joy of arguing when you really don’t know what you are talking about?
link to original post
The call of all in could also mean she was a bad player. Why is that such a difficult concept for you poker-elites to understand?
So which is it, am I trolling or not? I'm getting confused. It's almost as confusing as all the new hypotheses about how she cheated.
What don't I know what I'm talking about?
Will there be enough evidence? Yes, when there's actually evidence. Right now it's just speculation from a bunch of poker-bros who got their boxers in a twist because an inexperienced woman made a poor play from a disadvantage and still beat a poker-bro.
Several tears ago I decided, after some effort to the contrary, to abandon any attempts to become skilled enough to play regularly at licensed poker rooms near me. Judging by the fragile egos, butt-hurt feelings and inane accusations of cheating whenever someone beats someone else, I made the correct choice.
Have you done any research on Garrett's past poker history. If you had, you might notice that he's lost much bigger pots and paid with a smile. This definitely isn't a case of soured grapes, fragile ego or butt-hurt feelings.Quote: GenoDRPhJudging by the fragile egos, butt-hurt feelings and inane accusations of cheating whenever someone beats someone else, I made the correct choice.
link to original post
Thinking she outplayed him with a stealer call-bluff might account for any failed attempts at becoming skilled.Quote: GenoDRPh
Several tears ago I decided, after some effort to the contrary, to abandon any attempts to become skilled enough to play regularly at licensed poker rooms near me.
There's too much evidence to the contrary that she actually thought she had J3. Even before I saw any evidence to the contrary I knew that was BS.Quote: unJonQuote: SOOPOOQuote: unJonFor the record, SOOPOO, I disagree the all in call shows she was cheating. I still think most likely she thought she had a pair of 3s and made a hero call, though I am troubled by the recent circumstantial evidence.
link to original post
The ‘thought I had 3’s’ is clearly a cover for explaining why she called when someone would only call if they knew the other player’s cards. I won’t give the ‘hero call’ after misreading her cards on a $100k pot much of a chance of being a reasonable explanation. When you add the circumstantial evidence it strains credulity to think she was not cheating.
link to original post
During the hand while contemplating the all in she asked “3s no good?” It’s also Phil Ivy’s thoughts on the hand (I learned that afterwards).
The later stuff is a bad look. I’ve revised the cheating hypothesis from super unlikely to probably not. But I would no longer be surprised if there was cheating.
link to original post
He literally took money from her stack after a super controversial hand where someone was suspected of cheating, in a casino with a ton of video surveillance. It just so happened to be from her stack<<< That's super dumb. I don't think it's hard to believe he could be the stupidest accomplice in poker history.Quote: GenoDRPhIf there was cheating AND Bryan was involved AND Bryan stole chips from her stack in fear of not getting paid for his part in the caper, that makes him the stupidest accomplice in poker history.]
