Robbi J4 v Garrett 87
December 15th, 2022 at 12:31:06 PM
permalink
Yes, Stones did an investigation.Quote: GenoDRPhThere was a Mike Postle investigation? There a bunch of internet sleuths and talking heads yapping, but no formal investigation that is available publicly.
Lew made a less-than-optimal play but still won the hand even after running ti twice. Therefore, she just ^had^ to be cheating. After all, nobody, and I repeat ^nobody^ has ever won a poker hand by playing then than perfect...
link to original post
You are too focused on the hand itself. That's not why people are convinced she was cheating. No doubt Garret probably knows something he isn't willing to talk about and that's all he needed.
♪♪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♪♪
December 15th, 2022 at 2:38:43 PM
permalink
What else should we focused on, if not the hand in question? Did you read the report? What, in your mind, did the report miss? If Garrett has info that leans in the direction of cheating, he's not doing anyone or himself any favors by keeping it to himself. Right now, he's looking more and more like a petulant sore loser. If that's the case, it's probably good he isn't playing poker for the time being.
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
December 15th, 2022 at 4:39:13 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfYes, Stones did an investigation.Quote: GenoDRPhThere was a Mike Postle investigation? There a bunch of internet sleuths and talking heads yapping, but no formal investigation that is available publicly.
Lew made a less-than-optimal play but still won the hand even after running ti twice. Therefore, she just ^had^ to be cheating. After all, nobody, and I repeat ^nobody^ has ever won a poker hand by playing then than perfect...
link to original post
You are too focused on the hand itself. That's not why people are convinced she was cheating. No doubt Garret probably knows something he isn't willing to talk about and that's all he needed.
link to original post
If he has something that he is not willing to talk about to the casino investigation or the legal authorities, that in and of itself is beyond suspicious (and frankly unbelievable) in the context of a highly publicized scandal, I would be throwing every bit of evidence I had of cheating at everyone who asked (especially after forcing the money back from somebody after a hand). The fact that he did not agree to be interviewed (or if he did demand that it not be released, I guess we can't say for certain), is very odd (and perhaps telling).
The fact that such a public scandal, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bounties for information, a polygraph, and a transparent casino report did not result in any serious allegations of cheating should put this safely to rest.
Granted the casino is far from perfect, apparently, they do not do background checks on employees (which I find frankly absurd, how do you even get a license to work at a gaming establishment without a background and credit check through that State? I guess different States have different rules....) So, this could mean their process was far from perfect, but they were transparent about it which is more than most.
December 15th, 2022 at 5:37:38 PM
permalink
HCL and Hustler Casino are two different entities, which explains why HCL didn't have to do a background check on their employees. I also find it absurd, especially since Nick Vertucci is a former cop. Another reason why I don't play poker: too many low-lifes and people who tolerate low-lifes.
December 15th, 2022 at 5:57:18 PM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
December 15th, 2022 at 6:11:00 PM
permalink
I don’t think she cheated.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 15th, 2022 at 7:09:09 PM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhWhat else should we focused on, if not the hand in question? Did you read the report? What, in your mind, did the report miss? If Garrett has info that leans in the direction of cheating, he's not doing anyone or himself any favors by keeping it to himself. Right now, he's looking more and more like a petulant sore loser. If that's the case, it's probably good he isn't playing poker for the time being.
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
This is one of the dumber comments I’ve read in this thread, and there have been some doozies. In what world do you get to sue people for their opinions that they write on the Internet? If that’s so I’ve gotta start getting some lawsuits ready and I’m gonna be stupid rich.
Edit; oh, by the way, I’ll be waiting for my lawsuit notice per my opinion that your comment is dumb.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 15th, 2022 at 7:29:15 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
December 15th, 2022 at 7:34:26 PM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhWhat else should we focused on, if not the hand in question? Did you read the report? What, in your mind, did the report miss? If Garrett has info that leans in the direction of cheating, he's not doing anyone or himself any favors by keeping it to himself. Right now, he's looking more and more like a petulant sore loser. If that's the case, it's probably good he isn't playing poker for the time being.
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
This is one of the dumber comments I’ve read in this thread, and there have been some doozies. In what world do you get to sue people for their opinions that they write on the Internet? If that’s so I’ve gotta start getting some lawsuits ready and I’m gonna be stupid rich.
Edit; oh, by the way, I’ll be waiting for my lawsuit notice per my opinion that your comment is dumb.
link to original post
To answer your question, the internet is no protection against libel, defamation, slander and like civil actions, of comments meet those legal standards.
You'll be waiting a long time to hear from me, but please do let us know how your lawsuits turn out.
December 15th, 2022 at 8:34:36 PM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This will be my last back and forth with you on this matter. I can’t help it if you can’t untangle the relevant facts and know that the likelihood of her cheating far exceeds the likelihood of her not. Feel free to get the last word.
December 15th, 2022 at 8:47:07 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This will be my last back and forth with you on this matter. I can’t help it if you can’t untangle the relevant facts and know that the likelihood of her cheating far exceeds the likelihood of her not. Feel free to get the last word.
link to original post
There are plenty of very smart, very in tune professional poker players that disagree with your assessment. So let’s not pretend you have some objectively superior position just because two smart APs on this board (Axel and ponergrinder) happen to agree with you.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 4:10:32 AM
permalink
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 16th, 2022 at 4:12:17 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This will be my last back and forth with you on this matter. I can’t help it if you can’t untangle the relevant facts and know that the likelihood of her cheating far exceeds the likelihood of her not. Feel free to get the last word.
link to original post
There are plenty of very smart, very in tune professional poker players that disagree with your assessment. So let’s not pretend you have some objectively superior position just because two smart APs on this board (Axel and ponergrinder) happen to agree with you.
link to original post
Obviously there are pros that I respect on both sides of the argument of whether they cheated or not but it was not an even split. I’d say it was 75-80% of the pros believed (the ones that posted their opinions on Twitter) that she cheated.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 16th, 2022 at 5:41:10 AM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This will be my last back and forth with you on this matter. I can’t help it if you can’t untangle the relevant facts and know that the likelihood of her cheating far exceeds the likelihood of her not. Feel free to get the last word.
link to original post
There are plenty of very smart, very in tune professional poker players that disagree with your assessment. So let’s not pretend you have some objectively superior position just because two smart APs on this board (Axel and ponergrinder) happen to agree with you.
link to original post
Obviously there are pros that I respect on both sides of the argument of whether they cheated or not but it was not an even split. I’d say it was 75-80% of the pros believed (the ones that posted their opinions on Twitter) that she cheated.
link to original post
I didn’t do a survey but that might be right. Maybe closer to 2/3 and 1/3.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 6:27:34 AM
permalink
Missclick
♪♪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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 7:13:55 AM
permalink
IIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 7:22:07 AM
permalink
You are arguing with people who use objective evidence in their thinking, not wishful thinking and leaping to conclusions. But, hey, deluded sore loser poker bros are gonna delusively be sore loser poker bros. It's in their nature.
December 16th, 2022 at 8:29:06 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 11:29:22 AM
permalink
Everything makes total sense if you assume Byan was feeding someone(Rip perhaps) at that table information and they are singaling her. I can easily see a situation where Bryan has limited opportunities and time to accomplish this. Signaling is an imperfect situation especially when there's a 3-way chain.Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
A fairly good poker player would absolutely crush poker even with just a few hands where they had knowledge of their opponent's hole cards. Avoiding folding to a bluff or calling off to a better hand at key times during a few big hands would be tremendous. Add in pot control and you're golden.
♪♪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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 12:17:33 PM
permalink
Have any evidence to support your assumptions?
December 16th, 2022 at 12:57:38 PM
permalink
I agree with Geno and also lean towards she didn't do it, as UnJon.
Even if she may still have done it, even if it's possible---this seems to be the only investigation that is going to take place. That being the case, unless and until something new comes to light, I think it would be fair for people to treat her and speak of her on the presumption that she is innocent.
If not, then I'm just glad Poker Bros. don't write our country's laws.
Even if she may still have done it, even if it's possible---this seems to be the only investigation that is going to take place. That being the case, unless and until something new comes to light, I think it would be fair for people to treat her and speak of her on the presumption that she is innocent.
If not, then I'm just glad Poker Bros. don't write our country's laws.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 16th, 2022 at 3:06:04 PM
permalink
I play a fair amount of poker. I still think its 50/50 whether she cheated. My opinion. When people plan to cheat, they do so in a way that leaves no evidence or as little evidence as possible. And then they deny, deny, deny.
1. One of the suspected principals is still on the run from the law. Everyone's opinions are likely to shift one way or the other if and when he's caught and interrogated by law enforcement.
2. I might believe she misread her hand, but very little of her subsequent behavior in the immediate aftermath makes sense in that context.
3. I also might believe she was under the influence (even of something as simple as caffeine or energy drinks).
4. Poker is about observing someone's betting actions and body language and trying to deduce what hand, or range of hands, a person might have. Poker experts are the ones that are the most dubious because they cannot conjure any logical rationale for her play. It is like foolishly hitting a hard 20 in blackjack; and in this case she drew an Ace and made 21. Please don't claim that she outplayed her opponent. She either blundered and got lucky, or she cheated. My opinion.
Reasonable people can disagree on this one, IMO.
1. One of the suspected principals is still on the run from the law. Everyone's opinions are likely to shift one way or the other if and when he's caught and interrogated by law enforcement.
2. I might believe she misread her hand, but very little of her subsequent behavior in the immediate aftermath makes sense in that context.
3. I also might believe she was under the influence (even of something as simple as caffeine or energy drinks).
4. Poker is about observing someone's betting actions and body language and trying to deduce what hand, or range of hands, a person might have. Poker experts are the ones that are the most dubious because they cannot conjure any logical rationale for her play. It is like foolishly hitting a hard 20 in blackjack; and in this case she drew an Ace and made 21. Please don't claim that she outplayed her opponent. She either blundered and got lucky, or she cheated. My opinion.
Reasonable people can disagree on this one, IMO.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
December 16th, 2022 at 3:22:52 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146I agree with Geno and also lean towards she didn't do it, as UnJon.
Even if she may still have done it, even if it's possible---this seems to be the only investigation that is going to take place. That being the case, unless and until something new comes to light, I think it would be fair for people to treat her and speak of her on the presumption that she is innocent.
If not, then I'm just glad Poker Bros. don't write our country's laws.
link to original post
The trend I notice with (some elements) of the online poker community, seem to correlate with the speed running community. When somebody does well (or in some cases just breaks a record by dumb luck), and there is an allegation of cheating, almost everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon. I guess the difference is each hand in poker is a transaction, and speed running you have to prove (to varying degrees depending on where) your record qualifies (so there is some burden on the person claiming to break a record). But, the reaction of players is often the same (very mob mentality, usually immediatley following the thoughts of one or two high profile streamers).
Anything is possible, maybe she has access to some secret government programs where she has body modifications or brain chip to see through cards or read minds.... But, if a transparent investigation found no evidence of cheating, the "victim" will not do an interview on why he feels he was cheated, and she passed a polygraph, I don't know what else she can do to "prove her innocence". It starts entering conspiracy territory at this point (actually it's been there).
Honestly, she has done far more than she should, she should have just kept the money and told everyone to pound sand, and not acknowledge anyone who questions her.
Though to some degree I think she is using the attention for social media fame which is why she does not mind playing along, and making endless statements, and participating in events, but that's a different topic....
But, I definitely agree with your last sentence (I would probably add speed run bros on there).
December 16th, 2022 at 4:07:21 PM
permalink
Isn't it possible she read his tell?
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
December 16th, 2022 at 4:09:56 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
I actually don’t think a misread is possible. First off she was asked if she had a pair not the other way around and she said “you think im good enough to have a pair” or something like that. Second when she flips over her hand she has no “oh shit” moment. Trust me I’ve played more poker than most people on this forum and the one time I made a mistake this big I was immediately flustered and you could see it all over my face. If she misread her hand she would immediately show it all over her face and in her actions. (When she flipped over her cards I mean)
Basically although I think she cheated there is obviously the possibility that she didn’t. But as far as the two options (cheating or not) if she didn’t cheat it wasn’t a misread. She knew she had J4 either way imo.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 16th, 2022 at 4:13:43 PM
permalink
An abundance of circumstantual evidence. It's certainly not enough evidence for me to say she definitely cheated as I do in the Mike P case.Quote: GenoDRPhHave any evidence to support your assumptions?
link to original post
I'm certain there was some unethical behavior going on with her and Rip and perhaps others.
I said from the beginning, no hard evidence would be found. If they couldn't find or do anything about Mike P, then they definitely weren't going to find anything in this case. Who knows, Bryan S is apparently still missing, you never know what might actually turn up. (Someone Check Ribbie's basement 🤣)
If there was cheating going on it's almost certain Bryan has been paid enough to disappear and keep his mouth shut.
♪♪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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 4:22:21 PM
permalink
Is there a tell that makes one believe their J high with a 4 kicker is good?Quote: billryanIsn't it possible she read his tell?
link to original post
The tell is the guy who's probably signaling her. Why else do you think she was tanking so long and kept looking at her cards? She was puzzled as to how her hand could possibly be good. She's wondering if the signal is accurate or if there's a mix-up. It's not the hand itself that's so alarming, it's all the stuff afterward that really makes you think something definitely isn't 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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 4:26:45 PM
permalink
I think during the hand someone asked her if she had a 3 or something like that and she said, "NO".Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
I actually don’t think a misread is possible. First off she was asked if she had a pair not the other way around and she said “you think im good enough to have a pair” or something like that. Second when she flips over her hand she has no “oh shit” moment. Trust me I’ve played more poker than most people on this forum and the one time I made a mistake this big I was immediately flustered and you could see it all over my face. If she misread her hand she would immediately show it all over her face and in her actions. (When she flipped over her cards I mean)
Basically although I think she cheated there is obviously the possibility that she didn’t. But as far as the two options (cheating or not) if she didn’t cheat it wasn’t a misread. She knew she had J4 either way imo.
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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 5:00:30 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfAn abundance of circumstantual evidence. It's certainly not enough evidence for me to say she definitely cheated as I do in the Mike P case.Quote: GenoDRPhHave any evidence to support your assumptions?
link to original post
I'm certain there was some unethical behavior going on with her and Rip and perhaps others.
I said from the beginning, no hard evidence would be found. If they couldn't find or do anything about Mike P, then they definitely weren't going to find anything in this case. Who knows, Bryan S is apparently still missing, you never know what might actually turn up. (Someone Check Ribbie's basement 🤣)
If there was cheating going on it's almost certain Bryan has been paid enough to disappear and keep his mouth shut.
link to original post
*If*
December 16th, 2022 at 5:06:34 PM
permalink
That doesn't need to be said, very few sane people are 100% convinced she cheated. Are you 100% certain she didn't cheat?Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfAn abundance of circumstantual evidence. It's certainly not enough evidence for me to say she definitely cheated as I do in the Mike P case.Quote: GenoDRPhHave any evidence to support your assumptions?
link to original post
I'm certain there was some unethical behavior going on with her and Rip and perhaps others.
I said from the beginning, no hard evidence would be found. If they couldn't find or do anything about Mike P, then they definitely weren't going to find anything in this case. Who knows, Bryan S is apparently still missing, you never know what might actually turn up. (Someone Check Ribbie's basement 🤣)
If there was cheating going on it's almost certain Bryan has been paid enough to disappear and keep his mouth shut.
link to original post
*If*
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♪♪
December 16th, 2022 at 7:10:55 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfThat doesn't need to be said, very few sane people are 100% convinced she cheated. Are you 100% certain she didn't cheat?Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AxelWolfAn abundance of circumstantual evidence. It's certainly not enough evidence for me to say she definitely cheated as I do in the Mike P case.Quote: GenoDRPhHave any evidence to support your assumptions?
link to original post
I'm certain there was some unethical behavior going on with her and Rip and perhaps others.
I said from the beginning, no hard evidence would be found. If they couldn't find or do anything about Mike P, then they definitely weren't going to find anything in this case. Who knows, Bryan S is apparently still missing, you never know what might actually turn up. (Someone Check Ribbie's basement 🤣)
If there was cheating going on it's almost certain Bryan has been paid enough to disappear and keep his mouth shut.
link to original post
*If*
link to original post
link to original post
Based on all the evidence publicly presented, it is true I believe there is not evidence, based on any reasonable of rational standard of review, to support allegations of cheating and the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion she did not cheat.
*If* more facts emerge, I am willing to alter my belief.
December 16th, 2022 at 7:46:09 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfI think during the hand someone asked her if she had a 3 or something like that and she said, "NO".Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
I actually don’t think a misread is possible. First off she was asked if she had a pair not the other way around and she said “you think im good enough to have a pair” or something like that. Second when she flips over her hand she has no “oh shit” moment. Trust me I’ve played more poker than most people on this forum and the one time I made a mistake this big I was immediately flustered and you could see it all over my face. If she misread her hand she would immediately show it all over her face and in her actions. (When she flipped over her cards I mean)
Basically although I think she cheated there is obviously the possibility that she didn’t. But as far as the two options (cheating or not) if she didn’t cheat it wasn’t a misread. She knew she had J4 either way imo.
link to original post
link to original post
I just watched again and think the question is “do you have pocket threes?” Important distinction. Not sure I heard correctly. It’s a few seconds after she says “Is a pair of threes no good?”
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 7:47:37 PM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
I actually don’t think a misread is possible. First off she was asked if she had a pair not the other way around and she said “you think im good enough to have a pair” or something like that. Second when she flips over her hand she has no “oh shit” moment. Trust me I’ve played more poker than most people on this forum and the one time I made a mistake this big I was immediately flustered and you could see it all over my face. If she misread her hand she would immediately show it all over her face and in her actions. (When she flipped over her cards I mean)
Basically although I think she cheated there is obviously the possibility that she didn’t. But as far as the two options (cheating or not) if she didn’t cheat it wasn’t a misread. She knew she had J4 either way imo.
link to original post
I’ll watch again with above in mind. I agree there’s no oh shit moment when the cards get turned over.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 8:33:25 PM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfI think during the hand someone asked her if she had a 3 or something like that and she said, "NO".Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: AxelWolfIIRC, GenoDRPh said previously she bluffed him when talking about the J4 hand. The good old bluff call. So yeah, we are arguing with people like that.Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: SOOPOOQuote: GenoDRPh
Hope she sues the pants off of anyone with a public profile who said she cheated.
link to original post
Why? Because you want her to waste her $$? She does NOT win any lawsuit. You keep forgetting that NOT being charged does NOT mean you are innocent. It just means you have not been proven guilty. It’s really a simple concept you can’t wrap your head around.
I can find thousands of posts/tweets/articles/etc… claiming a certain ex President is guilty of this or that. He is NOT (necessarily) innocent of those charges. Even though he has not been found guilty.
You can believe she didn’t cheat. You can also believe in unicorns from Mars. I can’t ‘prove’ she cheated. I also can’t prove you don’t have a Martian unicorn. But I know both to be true. Sorry you can’t see what is right in front of your face.
link to original post
There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she cheated. There is no probable cause to suspect she cheated. There is no reasonable suspicion that she cheated. There is no preponderance of the evidence to suspect she cheated. So, how do you know it's true she cheated. What objective evidence do you have and by what standard do you want us to judge it by?
Why? Because they slandered/defamed her by calling her a cheater in public when there was no evidence she indeed was. She has denied the allegations in public. She submitted to a polygraph. She submitted to at least one interview by the third party investigators. You know what those investigators found? They found no credible evidence of cheating. Read the report., It's easy to do, since I linked it and that is also-literally-right in front of your face.
Your thinking is just deluded.
link to original post
This post is just patently wrong. I suspect you have a very rudimentary understanding of the game of poker. No point in arguing with you since you have decided that she is innocent even though there are many reasonable reasons to believe that she, rip and most likely Brian were all in on it. Like I said one or even two of the coincidences I can handle but 10+ no that’s like asking me to believe there is life on the moon.
link to original post
link to original post
I think the most likely explanation is still a J3 misread. I’ve read the arguments against that but every time I watch the hand it’s what I come back to.
She asks if a par of threes is no good.
Someone asks her if she has pocket 3s and she says no.
At some point post call she realized she messed up the read.
I’m not 100% on this theory, but think it’s more likely than not.
link to original post
I actually don’t think a misread is possible. First off she was asked if she had a pair not the other way around and she said “you think im good enough to have a pair” or something like that. Second when she flips over her hand she has no “oh shit” moment. Trust me I’ve played more poker than most people on this forum and the one time I made a mistake this big I was immediately flustered and you could see it all over my face. If she misread her hand she would immediately show it all over her face and in her actions. (When she flipped over her cards I mean)
Basically although I think she cheated there is obviously the possibility that she didn’t. But as far as the two options (cheating or not) if she didn’t cheat it wasn’t a misread. She knew she had J4 either way imo.
link to original post
link to original post
I just watched again and think the question is “do you have pocket threes?” Important distinction. Not sure I heard correctly. It’s a few seconds after she says “Is a pair of threes no good?”
link to original post
At one point she gets asked if she has a 3 and she says “no, you give me credit for a pair?”.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 16th, 2022 at 8:34:55 PM
permalink
Also for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 16th, 2022 at 9:14:47 PM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderAlso for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
link to original post
100% believe Postle cheated.
Here’s one point against Robi cheating. How much footage is there on her playing? No one has raised any other suspicious hands for her. Unlike Postle who the poker internet found myriad after the allegations came out.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 16th, 2022 at 10:34:43 PM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderAlso for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
link to original post
There's no *credible* evidence she cheated. What objective evidence would you like us to apply logic to and draw a conclusion she cheated?
December 17th, 2022 at 3:36:26 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonQuote: PokerGrinderAlso for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
link to original post
100% believe Postle cheated.
Here’s one point against Robi cheating. How much footage is there on her playing? No one has raised any other suspicious hands for her. Unlike Postle who the poker internet found myriad after the allegations came out.
link to original post
Polk actually did point out a few that were suspicious. One in particular was her and rip both having AQ on AAx and clearly looked like they were signalling each other to fold
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 17th, 2022 at 4:44:50 AM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderAlso for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
link to original post
Who is saying, "There is no conclusive evidence, therefore, she didn't cheat?"
I'm saying that she should be regarded as innocent because there is no hard evidence that would actually point to cheating, not that she is, in fact, innocent.
Here's a little logic:
1.) Garrett flipped his lid after ONE HAND and, as we can see here:
Quote:Polk actually did point out a few that were suspicious. One in particular was her and rip both having AQ on AAx and clearly looked like they were signalling each other to fold
You guys have, what? Three, maybe four hands that you're basing your entire case on?
With Postle, you had the goods on him over the course of several sessions and I don't even know how many hands.
With Robbi, you have ONE suspicious looking hand and then a few others that look unusual if you assume that she was cheating in the one that looked suspicious right off the jump. In other words, to regard any other hand as particularly suspicious requires that you already assume her guilt.
2.) While we're on the topic of logic, perhaps big brain Garrett shouldn't flip his lid over things he knows he can't immediately prove.
You said it yourself: They couldn't prove Postle was cheating, so do you think they are going to be able to prove Robbi is cheating on an extremely limited amount of available evidence? If you want to prove cheating, then you'd need to wait for some more ridiculous hero calls or perhaps some impossible lay downs, depending on the situation in which she finds herself.
You shouldn't even be using the word, "Logic," if you are 100% convinced Robbi cheated. Of course, you're not, you've said you are 90% sure:
Quote:I’m still 90% sure she cheated, HCL was never going to let info come out that hurt them.
All this being said she (the cheater) is 100% better off that this happened. She’s famous which is what a LA bimbo like her wants.
I know I come off like an asshole but this is my opinion.
Hmmm...I wonder if some of that 90% stems from bias. Don't get me wrong; I agree with you that she seems quite plastic, though I don't know why she would necessarily be a bimbo, so I have to go out of my way to adjust my percentage down as relates her cheating. Right now, I'm probably at 70/30, did not cheat.
I have no idea how the Postle investigation ended up being inconclusive with that many hands involved. With Robbi, you're only really talking about one hand.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 17th, 2022 at 5:26:52 AM
permalink
You weren’t one of the people I was Including in “people” when I referred to the ones saying there was no conclusive evidence therefore she didn’t cheat.
As per her being a bimbo, trust me I’ve wasted too many hours listening to her interviews in the aftermath of this and she doesn’t come off as intelligent in the slightest. Obviously this too is just my opinion.
It’s all good, we could go back and forth forever as neither side is convincing the other. I just like a good argument sometimes lol.
As per her being a bimbo, trust me I’ve wasted too many hours listening to her interviews in the aftermath of this and she doesn’t come off as intelligent in the slightest. Obviously this too is just my opinion.
It’s all good, we could go back and forth forever as neither side is convincing the other. I just like a good argument sometimes lol.
You can shear a sheep a hundred times, but you can skin it only once. — Amarillo Slim Preston
December 17th, 2022 at 6:36:02 AM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinder
As per her being a bimbo, trust me I’ve wasted too many hours listening to her interviews in the aftermath of this and she doesn’t come off as intelligent in the slightest. Obviously this too is just my opinion.
That statement alone makes it more likely in my mind that she just got lucky.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 17th, 2022 at 6:47:03 AM
permalink
People need to stop just focusing on the suspicious hand(s) and focus on all the strange things that happened afterward and beforehand.
♪♪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♪♪
December 17th, 2022 at 8:06:32 AM
permalink
I think a lot of people are missing the fact that IF she was cheating, this is some of the worst cheating in the history of cheating.
When you're cheating at cards the key is to NOT draw attention to yourself. Anyone involved in cheating at this level of poker would know it would be incredibly suspicious to cheat on this hand.
When you're cheating at cards the key is to NOT draw attention to yourself. Anyone involved in cheating at this level of poker would know it would be incredibly suspicious to cheat on this hand.
December 17th, 2022 at 8:50:51 AM
permalink
There may have been limited opportunities or some type of mix-up, as I said, if it was a 3-way chain, something is bound to go wrong. Read my previous post regarding this.Quote: TigerWuI think a lot of people are missing the fact that IF she was cheating, this is some of the worst cheating in the history of cheating.
When you're cheating at cards the key is to NOT draw attention to yourself. Anyone involved in cheating at this level of poker would know it would be incredibly suspicious to cheat on this hand.
link to original post
Look how brazen Mike Postal was. You can probably find worst/better examples.
During Live commentary the commentators would make comments like "it's as if he can see the hole cards"
It was a running joke, they were amazed at his playing ability. If he could get away with that for so long, what's to make anyone think they wouldn't be able to get away with it again?
♪♪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♪♪
December 17th, 2022 at 9:35:10 AM
permalink
What is Postal up to these days? Is he still playing?
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
December 17th, 2022 at 9:52:10 AM
permalink
Quote: PokerGrinderQuote: unJonQuote: PokerGrinderAlso for the people saying there was no conclusive evidence so she didn’t cheat are out to lunch. Postle 100% cheated and still the report came back that they couldn’t prove it, does that make him not a cheater? Come on, try to use some logic here.
link to original post
100% believe Postle cheated.
Here’s one point against Robi cheating. How much footage is there on her playing? No one has raised any other suspicious hands for her. Unlike Postle who the poker internet found myriad after the allegations came out.
link to original post
Polk actually did point out a few that were suspicious. One in particular was her and rip both having AQ on AAx and clearly looked like they were signalling each other to fold
link to original post
Thanks. Did not see that.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
December 17th, 2022 at 10:52:59 AM
permalink
On another thread it was mentioned that you can be banned from the Connecticut online sports book on suspicion of money laundering - no proof needed.
Law enforcement can confiscate money in a gambler's car or on his/her person on suspicion that the gambler might be a drug dealer. No proof of guilt is needed.
OJ Simpson is guilty in the court of public opinion of killing his wife. Even though he was found not guilty in a court of law.
Many people are suspicious that their spouse is cheating on them - even though they lack conclusive evidence.
*****************
The standards for taking away your freedom and putting you in jail are very high - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But to hold an opinion, express an opinion or act on an opinion the standards are much lower. Circumstantial evidence that raises flags is enough for any of us to form an opinion and walk away from a person.
If I were at a poker table and Robbi sat down I would get up and walk away. No proof of her guilt is needed.
If I am at a blackjack table and I lose 13 hands in a row - I would stand up and walk away. Losing 13 hands in a row is not proof that a game is crooked, but I don't need proof. Just a reasonable doubt -reasonable by my own personal standards.
Law enforcement can confiscate money in a gambler's car or on his/her person on suspicion that the gambler might be a drug dealer. No proof of guilt is needed.
OJ Simpson is guilty in the court of public opinion of killing his wife. Even though he was found not guilty in a court of law.
Many people are suspicious that their spouse is cheating on them - even though they lack conclusive evidence.
*****************
The standards for taking away your freedom and putting you in jail are very high - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But to hold an opinion, express an opinion or act on an opinion the standards are much lower. Circumstantial evidence that raises flags is enough for any of us to form an opinion and walk away from a person.
If I were at a poker table and Robbi sat down I would get up and walk away. No proof of her guilt is needed.
If I am at a blackjack table and I lose 13 hands in a row - I would stand up and walk away. Losing 13 hands in a row is not proof that a game is crooked, but I don't need proof. Just a reasonable doubt -reasonable by my own personal standards.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
December 17th, 2022 at 10:53:11 AM
permalink
Quick google search indicates he's wallowing, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. No indication he's played again since being outed.
December 17th, 2022 at 11:03:40 AM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888
OJ Simpson is guilty in the court of public opinion of killing his wife. Even though he was found not guilty in a court of law.
link to original post
He was found not guilty in the criminal trial.
He was found guilty liable in the civil trial.
Both are courts of law.
Last edited by: TigerWu on Dec 17, 2022
December 17th, 2022 at 11:14:04 AM
permalink
Quote: TigerWuI think a lot of people are missing the fact that IF she was cheating, this is some of the worst cheating in the history of cheating.
When you're cheating at cards the key is to NOT draw attention to yourself. Anyone involved in cheating at this level of poker would know it would be incredibly suspicious to cheat on this hand.
link to original post
The most popular theory is that the guy at the streaming video monitor could make a decision (because he could see the opponent's hand) and use an electronic device to signal Robbi's confederate in the audience -who would then use a non-electronic signal to alert Robbi.
If that were the case then it was the loser in the video room that made the decision it was worth calling on the turn with J4 for >$100,000. For which he was owed something like 10% of the profit (and for which he later stole $15K in chips). The short-term decision-making of this video room guy, reportedly desperate for some money, might understandably be very different than what an intelligent cheater might have done.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
