View: Garrett Adelstein is the best LIVE NL Cash player in the world

It was a flip and it's a moronic spot to pick especially when there are no other suspicious hands. There are smart cheaters out there. There are also absolute pigs like Postle who couldn't even dump a buy in with ak in a 3 bet pot on an ace 8 x flop to a set of 8s.

What we don't have is dumb cheaters somehow getting card info who chose to only cheat in an absurd hand, get accused of cheating then give the money back and go back to play risking arrest.

Oh wait someone stole chips from her and her friend didnt play again so she clearly cheated lmao.

There have also been other strange hands on HCL. I remember one where someone bet then called a raise from a passive player on a

AAx flush draw flop with queen high no draw. Then called turn and river as well. I forgot if the flush got there or not. But of course the player raising and betting had an ace so nobody thinks queen high guy was cheating.

It's rare but I've seen donks called river bets (one in plo even) with like 9 high because "I know you missed your draw". Of course not realizing even when they did miss their draw 9 high is no good.

That's what happened here. She was sick of being bullied, put Garret on a draw not realizing with her donk logic she's still losing to most draws,spazzed and called.

Garrets initial reaction was understandable. But the fact he kept digging in and got himself banned from a berry patch game he was printing in his hilarious.

It's even worse bc he's made tons of money in private shady games in LA. He even admitted he got cheated in a game , confronted the game runner and agreed to not rat them out in exchange for his money back. (Making him a total scumbag as well)You'd think he'd at least have the common sense to realize even if he was cheated it's a cost of doing business. Then put on the smug Garret fake nice guy act, say he got caught up in the emotion of it, eat the loss and continue to print.

Of course he told us he was on the case 16 hours a day almost 3 years ago and yet here we are 3 years later and crickets.

Agreed, pretty much never happens on the most popular stream, where the player happens to be a slight favorite vs the chosen one by poker fans.

But when it does, it is fair to question how it would not only be possible for one to cheat and know gmans hand, but also pick the dumbest spot possible where your not even much of a favorite.

Its such a crazy conclusion. I didnt think there was anyone really left other then then the run of the mill conspiraists who were certain cheating took place.

My favorite part is that the 3-17 person cheating team, which included everyone from Nick Airball to Eric P to the cocktail waitress, weren't beating the game even though they knew their opponents' cards.

The reason for this is that they were trying to create a viral video so Robbie could become an influencer, so they passed up all the chances to win tons of money with low risk of detection to create one crazy hand, hoping it would go viral.

So you yourself have misread a hand in a big pot, but it wasn't interpreted as cheating because you didn't win. But you think it's more likely that an intoxicated amateur was part of an elaborate cheating scheme than that she misread her hand, because she did win?

Oh yea I forgot people theorizing Eric Person was in on it as he dumped millons and millions.

I gave her a small chance of having not cheated until she received a "text message from Bryan". Innocent people don't publish fake text messages that they sent to themselves : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4hhWjr-...

The working theory would be she was using a device that cam girls use in the private area so she has no worry about being searched that thoroughly.

When she's ahead in the hand they activate the device. Was it stupid to do it on the J4 hand yeah they should of just not done it and let her fold there. But most cheaters are stupid.

Then 15k getting taken off the stack isn't suspicious? It's normal where yall play for stealing chips?

The best counter evidence is if there's zero other suspicious hands. And maybe she misread her hand.

Not because she won but because of the surrounding evidence. Also if she misread her hand why not just say it? I guess we can go back and forth about the psychology of giving the money back but if I misread my hand and win why on earth would I give the money back. That seems more like a guilty conscious.

Maybe she did misread her hand and just lied about it because she was embarrassed.

For all of those who said no one has ever made a call this stupid for high stakes, check out the hand at 3:30 courtesy of HCL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGs657pu...

Calling1000bb all in with jack high in the turn with worse odds than Robbi had.

I wonder if he'd be accused of cheating if he sucked out.

That and she was pressured and threatened with public humiliation by Ryan and Garrett. She was an unsure outsider and capitulated to authority.

There is, kind of surprisingly, a video of Kevin Hart doing the same thing. He misreads his hand, wins like a 30k pot and feels bad about it so he returns the money. That's without being shaken down. He evidently just didn't feel he deserved to win.

I never really found this aspect of the situation hard to understand.

I don't see how the Kevin hart situation is relevant that'd be like me winning a $40 pot in a home game and knowing my buddy is in a rough spot so I muck the winner.

This is the highest stakes game she played and presumably a huge chunk of cash for her.

Exactly. Nobody says anything when donks do donk **** and lose.
Hell if she got scooped or even chopped this pot people would say it was odd and move on with their life. But bc she actually won it blew up.

Got it, when a huge part of the working theory makes zero sense at all we should chalk it up the to the cheaters just being stupid.

Why on earth would you give the money back if your goal was to scam someone. They can't make you. It's not even a home game where nobody would ever know it's on stream so it's gonna look rediculous either way. If anything this means the hand was more about trying to outplay the bully Garret than the actual money.

And if you say well she gave it back hoping it would blow over and she couldn't get in trouble -

In your view she got caught cheating red handed. Gives the money back hoping to not get arrested. Does she then leave? No she goes right back to playing after being accused of cheating. Exactly what someone who was actually cheating ,with a cheating device on them would never do in a million years.

Nobody so scared of getting in serious trouble willing to give the money back they just scammed in the hope it all goes away , goes back to play with the evidence on them. They get the hell out of there as fast as possible.

If they chose that spot to cheat then it was a really dumb spot
If Garrett wanted to continue being involved in the poker world then he handled the situation as poorly as possible

Garrett is currently on the Poker Go “No Gamble No Future” and would be allowed to play literally any stream he wanted, in perpetuity. He’s even said he didn’t handle it great, but, he could be involved in poker as much as he chooses

So much of this whole discussion is based on incorrect and ad hoc assumptions about human behavior.

People misread their hands. Happens all the time. People make outrageous hero calls. Happens somewhat regularly, with many examples. (I won a decent pot during WSOP when I bluffed the river with K high and got called by T high and thought of this story). People setting up cheating rings where they get inside info on live streams? Has happened once that we know of and is obviously a vastly more complex event.

But people are convinced of the latter because of this unsubstantiated narrative and calculous that is just made up where, a guy worth 100 million or whatever would return half of a 30 k pot and it's absolutely trivial, but someone worth 10 million or whatever would never in a million years return half of a 100k pot or whatever. So would someone worth 100k never return half of a 2/5 pot? Would a billionaire never get in a petty argument over 100k?

You could just as easily spin it that Kevin Hart is a self made man from a difficult background and he really understands what $30,000 means, while Robbie is a beautiful rich woman, who has no sense of accountability or where money comes from and is playing on someone else's dime.

You could say that all of this is irrelevant. Some people are uncomfortable winning money when they were outplayed, but made an error and won by luck. Maybe when you're playing for peanuts it is easier to laugh it off, but when it is serious money you feel more guilty.

But no, it's always a just so story where we "know" exactly how people behave and it always aligns with one version of events.

Really, these things aren't matters of opinion. Not only from experience, but from research into things like behavioral economics, we know people aren't robots and often do -ev things. We know for a fact that people will knowingly falsely confess to things as serious as first degree murder just to escape social pressure from authority. But utterly impossible someone could be pressured into returning half of a poker pot she felt kind of guilty about winning anyway.

This also applies to things like "it is impossible that she misread her hand because she looked at it for a long time." We just know this is objectively false.

There's this weird thing where the evidence mostly predicated on "knowing" that people behave according to some construct of super logical behavior, but then two seconds later we can waive away things like them choosing to cheat in an extremely attention grabbing way that isn't even that +ev, but never cheating in any other hands. And like, as Borg says, returning to the game with the cheating device after being caught, rather than making a safe escape.

Anyway, it's all a very interesting study in how people build narratives and arrive at conclusions. I really hope I never have to face a jury.

LOL that this argument is still going on 3 years later.

Here's the thing: if you cut and paste an old page from back then into the thread now it would be indistinguable from the blather you guys wrote this week.

Get over it.

True. But it's like the JFK assassination of poker.

Has there ever been a hand of poker that satisfies that burden ?

Great post. In particular, your first and last statements are precisely what keeps me visiting this thread whenever it pops up.

For what it's worth, when you're on a jury, you're not (or shouldn't be) building narratives and arriving at conclusions so much as you're there to determine if the prosecution successfully did. The moment you start speculating at what someone else might have been thinking, or guessing anything that wasn't presented during the trial, you've done something wrong as a juror. (And yet plenty of jurors still do it.)

There's precedent for cheaters being just stupid, look at Postles hands. He might still be cheating successfully till this day if he didn't make it so obvious something was going on with his play.

There was pot ripper back in the day with the tourney, again he'd never be willing to just lose a pot/get coolered so he made it obvious.

If we equate cheating with criminality you will have millions more examples.

A good chunk of what humans do in general "makes zero sense at all"

It's easy to virtue signal when you aren't the one in the pot or game though. It's the poker equivalent of politicians pretending to take care of the weak and helpless.

It is strange Garett didn't just make a business decision and let it go though regardless of what he thought.

You act like we are trying her for first degree murder. Given all the evidence surrounding the situation it's more likely that she cheated than didn't. In a civil case I'd probably vote guilty, in a criminal case I'd vote not guilty.

Any defendant would or should be overjoyed if they got me on their jury.

The cheating device if used would of been in her private parts so no chance of detection.

How many times have you had chips stolen off your stack? The people who are confident she didn't cheat haven't been able to address the probabilities of first the incomprehensible call and then chips being taken off the stack.

This is "Niemann used Anal Beads" tier speculation. If one of your main points is "she had an undetectable device in her p***y" then you have a terrible case.