Robbi J4 v Garrett 87

Quote: Rigondeaux

Yeah, this is the qanon level thinking people who believe she is guilty engage in...
link to original post

Outstanding post. Very good points made. I can't think of anything more to add on the topic at this time.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I should have simplified this. If she was cheating, explain the following without sounding crazy.

The accuation is 3 players were cheating together and knew their opponents cards at least sometimes. Records show they were not winning over 3 sessions. Why?

In the j4 hand, why call as a 70/30 dog on the flop?

A cheater could make a lot with little suspension just calling bluffs and making bluffs really well on the river. This didn't happen. There were no other suspicious hands over 3 sessions. Why?

They played a pretty big pot putting in $ drawing dead, when a fold would be reasonable.Why?

Why don't the passed polygraph and 3rd party investigation by a large, reputable firm make innocence more likely?

Why no inquiries about the reward $ to prove guilt?

If you can't even imagine a reasonable guilty scenario that explains all the facts of the case, it's crazy to think she's guilty.
link to original post

Although a dog on the flop and on the turn, she had more than the correct pot odds to continue on both, (calling 2.5k to win 9.2k having 30% equity, plus implied pot odds on future streets, and calling 109K to win 161k having 47% equity to win the pot). The fact someone is being underdog equity wise does not at all mean they make an incorrect decision by calling (or raising for that matter) if we don't account for the pot odds they are getting.

Quote: gordonm888

My experience talking to poker players mirrors the Wizard's.

And all the poker players I know are unanimous - they cannot conceive why Robbi called the Turn bet by Garrett with the cards she had.
They all believe that she was cheating; that she had knowledge of what two card hand Garrett had.
link to original post

He had a straight flush draw. yeah, her Jack high was leading on the turn but he had a bazillion outs for the river.

it's like you vs some guy in a fight. You two are 15' apart.
You have a knife and he has an empty gun but has a magazine full of bullets on his other hand.
Robbi is the person with a knife.

As the wiz says, was it a good bet?
Calling that turn bet with Jack high knowing he has a straight flush draw is not a good bet.

UNLESS all she knew was that her Jack high was ahead...???

edit:
or unless she knew the river card which brings another question to mind.
Do the gods in the booth know what cards are coming next?

Even in the Mike Postle cheating scandal, his confederate in the booth only showed him his opponent's cards, not what cards are coming next.

Quote: 100xOdds

As the wiz says, was it a good bet?
Calling that turn bet with Jack high knowing he has a straight flush draw is not a good bet.


link to original post

It was a great bet actually (if she knew the hole cards or their equity that is; otherwise horrible, horrible bet). Calling 109k to win 161k in a virtual coin flip (Robbi 47%, Garret 53%) with just jack high is an incredible move caring a huge +EV in hindsight.


edit: In fact the equity of both hands as displayed on the video stream are slightly off from what online calcs give,

On the flop Garret is only 62.6% Fav vs 33.7% equity for Robbi and on the turn Robbi's hand is actually a small favorite with 54.5% equity. Thus making Robbi's pot odds even better on both flop and turn while she's only holding J high.

Quote: gordonm888

And all the poker players I know are unanimous - they cannot conceive why Robbi called the Turn bet by Garrett with the cards she had. They all believe that she was cheating; that she had knowledge of what two card hand Garrett had.
link to original post

Do these expert poker players explain why, if Robbi knew the cards in Garrett's hand, she would continue to play with the cards she had, knowing it would be incredibly suspicious when it came time to show down?

Quote: AxelWolf

A/Q: Have you seen this chick's narcissistic ego and strong personality? She even said she didn't like him pushing her around or whatever. Unskilled player, limited information, miscommunication.

Regarding her personality, that's why I'm certain she lied when she claims she felt intimidated or whatever.
link to original post

If you are involved in a complex card cheating operation, this is exactly the kind of person you DON'T want to be in the public eye making the final decision.

Quote: TigerWu

Do these expert poker players explain why, if Robbi knew the cards in Garrett's hand, she would continue to play with the cards she had, knowing it would be incredibly suspicious when it came time to show down?

link to original post

No one has ever claimed that Robbi knew the cards in Garrett's hand. What is claimed is that Brian knew the cards in Garret's hand and was able to signal to Robbi (perhaps through a confederate in the audience) a simple piece of information on the turn (when Garrett made a $100,000 bet) which was to "call" the turn wager. Before the turn, Brian did not signal any information in. And the idea that Brian would have signaled in the ranks and suits of the cards is silly -that is too much information to communicate by signaling. And anybody who keeps assuming that Brian was signaling the ranks and suits of the opponent's hole cards at the start of every hand is simply delusional. He would have waited until an opponent bet a large amount of money and he could see that the opponent had the nuts (an unbeatable hand) or was bluffing and would have have used a binary YES/NO signal to indicate what Robbi should do.

The presumption is that Brian's incentive was that he would receive 10% of the profit on any hand in which he signaled in advice as to which decision to make. That's presumably why he stole $15,000 in chips after Robbi made about $148,000 on that hand -he felt he was owed his 10%. I believe that Brian didn't particularly care whether Robbi was embarrassed at showdown; he used the money to pay off a debt.

Quote: gordonm888

No one has ever claimed that Robbi knew the cards in Garrett's hand.

What the.... you just said that's what all the poker players are claiming happened!!

Quote: gordonm888

And all the poker players I know are unanimous - they cannot conceive why Robbi called the Turn bet by Garrett with the cards she had. They all believe that she was cheating; that she had knowledge of what two card hand Garrett had.

Anyway.....

Quote:

What is claimed is that Brian knew the cards in Garret's hand and was able to signal to Robbi (perhaps through a confederate in the audience) a simple piece of information on the turn (when Garrett made a $100,000 bet) which was to "call" the turn wager. Before the turn, Brian did not signal any information in. And the idea that Brian would have signaled in the ranks and suits of the cards is silly -that is too much information to communicate by signaling. And anybody who keeps assuming that Brian was signaling the ranks and suits of the opponent's hole cards at the start of every hand is simply delusional. He would have waited until an opponent bet a large amount of money and he could see that the opponent had the nuts (an unbeatable hand) or was bluffing and would have have used a binary YES/NO signal to indicate what Robbi should do.

The presumption is that Brian's incentive was that he would receive 10% of the profit on any hand in which he signaled in advice as to which decision to make. That's presumably why he stole $15,000 in chips after Robbi made about $148,000 on that hand -he felt he was owed his 10%. I believe that Brian didn't particularly care whether Robbi was embarrassed at showdown; he used the money to pay off a debt.
link to original post

Maybe there's cheating going on, I don't know, I honestly don't really care. But if there is, I will say that if it happened like you said it did, it is literally one of the worst and most incompetent cheating schemes I've ever heard of. That's my main reason for leaning towards there not being any cheating going on; it's just so dumb and nonsensical and amateurish they way attempted to pull it off. It just makes more sense that Robbi made a stupid play, because I just find it hard to believe that professional poker players would be that bad at cheating at cards.

Quote: TigerWu

It just makes more sense that Robbi made a stupid play, because I just find it hard to believe that professional poker players would be that bad at cheating at cards.
link to original post

If find it hard to believe a professional poker player, if we can call Robbi that, could play the hand so badly.

Bottom line is there is a lot of circumstantial evidence in favor of cheating. Nowhere near enough to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but enough for me by the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

I also tend to think the "phone a friend" theory, as explained by Gordon, sound very plausible.

For me the major issue of how the hand was played is - what range of hands did Robbi put Garret on to justify her call on the turn?

She is supposed to be a solid poker player (1543-rd out of 268,835 entries in HM's Global Poker Index Ranking of tournament play) with a good if not even professional grasp of game theory and cash game dynamics.

Her call on the turn where a second heart hits makes no sense because even if she puts Garret on a flush draw like AXc and AXh, high Broadway cards with the naked Ac or Ah like AK/AQ/AJ, or a combo draw like KQc, Q8c, KQh, QJh, J8h etc, she is still beat and in terrible shape heading the river with not enough equity to call profitably. All his big pocket pair holdings, all his full houses as well as the occasional AT in his range have her drawing dead and his 88 through 55 pocket pairs have her drawing to three outs.

She either has to put him on the exact hand he was holding, 78c - 67c or 78h - 65h or something (way less combos and way lesser part of his range given the action) or on an absolute garbage hand like 72o or 86o, 45o and the like which he had no better job to do but turn into huge bluff on the turn just because "fu Robbi that's why".

If she misread her hand for a J3 and has him beat in her mind with her pair of threes if he only has A high or a combo draw.
I'm not sure how good of a justification for a call that will be, it depends on what range does she put him pre-flop and subsequently on the flop and on the turn in the light of his betting given that all his pocket pairs except deuces and his AT, A9 and A3 holdings have her crushed.

edit: I had to re-watch the hand several times since it was a long time and I noticed: she double checks her hole cards a minute or two before she calls the all-in raise; seconds later someone asks her if she has a 3 and without having checked her cards again in-between she immediately responds "No. I just thought he’s…im Im Im this is a pure bluff catcher..."

This to me implies that in the end she knew her hole cards were J high and did not misread her hand strength but she made the call anyway.

Quote: gordonm888

My experience talking to poker players mirrors the Wizard's.

Poker players are constantly analyzing what an opponent may be holding based on what actions have been taken preflop and on later streets. This mental analysis -trying to understand what 2-card hands they cannot possibly have - is at the core of high level poker analysis.

And all the poker players I know are unanimous - they cannot conceive why Robbi called the Turn bet by Garrett with the cards she had. They all believe that she was cheating; that she had knowledge of what two card hand Garrett had.

The fact that poker neophytes here in the forum don't get why poker players believe Robbi was cheating is irrelevant -because these forum neophytes don't play and analyze thousands of poker hands a year and don't understand the sophisticated cost/benefit analysis that a professional poker player (playing with >$100,000 in a hand) conducts to make decisions.

Analogous example: When a blackjack player has a $100,000 bet on the table and decides to hit a hard 20 and then draws an Ace - which then wins versus the 20 that the dealer eventually makes - then the casino security team is going to suspect some cheating has occurred. Because a high stakes BJ player has no apparent reason to make that decision to hit a hard 20. If a few members of the WOV forum who don't play much blackjack later expressed their puzzlement over such a judgment -well, it wouldn't carry much weight.

And the fact that Phil Ivey gets some publicity by offering an alternative theory is nothing more than Ivey polishing his brand and keeping his name in front of people - it is overwhelmed by the tens to hundreds of thousands of high level poker players who do believe that Robbi was cheating.

Robbi gave Garret approx $100,000 back after their hand was concluded. No player gives away that much money without a guilty conscience. No player refuses to press charges against someone who was filmed stealing $15,000 in chips from their stack -only to reverse that decision one week later when that is being labeled in the media as proof of her guilt. I can't wait until the staffer who had "God-mode" knowledge of the cards (and was a Facebook friend of Robbi's) is apprehended by law enforcement and is represented by a defense attorney who wants to make a plea bargain deal -or a book deal. Ask yourself -why is that guy running from the law the way he is now? Nothing to look at here?
link to original post

Phil was at the table, his poker credentials are well known and was directly asked his opinion. It is unfair to impute a nefarious motive to his statements. As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .

Quote: gordonm888

Robbi did win over the previous sessions.

In the j4 hand, Robbi calls on the flop for a small amount. It is not until the turn, when she has to decide whether to call a $100k bet that the God-mode staffer signaled his confederate in the audience who then signals Robbi. Brian (the god-mode staffer) was clearly not signaling what to do on every single ten-penny decision Robbi had in the match, only on the large decisions in which he felt that the information he knew would make a difference if he signaled it. Brian behaved like this because he obviously wanted to minimize his chances of being detected.

So, let's please stop asking "In the j4 hand, why call as a 70/30 dog on the flop?".
link to original post

I'll assume you're right that Robbie was up. Why do you think it matters how their wins and losses were distributed if the cheating team didn't make money? Anyway, it fails to answer the question of how they could break even in the game over such a large sample.

J4: So, it seems you're already getting into a pretty specific cheating system. I'm sure you realize, this makes it less likely to be true.

First off, Garrett bet about 40% pot on the flop. Not a small bet. If she knows his cards, it's a snap fold. But I think we agree she that there is no cheating so far. So that's a bunch of cheating techniques we can rule out..

Now the turn. Garrett bets roughly 2/3 pot. Robbie min raises. Obviously, he is never folding an open-ended straight flush draw. This is a terrible play if she knows his cards. We agree, still no cheating I think.

If I understand your theory, it is only after Garrett's all-in that she finally receives the signal. So cheating only occurred at one decision point in this hand? They were very restrictive with hole card information to avoid detection. But then why call off with jack high, drawing as much attention as possible?

If this is true, she couldn't have been getting his hole cards, cuz obviously you'd relay that ASAP. So it's something like a simple ahead/behind signal? This is a weird and stupid cheating system and I don't think anyone's used it before. If I WERE to use this system, I'd probably play conservatively and cheat on river play. I wouldn't play j-4 off and put in bizarre raises like this, but try to get to the river and "guess" right on bluffs. It seems pretty predictable that you'd land in a situation like this by playing as she did.

It's not impossible, but a long shot. You also have to consider that her partners and Robbie herself would have had a chance to go with the fold and avoid suspicion, which would have been the prudent move So, you've answered one question and you've already got a pretty particular theory multiplied by the chances of Robbie, Bryan and the additional partner independently making a the foolish decision to call. Robbie might even assume there was some kind of mistake upon getting the signal and fold.

By adding a new partner, relaying between Robbie and Bryan, the conspiracy grows from 4 to 5 people, making it less likely to launch and to succeed. One more to claim the reward.

By focusing on one call in one hand, you run harder into Occam's razor. A single weird moment is probably an anomoly. A bunch of weird moments might be something complicated.

Now let's fill in the rest of the legs on the parlay. Can you clarify on why they didn't beat the game?

Quote: gordonm888

Robbi gave Garret approx $100,000 back after their hand was concluded. No player gives away that much money without a guilty conscience. No player refuses to press charges against someone who was filmed stealing $15,000 in chips from their stack -only to reverse that decision one week later when that is being labeled in the media as proof of her guilt. I can't wait until the staffer who had "God-mode" knowledge of the cards (and was a Facebook friend of Robbi's) is apprehended by law enforcement and is represented by a defense attorney who wants to make a plea bargain deal -or a book deal. Ask yourself -why is that guy running from the law the way he is now? Nothing to look at here?
link to original post

Much of what you say here is incorrect. They weren't FB friends. They followed each other on twitter, which isn't that unusual and would be dumb if they were cheating together. I guess you could say it's a small point against her. It's a judgment call.

People fairly often confess to first-degree murder and similar crimes under duress, knowing they are innocent. They even buy timeshares! So obviously, people can be pressured into returning poker pots.

https://www.science.org/content/article/psychologist-explains-why-people-confess-crimes-they-didn-t-commit

Here's Kevin Heart returning half of a $40,000 pot because he won by making a mistake and felt guilty. Nobody even had to drag him into a backroom and threaten him with public humiliation, as they did Robbie.

https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/22393-kevin-hart-wins-pot-after-calling-all-in-bet-with-king-high-returns-15k-to-opponent-out-of-pity

If you play a lot of live poker, you will occasionally see someone refund the other player for various reasons.

Morever, many people have been caught cheating at poker. Postle, Hamilton, pot ripper... none have returned the money. So your implication that there is a correlation between cheating at poker and returning the money seems to have no supporting evidence.

Anyway, all the speculation on outside stuff is less important than coming up with a plausible theory of the crime. But it is worth pointing out how much of this type of "evidence," is just baseless stuff people kind of conjure up.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Phil was at the table, his poker credentials are well known and was directly asked his opinion. It is unfair to impute a nefarious motive to his statements. As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I did not realize that Phil Ivey was at the table and that he was asked his opinion. I withdraw my comment about Ivey's apparent motives for making the remark; I was wrong.

Most of us don't have any stake in this argument, so I want to keep this a civil and intellectual discussion As someone who plays a certain amount of poker, I am concerned about the possibilities and methods of cheating.

I do not think this was an amateurish attempt at cheating.

The target was streaming poker, where a staff member sees in real time the broadcast video stream with the hidden hands of all the players -these video signals are delayed by 10-30 minutes when sent to the streaming audience. But the staff member sees everyone's hole cards as the hand is occurring.

The staff member, Brian, had rearranged the furniture in the side room where he is monitoring the video signal so that, when he is seated doing his job, he is behind equipment such that he is not visible to anyone who walks into the room. This is a safeguard against accidental discovery by another staff member if he happens to be signaling.

Cash poker involves a lot of hands where a player will lose a little or win a little -part of the grind of poker. But there is the occasional hand where a very large bet is made by an opponent and a player must guess/decide whether the large bettor has a very strong hand or a bluff. Whether you 'bet or check' or 'call or fold' in these large pot situations often will determine whether you are a net winner or net loser for the session. In concept, this team was targeting these large bet situations so that Brian would not be signaling very often -maybe only once or twice in a session. They desired to signal infrequently because they were guarding against being discovered. They were being cautious.

In this concept, the signal from Brian did not go directly to Robbi. They didn't want Robbi to have any electronics or equipment on her body or nearby, in case people became suspicious and she was searched. Instead, Robbi was in a seat where she had clear view into the small audience of spectators that were watching the game. She could clearly see her domestic partner who was wired to receive the signal from Brian. He could then make one of two distinctive actions that Robbi could see and interpret as "put money into pot" or "don't put money into pot." Note that her domestic partner in the audience was rarely on camera and thus usually was not visible in the recorded video signal that was being broadcast.

The scheme I have described seems to me to be well designed and miminizes the possibility that the team would be caught.

The biggest vulnerability is that all the decisions on which poker hands they should cheat on would be made by Brian in the video processing side room. Those occasions where he signals Robbi to fold against a monster hand making a big bet are unlikely to attract attention. But apparently Brian was in debt (he had gambling debts) and he threw caution to the wind and chose the situation we are all familiar with - where Robbi would win with a very weak hand without improving further if only her opponent didn't improve either. He was so desperate for his cut of the winnings that he literally stole his $15,000 by taking chips from her stacks, even as Robi was giving her winnings back to Garrett.

So, the human element was their downfall. But otherwise it was, IMO, a cautious and well-designed method for cheating. Would like to hear why anyone thinks this was amateurish.

Quote: GenoDRPh

As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I wish we had an active woman on the forum to respond to this. Most women I know I think would have said a firm F/U in that situation.

I'm interested to hear in what way can anyone justify a semi-professional poker player making a $109k call on that board with J high as their holding unless something isn't quite straight with this hand (or with that poker player's head).
She didn't misread her hand from what i can gather from the live stream, although she changed her story later. But even if she did, a call with just a pair of 3's requires balls of steel, total disregard for money and unparalleled read on the situation and on their opponent.
And even more so with just J high. Did she put him oh his exact hand/pure bluff with garbage lower than J high and proceed to call off 100k based on her hunch? Because all of his other holdings have her either crushed or drawing dead.
I've never seen Robbi play such big pots/make calls for such a hefty amount with such a weak hand before this hand or since.

Remember, 109k call. Jack high. Paired board with two flush draws, one card to go. If not having her drawing dead already, he can easily have a flush draw with higher cards than jack four in his hand which makes her ~10:1 dog or worse.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: GenoDRPh

As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I wish we had an active woman on the forum to respond to this. Most women I know I think would have said a firm F/U in that situation.
link to original post

Is it too difficult to believe that she gave the money back to avoid any further conflict? After all, it's only money, she and her husband are wealthy to begin with and, in the heat of the moment, it's the better choice? After all, she may not be a F/U type of person.

Garrett also has a history of being a chip bully and this isn't the first time he intimidated a woman into giving money back.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: GenoDRPh

Phil was at the table, his poker credentials are well known and was directly asked his opinion. It is unfair to impute a nefarious motive to his statements. As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I did not realize that Phil Ivey was at the table and that he was asked his opinion. I withdraw my comment about Ivey's apparent motives for making the remark; I was wrong.

Most of us don't have any stake in this argument, so I want to keep this a civil and intellectual discussion As someone who plays a certain amount of poker, I am concerned about the possibilities and methods of cheating.

I do not think this was an amateurish attempt at cheating.

The target was streaming poker, where a staff member sees in real time the broadcast video stream with the hidden hands of all the players -these video signals are delayed by 10-30 minutes when sent to the streaming audience. But the staff member sees everyone's hole cards as the hand is occurring.

The staff member, Brian, had rearranged the furniture in the side room where he is monitoring the video signal so that, when he is seated doing his job, he is behind equipment such that he is not visible to anyone who walks into the room. This is a safeguard against accidental discovery by another staff member if he happens to be signaling.

Cash poker involves a lot of hands where a player will lose a little or win a little -part of the grind of poker. But there is the occasional hand where a very large bet is made by an opponent and a player must guess/decide whether the large bettor has a very strong hand or a bluff. Whether you 'bet or check' or 'call or fold' in these large pot situations often will determine whether you are a net winner or net loser for the session. In concept, this team was targeting these large bet situations so that Brian would not be signaling very often -maybe only once or twice in a session. They desired to signal infrequently because they were guarding against being discovered. They were being cautious.

In this concept, the signal from Brian did not go directly to Robbi. They didn't want Robbi to have any electronics or equipment on her body or nearby, in case people became suspicious and she was searched. Instead, Robbi was in a seat where she had clear view into the small audience of spectators that were watching the game. She could clearly see her domestic partner who was wired to receive the signal from Brian. He could then make one of two distinctive actions that Robbi could see and interpret as "put money into pot" or "don't put money into pot." Note that her domestic partner in the audience was rarely on camera and thus usually was not visible in the recorded video signal that was being broadcast.

The scheme I have described seems to me to be well designed and miminizes the possibility that the team would be caught.

The biggest vulnerability is that all the decisions on which poker hands they should cheat on would be made by Brian in the video processing side room. Those occasions where he signals Robbi to fold against a monster hand making a big bet are unlikely to attract attention. But apparently Brian was in debt (he had gambling debts) and he threw caution to the wind and chose the situation we are all familiar with - where Robbi would win with a very weak hand without improving further if only her opponent didn't improve either. He was so desperate for his cut of the winnings that he literally stole his $15,000 by taking chips from her stacks, even as Robi was giving her winnings back to Garrett.

So, the human element was their downfall. But otherwise it was, IMO, a cautious and well-designed method for cheating. Would like to hear why anyone thinks this was amateurish.
link to original post

We will add to the list of facts the pro-cheating camp got wrong.

In general, the pro cheating camp relies on a lack of research to the facts, a whole lot of "ifs" to fall into place, imply the use signaling devices worthy of a technothriller, a lot of imaginative explanations for strange but benign human conduct and unsupported speculation to fill in the gaps. Indeed, as one gap fills in against them, they go down a deeper rabbit hole. They spin a good yarn, but that’s about it. As Dr. Silberman said in The Terminator, “You see how clever his part is? How it doesn't require a shred of proof? Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant!”

Do I have my facts and math right on the following?

When Garrett went all in, Robbi was faced with the following options. It is from the point of view that money in the pot is money in the pot and it doesn't matter who contributed it.

Fold: Win $0
Call $109K: 24/44 (54.5%) chance of winning $269,000

54.5% of $269,000 is about $147,000

The gamble to her, assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards, was 109K for an expected return of 147K. That bet has a 34.6% advantage.

I keep hearing the point that if this was cheating, it was very poor cheating. However, looking at this decision point only, wasn't she right assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards?

Also, does anyone know the exact numbers here? They show them to $100 before the pot gets to 100K and to $1000 after that. It causes some rounding error in the math. I'd like to know the pot size before Garrett went all in and the amount of his all in bet. Please don't just quote the rounded numbers from the video unless you're sure they are right.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: GenoDRPh

As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I wish we had an active woman on the forum to respond to this. Most women I know I think would have said a firm F/U in that situation.
link to original post

It never happened like that anyways. First, she/they even claimed she was cornered in a dark hallway alone and threatened by Garrett.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: GenoDRPh

As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I wish we had an active woman on the forum to respond to this. Most women I know I think would have said a firm F/U in that situation.
link to original post

We needs to get Babs back.

I think the fact that she is insanely wealthy (especially when factoring husband and parents, besides her own job), does matter. If she only started playing poker in 2020, never played seriously except a handful of times, and has endless money, the idea of not taking things seriously seems to make sense. Also, being a social media person probably influences (because she probably cares more about harvesting clips that she can use than any poker result and probably enjoys the ongoing drama more than she cares about any money.)

I do not think dismissing these factors is fair. Personally, I am inclined towards did not cheat. There are just so many mistakes that she could have made, and even more likely that she simply did not care (and/or wanted to be absurd -possibly thinking she was losing for sure and then just doubled down when she won-)

Also, a lot of people seem to simply not trust her because of her Saudi family history, which I do not think is fair (or relevant to anything that happened, if anything in my opinion it makes her more trustworthy because she has so much money even besides what she has on her own, the idea that she is stressing over 200k seems silly. Also, impressive that she got so good at poker after living so long)

I am still not clear if she gave the whole pot to the opposing player or just "refunded" what he put in, but even if it was the full pot, I would not be surprised if by now this even more than paid for itself with publicity (which I do not even think was her original intent directly -attention yes, money probably indifferent-)

If she wanted to cheat she has the resources to do a far more advanced system than anyone like even Postle (allegedly) could, there is no way she would risk it on a bizarre one time play for what is an insignificant amount of money to her, I just don't see it. I think she was going for something silly/stupid and when she was lucky by sheer chance she leaned into it (which was smart if that was her goal since people are still talking about it.)

Quote: Gandler

I am still not clear if she gave the whole pot to the opposing player or just "refunded" what he put in,

She gave him half the pot.

Quote: AxelWolf

Q:"Why no inquiries about the reward $ to prove guilt?

A/Q: " By whom, Brian? They paid him off and possibly threatened him. They may know much more about him than we know. It may go much deeper than we know. Anyone else who knows anything is probably involved and they are smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

Q: "Why don't the passed polygraph and 3rd party investigation by a large, reputable firm make innocence more likely?"
A/Q Find that address, head on over there, check it out, and then tell me what you think.
Why did she head to Vegas to get it done?
Did you see the handwritten Document envelope it came in?

Q "A cheater could make a lot with little suspension just calling bluffs and making bluffs really well on the river.
This didn't happen."

A/Q: The same goes for Mike Postel, and I believe the guy actually knows how to play well. He would have a huge advantage by being very cautious and selective. Why was he so very blatant about it for so long, even after speculation and people saying stuff like, "it's as if he can see the cards" ?

She may have had limited information, Her chances to get information may have been few and far in between.
Perhaps only a few times for the session.


Q "There were no other suspicious hands over 3 sessions. Why"

A: I'm not so sure about that. But again, She may have had limited information, Her chances to get information may have been few and far in between.

Q" The accuation is 3 players were cheating together and knew their opponents cards at least sometimes. Records show they were not winning over 3 sessions. Why?" That's not my understanding, but even so and again, She may have had limited information, Her chances to get information may have been few and far in between.

Q: "They played a pretty big pot putting in $ drawing dead, when a fold would be reasonable.Why?"

A/Q: Have you seen this chick's narcissistic ego and strong personality? She even said she didn't like him pushing her around or whatever. Unskilled player, limited information, miscommunication.

Regarding her personality, that's why I'm certain she lied when she claims she felt intimidated or whatever.
link to original post

Gordon gets a B, though he only answered one. He gets a B for that answer. Unlikely, but it could happen. We'll see about the others.

You get an F and a tinfoil hat.

A: None of the partners, particularly Bryan claimed the prize because "they" were threatening them. With what? Standard conspiracy stuff. "THEY don't want you to know!" Or they paid him off. The reward was 200k. Did they pay him more than 200k? Are you 100% sure of these things? Because if the reward is inquired about 1/2 the time, or even 20% of the time, that reduces the chances of guilt.

The Poly was rigged because you don't like the envelope she had the results in. Getting pretty Machiavelian here. The same thing applies. Does the quality of the envelope mean the poly was 100% rigged? Or is it more like 50/50? Does the administrator have a bad reputation or are we just going off envolope quality?

What about the independent investigation? Was it rigged too? You've made this claim before, so I guess so.

Q Why no other suspicious hands. A "I'm not so sure about that." Dude, the poker world has picked over every hand she played, every word she's ever spoken and her appearance on a game show 15 years ago, with a fine tooth comb. There were no other suspicious hands.

Q Why weren't the cheaters winning in the game? A "That's not my understanding." Well then your understanding is wrong. There is a website that tracks HCL results. They were about break even.

Q Why did they put lots of money in a pot drawing dead? A: Because they weren't cheating that hand.

Well that's really convenient. If I were ever going to signal my partner it would be when she was shoveling money into the pot with 0% equity. It's striking how they came up with this bizarre cheating system that happens to twist and turns just so to explain plays that don't make sense otherwise.

It's true that Mike Postle got caught by making outrageous plays, though they were spread out over a lot of sessions, over months if not years. So cheaters can get greedy, of course. Many criminals, scammers, etc. are in the clear and then blow it by getting too greedy. If Robbie had made a bunch of these outrageous calls, and was crushing the game like Postle, then I'd be very suspicious. Neither is true.

We have one decision point in one hand that was outrageous. And we don't even have hands where she was just making really good calls and bluffs that would have gone undetected if she didn't get greedy. So this case doesn't fit that pattern.

So basically your story is the poly is rigged. I already know you think the investigation was also fraudulent. Nobody claimed the reward because "they" threatened them or paid them about 200k. There were suspicious hands even though there actually weren't, and they won money even though they didn't.

The challenge was to account for these things WITHOUT sounding crazy.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: GenoDRPh

Phil was at the table, his poker credentials are well known and was directly asked his opinion. It is unfair to impute a nefarious motive to his statements. As for Robbi giving back the money, what would you do if you were a woman and cornered by two men and accused of cheating? As for the dude who's on the lam, he has a rap sheet and most likely fears prison. .
link to original post

I did not realize that Phil Ivey was at the table and that he was asked his opinion. I withdraw my comment about Ivey's apparent motives for making the remark; I was wrong.

Most of us don't have any stake in this argument, so I want to keep this a civil and intellectual discussion As someone who plays a certain amount of poker, I am concerned about the possibilities and methods of cheating.

I do not think this was an amateurish attempt at cheating.

The target was streaming poker, where a staff member sees in real time the broadcast video stream with the hidden hands of all the players -these video signals are delayed by 10-30 minutes when sent to the streaming audience. But the staff member sees everyone's hole cards as the hand is occurring.

The staff member, Brian, had rearranged the furniture in the side room where he is monitoring the video signal so that, when he is seated doing his job, he is behind equipment such that he is not visible to anyone who walks into the room. This is a safeguard against accidental discovery by another staff member if he happens to be signaling.

Cash poker involves a lot of hands where a player will lose a little or win a little -part of the grind of poker. But there is the occasional hand where a very large bet is made by an opponent and a player must guess/decide whether the large bettor has a very strong hand or a bluff. Whether you 'bet or check' or 'call or fold' in these large pot situations often will determine whether you are a net winner or net loser for the session. In concept, this team was targeting these large bet situations so that Brian would not be signaling very often -maybe only once or twice in a session. They desired to signal infrequently because they were guarding against being discovered. They were being cautious.

In this concept, the signal from Brian did not go directly to Robbi. They didn't want Robbi to have any electronics or equipment on her body or nearby, in case people became suspicious and she was searched. Instead, Robbi was in a seat where she had clear view into the small audience of spectators that were watching the game. She could clearly see her domestic partner who was wired to receive the signal from Brian. He could then make one of two distinctive actions that Robbi could see and interpret as "put money into pot" or "don't put money into pot." Note that her domestic partner in the audience was rarely on camera and thus usually was not visible in the recorded video signal that was being broadcast.

The scheme I have described seems to me to be well designed and miminizes the possibility that the team would be caught.

The biggest vulnerability is that all the decisions on which poker hands they should cheat on would be made by Brian in the video processing side room. Those occasions where he signals Robbi to fold against a monster hand making a big bet are unlikely to attract attention. But apparently Brian was in debt (he had gambling debts) and he threw caution to the wind and chose the situation we are all familiar with - where Robbi would win with a very weak hand without improving further if only her opponent didn't improve either. He was so desperate for his cut of the winnings that he literally stole his $15,000 by taking chips from her stacks, even as Robi was giving her winnings back to Garrett.

So, the human element was their downfall. But otherwise it was, IMO, a cautious and well-designed method for cheating. Would like to hear why anyone thinks this was amateurish.
link to original post

We will add to the list of facts the pro-cheating camp got wrong.

In general, the pro cheating camp relies on a lack of research to the facts, a whole lot of "ifs" to fall into place, imply the use signaling devices worthy of a technothriller, a lot of imaginative explanations for strange but benign human conduct and unsupported speculation to fill in the gaps. Indeed, as one gap fills in against them, they go down a deeper rabbit hole. They spin a good yarn, but that’s about it. As Dr. Silberman said in The Terminator, “You see how clever his part is? How it doesn't require a shred of proof? Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant!”
link to original post

This has been a year-long game of whack a mole, because no matter how many falsehoods or baseless speculations you whack, more pop up.

Another one that has been posted here is "Bryan blocked the camera on him by moving a file cabinet."

What actually happened: Doug Polk is a poker player and youtuber with a reputation for dishonesty and bullying. He was recently called out by many other pros like Phil Galfond and Daniel N for doing things like falsely portraying someone as a defender of pedophilia.

In a video in which Doug also suggested Robbie was being signaled by a visibly vibrating chair, Doug claimed that an anonymous HCL worker told him that they saw Bryan move a filing cabinet weeks ago. While nobody cared at the time, in hindsight he speculated that this could have been to hide cheating activity.

This sounds like a comically over the top example from a law school text book, for all the reasons it would be thrown out. Even if Doug was an honest or reputable person, which he isn't.

For team cheat, it has become an iron clad fact.

Quote: Wizard

Do I have my facts and math right on the following?

When Garrett went all in, Robbi was faced with the following options. It is from the point of view that money in the pot is money in the pot and it doesn't matter who contributed it.

Fold: Win $0
Call $109K: 24/44 (54.5%) chance of winning $269,000

54.5% of $269,000 is about $147,000

The gamble to her, assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards, was 109K for an expected return of 147K. That bet has a 34.6% advantage.

I keep hearing the point that if this was cheating, it was very poor cheating. However, looking at this decision point only, wasn't she right assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards?

Also, does anyone know the exact numbers here? They show them to $100 before the pot gets to 100K and to $1000 after that. It causes some rounding error in the math. I'd like to know the pot size before Garrett went all in and the amount of his all in bet. Please don't just quote the rounded numbers from the video unless you're sure they are right.
link to original post

Mike, you are right about that point in the hand. The overall play of the hand was terrible. And this call alone is +EV, except it is extremely conspicuous. She actually did return half the pot, so it really wasn't so +ev!

I'm writing too much. This guy who knows poker better than I do does a great job and is entertaining and funny. The hand breakdown starts just after 8 minutes.



I don't know how anyone can watch this and not think there's a decent chance she just misread her hand.

Rigondeaux has returned.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Quote: Wizard

Do I have my facts and math right on the following?

When Garrett went all in, Robbi was faced with the following options. It is from the point of view that money in the pot is money in the pot and it doesn't matter who contributed it.

Fold: Win $0
Call $109K: 24/44 (54.5%) chance of winning $269,000

54.5% of $269,000 is about $147,000

The gamble to her, assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards, was 109K for an expected return of 147K. That bet has a 34.6% advantage.

I keep hearing the point that if this was cheating, it was very poor cheating. However, looking at this decision point only, wasn't she right assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards?

Also, does anyone know the exact numbers here? They show them to $100 before the pot gets to 100K and to $1000 after that. It causes some rounding error in the math. I'd like to know the pot size before Garrett went all in and the amount of his all in bet. Please don't just quote the rounded numbers from the video unless you're sure they are right.
link to original post

Mike, you are right about that point in the hand. The overall play of the hand was terrible. And this call alone is +EV, except it is extremely conspicuous. She actually did return half the pot, so it really wasn't so +ev!

I'm writing too much. This guy who knows poker better than I do does a great job and is entertaining and funny. The hand breakdown starts just after 8 minutes.

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not think there's a decent chance she just misread her hand.
link to original post

This video repeats Matt Berkey's analysis that "it is simply impossible to rationally explain the J4 hand which when combined with the security issues" indicates guilt.

But, the thesis expounded by speaker in this video is that Robbi was confused about what cards she held, she believed she held a three giving her a pair of threes. After Garrett's bet, this video clearly shows Robbi looking at her cards for 10 seconds, but the speaker assumes that the cards didn't register in her mind??? because she takes 10 seconds, so she must be thinking of something else and not paying attention to the cards she is looking at ???? But this cretinous video dismisses the possibility that she is actually looking at her partner in the audience who is giving her a signal?????? Because faced with responding to a $100,000 raise in a cash game, she is thinking of what - her next hair appointment? wondering who will win the super bowl???? That's the "compelling argument" that is being offered here????????

That's an extraordinarily unconvincing argument. It actually presents clearly the fact that she cannot have been confused about her cards - after Garrett goes all in Robbi looks at her two cards for 10 seconds! Obviously, she may also be seeing her partner signal from the audience that she should call and wonders how she is going to posture so as to make this call bet beliwvable.

Robbi then floats out the statement "You can beat a three?" She doesn't claim to have a three, she's basically fishing to see if Garrett has a pair or better. Because if he can beat a three, he has a pair or better, that's the information she is pretending to fish for. I have seen poker players ask this kind of question hundreds of times -they are NOT telling you what they have, they are fishing for information.

Rigondeaux, you are free to believe what you want to believe. But the arguments you have given previously and that are presented in this video only increase my conviction that Robbi was cheating. Basically this video came down to: Garrett made a $100,000 bet in a cash game and rather than focussing Robbi's mind on what was happening instead her brain malfunctioned and she stared at her cards for 10 secs without realizing what her cards were. Claiming a brain malfunction seems kind of desperate and pathetic.

I once knew a guy that was a pretty good amateur poker player. He wasn't a pro, but it was more or less his main source of income for several years at least. This was back in the big poker boom days of the early 2000s, so it wasn't hard to find games all over the place. Anyway, just for fun, he would sometimes play hands without even looking at his cards. He would just pretend to look at them, and just play against the person "psychologically." Sometimes he would lose, but sometimes he would win, and sometimes that win would be with a series of plays that wouldn't make any sense if he was "playing for real," and it really threw a lot of people off.

Did he use to make such plays with ~ $110k on the stake? I'd assume nope.
Robbi Jade Lew is a seasoned poker player with tournament cashes dating back to 2010. She's no fish and she's certainly not wealthy enough to disregard USD 100k as a fu play money.

People seem to underestimate the significance of the amount to call into a comparably measly ~26k invested by her in the pot up to this point. She has no fold equity at that point and she has J high. She have had folded three of a kind earlier to a bet of significantly lower amount on a four to a flush board as well as other tight folds.

This J4 hand is suspect af no matter how you look at it.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Rigondeaux

Quote: Wizard

Do I have my facts and math right on the following?

When Garrett went all in, Robbi was faced with the following options. It is from the point of view that money in the pot is money in the pot and it doesn't matter who contributed it.

Fold: Win $0
Call $109K: 24/44 (54.5%) chance of winning $269,000

54.5% of $269,000 is about $147,000

The gamble to her, assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards, was 109K for an expected return of 147K. That bet has a 34.6% advantage.

I keep hearing the point that if this was cheating, it was very poor cheating. However, looking at this decision point only, wasn't she right assuming knowledge of Garrett's cards?

Also, does anyone know the exact numbers here? They show them to $100 before the pot gets to 100K and to $1000 after that. It causes some rounding error in the math. I'd like to know the pot size before Garrett went all in and the amount of his all in bet. Please don't just quote the rounded numbers from the video unless you're sure they are right.
link to original post

Mike, you are right about that point in the hand. The overall play of the hand was terrible. And this call alone is +EV, except it is extremely conspicuous. She actually did return half the pot, so it really wasn't so +ev!

I'm writing too much. This guy who knows poker better than I do does a great job and is entertaining and funny. The hand breakdown starts just after 8 minutes.

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not think there's a decent chance she just misread her hand.
link to original post

This video repeats Matt Berkey's analysis that "it is simply impossible to rationally explain the J4 hand which when combined with the security issues" indicates guilt.

But, the thesis expounded by speaker in this video is that Robbi was confused about what cards she held, she believed she held a three giving her a pair of threes. After Garrett's bet, this video clearly shows Robbi looking at her cards for 10 seconds, but the speaker assumes that the cards didn't register in her mind??? because she takes 10 seconds, so she must be thinking of something else and not paying attention to the cards she is looking at ???? But this cretinous video dismisses the possibility that she is actually looking at her partner in the audience who is giving her a signal?????? Because faced with responding to a $100,000 raise in a cash game, she is thinking of what - her next hair appointment? wondering who will win the super bowl???? That's the "compelling argument" that is being offered here????????

That's an extraordinarily unconvincing argument. It actually presents clearly the fact that she cannot have been confused about her cards - after Garrett goes all in Robbi looks at her two cards for 10 seconds! Obviously, she may also be seeing her partner signal from the audience that she should call and wonders how she is going to posture so as to make this call bet beliwvable.

Robbi then floats out the statement "You can beat a three?" She doesn't claim to have a three, she's basically fishing to see if Garrett has a pair or better. Because if he can beat a three, he has a pair or better, that's the information she is pretending to fish for. I have seen poker players ask this kind of question hundreds of times -they are NOT telling you what they have, they are fishing for information.

Rigondeaux, you are free to believe what you want to believe. But the arguments you have given previously and that are presented in this video only increase my conviction that Robbi was cheating. Basically this video came down to: Garrett made a $100,000 bet in a cash game and rather than focussing Robbi's mind on what was happening instead her brain malfunctioned and she stared at her cards for 10 secs without realizing what her cards were. Claiming a brain malfunction seems kind of desperate and pathetic.
link to original post

More accomplice in the audience poker bro nonsense, trying to explain away why a less skilled woman player illegitimately won this particular hand at this particular table against this particular player. What's desperate and pathetic are the deep rabbit holes the "she must be cheating" camp continue to dig for themselves to explain their beliefs. First it was a signalling ring, then it was s signaling device shoved up her backside, now it's a confederate in the audience. Not to mention the belief the $15K theft was actually a cut of the ill gotten booty with the thief now on the run, not because he's an accused criminal with a rap sheet, but was paid off to disappear. Then it was the poly, and on and on and on. And none-not a single piece-of the evidence supports cheating.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan. Where is the extraordinary evidence of the confederate in the audience, or that Bryan is on the run because he was paid off, or that his theft was actually his cut in the cheating scheme?

"“I don't want to believe. I want to know.” - Carl Sagan.

Quote: rawtuff

Did he use to make such plays with ~ $110k on the stake? I'd assume nope.

link to original post

Knowing him, if he had that kind of money then he absolutely would have.

Big problem for the audience theory: there was no audience.

The game is played in an enclosed area, on top of stairs, away from the other games.



Time to dream up theory number 438.

A couple that have been tried. It was some kind of audio signal. Like a guy was hanging around the casino with some beeping device.

It was a floorman or dealer

The audio theory has been totally shot down for obvious reasons.

A few people still believe the floorman theory, but they are fringe types. There are obvious problems with it. I won't spell them out unless someone is foolish enough to believe it.

Still no explanation of how the cheaters failed to beat the game, how she passed a poly or how an independent investigation turned up nothing?

Hans Nieman and his coach are admitted chess cheats. When Nieman defeated Magnus Carlsen, the World Chess Champion, Carlsen accused Nieman of cheating with a sex toy inserted in his rectum. Nothing was proven, and both players dropped their lawsuits against each other.

Lew could have had a device inserted in her to receive signals from a member of the production crew who saw Alelstein's hole cards displayed on one of the monitors.

“While no direct evidence of cheating was found, Bulletproof found that cheating with the Sept. 29 setup was possible,” the report said.

"Noting that players’ card information “could be seen by anyone in the production room just by turning their head,” the report said several changes had since been made to improve security."

"A wall and a door have been installed in the production room, and the door remains locked throughout filming. Now, only one monitor can display hole-card information and it can be viewed only by the show’s director, and employees have to put their electronic devices into signal-blocking bags before entering the room."

That polygraph test she passed. was arranged by her PR team. Instead of taking one where she lives in LA, she drove to Vegas to take the one arranged by her PR team. She declined the opportunity to undergo a more reliable polygraph test.

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.

Quote: Tanko

That polygraph test she passed. was arranged by her PR team. Instead of taking one where she lives in LA, she drove to Vegas to take the one arranged by her PR team. She declined the opportunity to undergo a more reliable polygraph test.
link to original post

Any evidence for this claim, or can we add it to the pile of false and unsubstantiated claims from cheat-anon?

I googled "what PR firm did Robbi Jade Lew hire" with no results, but feel free to provide your source that she hired a PR firm at all, and that they arranged the test. (Part of cheat lore is that Robbie launched a massive PR campaign and that people who disagree with them on Twitter, Reddit, etc. have mostly been hired by Robbie)..

If she has representation, be it a lawyer (her husband), a PR firm etc., it would be normal for them to set up the poly imo. Who should set it up? Garrett? It's also normal for her to not want to take infinite tests. Anyway, your claim seems to be that the poly exam was fraudulent. Strong claim. I concede that it could be. But with no evidence, I doubt it.


Bulletproof: So their finding that the game was vulnerable to cheating carries a lot of weight. But their finding that there was no evidence of cheating here carries no weight. Do I have that right?


I can't believe we're back on anal beads, lol. If Hans cheating is evidence Robbie cheated, then I guess Ted Bundy being a serial killer is evidence Garrett is a serial killer.

But it IS a great comparison. Hans confessed to cheating in the past. An Independent investigation by Chess.com concluded he'd cheated 100s of times. His overall results improved to a degree nobody had seen before. He beat the GOAT in a game where the best player usually wins.

Robbie: Never suspected of cheating before. There is no pattern of suspicious hands or suspicious play. An investigation found no evidence. The entire allegation rests on 1 decision point in 1 hand, which she actually played really badly. Her supposed team was not beating the game.

Seems like total opposites.

Moreover, Hans was able to use anal beads to maneuver through a much more complicated game, where you can make countless moves and to play more or less perfectly. Robbie used the same technique to play a game with 3 moves (raise, fold, call) but her team couldn't win and she didn't play very well, or cheat effectively even in this hand.

It's a nice contrast between a good case for cheating and a poor one, though I have only a little knowledge of the Hans case.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I googled "what PR firm did Robbi Jade Lew hire" with no results, but feel free to provide your source that she hired a PR firm at all, and that they arranged the test.

My source is the article I provided a link to:

"Lew did not take the test where she lives, in greater Los Angeles, and also where the Gardena, CA, Hustler Casino and the HCL game occurred is located. Instead, she traveled several hours to Las Vegas to take the test, which was arranged on her behalf by her PR handlers, Ericho Communications. Lew also did not appear to avail herself of the opportunity to undergo an even more reliable polygraph test offered to her by Maverick Casinos LLC owner Eric Persson."

She declined any supposedly more reliable tests because she insisted all others at the table be tested by the investigating law firm as well, and the investigators did not meet that condition.

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.
link to original post

They did ask Phjil Ivey, and he supports Robbi.

Quote: Tanko

“While no direct evidence of cheating was found, Bulletproof found that cheating with the Sept. 29 setup was possible,” the report said.
link to original post

That isn't even remotely a smoking gun. Cheating is "possible" in every card game ever played.

The fact that there is no evidence of cheating is simply proof of how good the performers were. There is no way a female could have played like that unless she had several men working with her. This is more evidence that having females in the casino goes against the natural order.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.
link to original post

They did ask Phjil Ivey, and he supports Robbi.
link to original post

Of course he "is", almost any poker celebrity "will". If you've followed his tv appearances enough you'd know he will never put himself in the spotlights by entering a controversial topic and taking an unpopular side. He'll only give opinion if he is specifically asked and it will be along the lines of "everything looks fine to me, don't think there is something to see here, leave me alone". He will never say I think there was something foul with this or that play if it doesn't concern him personally.
You wanna know his/their real opinion? Ask him or any other pro or semi-pro if he would give back 100k won fair and square to a poker opponent who was upset about the way a hand played out. They'll give a short condescending laughter, shake their head and run back to the poker table to put their ante in for the next round.

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qOVD_Hx5tY

You think he would've give back half the pot if he have called and Dwan made fuzz about it?

Quote: rawtuff

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

link to original post

This is my problem with poker.... some people get so heavily invested into the hardcore math and optimal strategies, that when something dumb happens like calling $100k with a crappy hand and winning, they just can't fathom how it could be anything other than a dumb play (or a really clever play, or whatever). No, it HAS to be cheating, because "the math" doesn't make sense otherwise, and no professional would EVER do such a thing..

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.
link to original post

They did ask Phjil Ivey, and he supports Robbi.
link to original post

Of course he "is", almost any poker celebrity "will". If you've followed his tv appearances enough you'd know he will never put himself in the spotlights by entering a controversial topic and taking an unpopular side. He'll only give opinion if he is specifically asked and it will be along the lines of "everything looks fine to me, don't think there is something to see here, leave me alone". He will never say I think there was something foul with this or that play if it doesn't concern him personally.
You wanna know his/their real opinion? Ask him or any other pro or semi-pro if he would give back 100k won fair and square to a poker opponent who was upset about the way a hand played out. They'll give a short condescending laughter, shake their head and run back to the poker table to put their ante in for the next round.

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qOVD_Hx5tY

You think he would've give back half the pot if he have called and Dwan made fuzz about it?
link to original post

He's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied. And he's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied by a man who has a cornered and bullied women before.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: rawtuff

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

link to original post

This is my problem with poker.... some people get so heavily invested into the hardcore math and optimal strategies, that when something dumb happens like calling $100k with a crappy hand and winning, they just can't fathom how it could be anything other than a dumb play (or a really clever play, or whatever). No, it HAS to be cheating, because "the math" doesn't make sense otherwise.
link to original post

As Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, the median is not the message.

Quote: TigerWu

Quote: rawtuff

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

link to original post

This is my problem with poker.... some people get so heavily invested into the hardcore math and optimal strategies, that when something dumb happens like calling $100k with a crappy hand and winning, they just can't fathom how it could be anything other than a dumb play (or a really clever play, or whatever). No, it HAS to be cheating, because "the math" doesn't make sense otherwise, and no professional would EVER do such a thing..
link to original post

No, no, no. It doesn't HAVE to be cheating. But it's prettyyy, pretty good reason for suspicions and investigation. We aren't talking about a 2/5 game in a rural casino here. This is a televised high stakes game, and non of the participants in the hand are a clueless billionaires. Hell, even Guy Laliberté, Dan Bilzerian or Bill Perkins wouldn't have it in them to make such an outrageous call.
Robbi is a seasoned poker player and while she probably isn't immune to stupid mistakes we haven't witnessed any such hero calls of this magnitude by her before or since. The amount to call is huge, let's make no mistakes here and think she "doesn't care".
It's an inexplicable behavior on the poker table by seemingly unintoxicated and adequate high stakes cash player.

The math. It's not so hardcore at all. it's pretty basic, amateurish even, and it's what's driving poker decisions for even beginners at 0.50/1 level. if Robbi is comfortable playing 100/200/400 levels of poker she'd be pretty well versed in the math behind her's and her opponents' decisions or she'd be dead broke and unable to attend that game.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.
link to original post

They did ask Phjil Ivey, and he supports Robbi.
link to original post

Of course he "is", almost any poker celebrity "will". If you've followed his tv appearances enough you'd know he will never put himself in the spotlights by entering a controversial topic and taking an unpopular side. He'll only give opinion if he is specifically asked and it will be along the lines of "everything looks fine to me, don't think there is something to see here, leave me alone". He will never say I think there was something foul with this or that play if it doesn't concern him personally.
You wanna know his/their real opinion? Ask him or any other pro or semi-pro if he would give back 100k won fair and square to a poker opponent who was upset about the way a hand played out. They'll give a short condescending laughter, shake their head and run back to the poker table to put their ante in for the next round.

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qOVD_Hx5tY

You think he would've give back half the pot if he have called and Dwan made fuzz about it?
link to original post

He's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied. And he's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied by a man who has a cornered and bullied women before.
link to original post

She wasn't bullied though. If anything it was Garret who was bullied by that RIP character who yelled at him and called him names for confronting Robbi.

A claim that a private investigation has found no evidence of cheating simply means this:

They found no company emails that had evidence of cheating. They saw nothing on video that provided incontrovertible evidence of cheating. No person confessed to cheating when interviewed.

In the world of organized sports the practice of "cheating with deniability" has been refined to an exquisitely high level, whether it is cheating at recruiting or about money and hookers for college players, or cheating during gameplay. The basic principles are to never leave any digital evidence and instead to rely on oral conversations; and that all participants in the cheating must always deny, deny, deny. Everyone can be expected to lie and deny, because to admit to cheating is to destroy one's livlihood and career and to become open to criminal prosecution.

Those of us who have eyes wide open and who analyze the world we live in- well, we understand that the phrase "while our investigation concluded that cheating was possible, it found no evidence that cheating has actually occurred" is a nothing-burger because in the 2020s cheaters know how to avoid leaving such evidence.

If you are a serious person interested in the truth you would approach this J4 scandal in this way:
1. ask yourself how a team of intelligent people would design a method for cheating (in this case by using the streaming information on holding cards to win money at poker); given that they want to create an edge but do not want to be discovered and certainly do not want to leave physical evidence of what they are doing that is readily discoverable. In the security business this is known as 'defining the credible threats.'

2, Given your design basis method for cheating, what would be observable? What is the minimum amount of information that would have to be transmitted in order to execute the method? How could information be transmitted? How many people would be involved, what kind of skills or "access" would they need to have and how would these people be expected to react if cheating were suspected?

3. Once you've created one or more strawmen scenarios for how intelligent people might accomplish the cheating ask yourself whether the things that have been observed are consistent with any of those methods. There will probably be no smoking gun physical evidence, but you are looking for behavior and circumstances that match one of the methods -circumstantial evidence. This may not be sufficient for conviction in a court of law, but the standard in the Intelligence Analysis business is "Can you conclude that cheating has occurred with low, medium or high confidence?"

It is not enough to simply read published reports and say "no one has confessed" and "investigations have found no evidence of cheating" because a security professional who has gone through this process knows that there is no realistic prospect of anyone confessing and that finding physical evidence of cheating in this situation is highly unlikely.

I have four advantages over GenoDrPh and Rigondeaux:
- I play a lot of poker and at a high level,
- I was a security professional (a civilian in the U.S government's intelligence organizations)
- I was a nationally known physical scientist/engineer with an understanding of design principles and technological capabilities for covert electronic signaling and countermeasures for detecting such signals. And practical exposure to these technologies in the intelligence business,
- I have a deep understanding of the polygraph process as it exists in the US government, of how it can be reliable, and how operator lapses can render it useless.

In my opinion, I have medium to high confidence that there was cheating. The only thing blocking me from having high confidence that cheating occurred is my lack of specific knowledge about the quality and sincerity of the commercial Las Vegas polygraph test that was administered to Robbi. I do have questions about those tests and understand that some commercial polygraph centers may have few external controls on quality, especially when the customer is not a governmental agency. I also note that these centers and their staff members (as individuals) may understandably be motivated to make money.

There is simply an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence that is consistent with cheating. Rigondeaux's assertions about evidence seem to me to be not grounded in an understanding of how to define, assess and analyze possible threats to game security.

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: PenguinsOfPit

It feels like anyone that says she didn’t cheat is simply playing devils advocate, doesn’t know poker at all, or is just way overthinking. You don’t give over 100k back if you a made a genius call. Simple as that. The end.
link to original post

You do if you were ganged up on, am wealthy to begin with and wanted to deescalate the conflict,

Not playing Devil's advocate. There's no evidence of cheating.
link to original post

Not saying if she cheated or not, but if I or any legit poker player made such a huge hero call based on a pure read/hunch and was correct on it (or if i misread my hand for that matter) you can gang up on me all you want, unless I see a gun pointed to my temple all you're getting is a hearty laugh, oh, you were actually serious...? let me laugh even harder.

Also she wasn't ganged up on. Garret confronted her about the hand in the hallway and it was her who offered to return the money, he never said to her "give me back my money". And that RIP guy (the guy with the cowboy hat) was furious about it, was yelling at Garret "you're a f...ing pussy!" to his face and was defending Robbi as if it was his money she gave back. Maybe he was indeed staking her, there were rumors about it.
She said "Giving Garrett back $135,000 in the hallway was my way of trying to get back into his good graces so I could return to HCL. Because I had a good thing going at HCL, a REALLY good thing, so I just wanted to smooth things over and avoid any fallout.
later she said she was bullied, she misread her hand, she had a tell on him, she didn't care about the money (lol, ask Phil Ivey if he wouldn't care about 100k despite being so wealthy and successful) etc.
link to original post

They did ask Phjil Ivey, and he supports Robbi.
link to original post

Of course he "is", almost any poker celebrity "will". If you've followed his tv appearances enough you'd know he will never put himself in the spotlights by entering a controversial topic and taking an unpopular side. He'll only give opinion if he is specifically asked and it will be along the lines of "everything looks fine to me, don't think there is something to see here, leave me alone". He will never say I think there was something foul with this or that play if it doesn't concern him personally.
You wanna know his/their real opinion? Ask him or any other pro or semi-pro if he would give back 100k won fair and square to a poker opponent who was upset about the way a hand played out. They'll give a short condescending laughter, shake their head and run back to the poker table to put their ante in for the next round.

Here is a hand he played where he contemplated calling on the river 280k into 680k pot with 4-th pair top kicker on a three to a straight flop and blank turn and river. He was getting 2.5/1 pot odds (Robbi was getting 1.5/1 pot odds in the J4 hand, no pair Jack kicker on a paired board front and backdoor flush draws available, one more card to go). He couldn't pull the trigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qOVD_Hx5tY

You think he would've give back half the pot if he have called and Dwan made fuzz about it?
link to original post

He's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied. And he's not a woman who was being cornered and bullied by a man who has a cornered and bullied women before.
link to original post

She wasn't bullied though. If anything it was Garret who was bullied by that RIP character who yelled at him and called him names for confronting Robbi.
link to original post

And Garrett deserved it. Every word. Hope he never sits at a poker table in public ever again.

Quote: gordonm888

A claim that a private investigation has found no evidence of cheating simply means this:

They found no company emails that had evidence of cheating. They saw nothing on video that provided incontrovertible evidence of cheating. No person confessed to cheating when interviewed.

In the world of organized sports the practice of "cheating with deniability" has been refined to an exquisitely high level, whether it is cheating at recruiting or about money and hookers for college players, or cheating during gameplay. The basic principles are to never leave any digital evidence and instead to rely on oral conversations; and that all participants in the cheating must always deny, deny, deny. Everyone can be expected to lie and deny, because to admit to cheating is to destroy one's livlihood and career and to become open to criminal prosecution.

Those of us who have eyes wide open and who analyze the world we live in- well, we understand that the phrase "while our investigation concluded that cheating was possible, it found no evidence that cheating has actually occurred" is a nothing-burger because in the 2020s cheaters know how to avoid leaving such evidence.

If you are a serious person interested in the truth you would approach this J4 scandal in this way:
1. ask yourself how a team of intelligent people would design a method for cheating (in this case by using the streaming information on holding cards to win money at poker); given that they want to create an edge but do not want to be discovered and certainly do not want to leave physical evidence of what they are doing that is readily discoverable. In the security business this is known as 'defining the credible threats.'

2, Given your design basis method for cheating, what would be observable? What is the minimum amount of information that would have to be transmitted in order to execute the method? How could information be transmitted? How many people would be involved, what kind of skills or "access" would they need to have and how would these people be expected to react if cheating were suspected?

3. Once you've created one or more strawmen scenarios for how intelligent people might accomplish the cheating ask yourself whether the things that have been observed are consistent with any of those methods. There will probably be no smoking gun physical evidence, but you are looking for behavior and circumstances that match one of the methods -circumstantial evidence. This may not be sufficient for conviction in a court of law, but the standard in the Intelligence Analysis business is "Can you conclude that cheating has occurred with low, medium or high confidence?"

It is not enough to simply read published reports and say "no one has confessed" and "investigations have found no evidence of cheating" because a security professional who has gone through this process knows that there is no realistic prospect of anyone confessing and that finding physical evidence of cheating in this situation is highly unlikely.

I have four advantages over GenoDrPh and Rigondeaux:
- I play a lot of poker and at a high level,
- I was a security professional (a civilian in the U.S government's intelligence organizations)
- I was a nationally known physical scientist/engineer with an understanding of design principles and technological capabilities for covert electronic signaling and countermeasures for detecting such signals. And practical exposure to these technologies in the intelligence business,
- I have a deep understanding of the polygraph process as it exists in the US government, of how it can be reliable, and how operator lapses can render it useless.

In my opinion, I have medium to high confidence that there was cheating. The only thing blocking me from having high confidence that cheating occurred is my lack of specific knowledge about the quality and sincerity of the commercial Las Vegas polygraph test that was administered to Robbi. I do have questions about those tests and understand that some commercial polygraph centers may have few external controls on quality, especially when the customer is not a governmental agency. I also note that these centers and their staff members (as individuals) may understandably be motivated to make money.

There is simply an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence that is consistent with cheating. Rigondeaux's assertions about evidence seem to me to be not grounded in an understanding of how to define, assess and analyze possible threats to game security.
link to original post

So lack of evidence of cheating is, in actuality, MORE evidence of cheating?

As for the polygraph, wasn't Gordon one who agreed with commentators who discounted the poly due to the belief the examiners only asked three questions, but you completely ignored or were unawares of the 30+ preparatory/preliminary questions?

Fact of the matter is, after going through Gordon's three-step approach to determine whether cheating occurred, and after investigating all the possible avenues of cheating speculated, none of those avenues of speculation have borne any fruit. All we get are a bunch "it's possible" or "maybe" or whatever.