Is there evidence that Robbi cheated Garrett?

Pretty shocking a player of your presumed poker IQ could come to this conclusion. How come she had 0 reaction when she turned her hand over aside from berating garret for her owning him again? Would you not instantly bulge your eyes at the misread for the biggest pot of your life? Why the word diarrhea that contradicts her own statements if she actually has the poker knowledge you’re presuming? Why would her ‘buddy’ rip throw such a fit when she gave up the money? Just a few questions off the top of my head I could go on for a while with these tho. If you can’t see the big picture by now….

100% there was/is the technology to know what seat/hand will end up winning by the end of the hand.
So specific cards don't matter if you know "I'm seat 2, it says seat 2 will win if we see all 5"

The amount of tin foil freaks ITT is staggering.

Well the tech described does exist, especially if they were using DM2. I am not saying they were, or they used the tech, or she was cheating. I have no clue and no opinion. Frankly I don’t even care but it is possible.

Reprogramming a DeckMate isn't a small feat, though it can be done, being able to do it and take advantage of it without being detected is probably out of the realm of the people involved in this.

As far as if she was cheating -- She came up with several things to say as to why she made the call, none of which made any sense, and my presumption, is that despite looking at her cards, she didn't actually care what cards she had, flipping them up was just performative. When confronted, she folded and gave the money back, she probably quickly figured it was the easiest way to maybe not have to face real consequences. When actual known theft occurred, she let it go. I've seen better cheaters arrested and trespassed for a lot less money than this. I think the bananas off the wall "scratch my face" line was that she had some sort of signal worked out back to them, but they weren't seeing it so she was trying to get their attention.

The only other explanation I can come up with is that she was absolutely high as balls and had absolutely no idea what she was doing at all.

I could be wrong, but there's no question in my mind that she was cheating with whomever was in that spot off camera that she was deer-in-headlights checking out every time she wasn't sure how to proceed.

It’s amazing how much money Garret lost on this hand.

Mariano needs to get J4 tatted on his arm à la Israeli Ron and the Q2ss.

I’m sure in his book that Garret will finally produce that bombshell evidence he’s been keeping to himself all these years, since things continue to remain ‘derailed.’

What. A. Clown.

Oh yay, another pointless thread where 10,000 posts later everyone is in the exact same position.

This is just one of those things that is simply never going to be "solved" unless RJL comes out and admits it (highly highly unlikely)

I believe I made several valid points. No one really ever mentions her eyes, and how she always looks in the same spot when she needs help in a hand. I also point out her weird statement "Hold on, let me scratch my face"...

While it is true we may never know the truth unless someone involved confesses, it is theoretically possible to prove she is cheating without it. For example, if she is indeed looking somewhere for a signal with her eyes, maybe the signal could be identified. These might be things that the "independent" investigation team missed, or didn't know to look for it.

No one is likely to confess to a felony though, you're right about that.

There is no reason to believe she cheated but also believe it was an isolated event.

So holding the opinion that she cheated is holding the opinion that the stream is a farce

You may have heard the phrase "certainty is the enemy of curiosity."

Claiming 100% certitude is a luxury usually reserved for the uninformed, the uneducated and those who put Harvard on their resume after attending one of their pay to play programs.

You must avoid such phrases should you find yourself at a cocktail party on the upper west side. I don't want you to get blackballed by the literati.

What I'm still waiting for from anyone who claims that Robbi cheated is some answer to the question "Why did she cheat on -this- hand?"

In other notable instance of cheating, there is were dozens of hands worth of evidence that suggested both suspicious play and how exactly the cheating was done.

But in this case, everyone just seems to bring up this hand and only this hand. Regadless of the purported cheating methods, there were almost certainly many, many hands where the information could have used in a way that way both less suspicious and more profitable. Why would anyone choose this hand and only this hand to use cheat on?

Because people are stupid AND greedy? Because ''criminals'' don't always think logically? Why didn't Mike Postle cheat ''better''? He could've lost a few coolers and no one would've ever questioned him. Greed.

Also 99% sure Doug Polk made a video about some suspicious hands she played before. Sure, weird hands aren't evidence, but weird hands weren't evidence when the Mike Postle accusations started either.

If you didn't cheat, why come up with a plethora of reasons that make 0 sense for why you called?
Why give back the money if you genuinely misread your hand? Why not say you misread the hand?

I don't think we'll ever find out for sure but I do find it bizarre people watch the hand and come to the conclusion ''totally fine''. How many times have you played vs someone playing 10x their avg stake calling off 80k with J-high?

But if "greed" is the answer, why wouldn't she cheat in more than just this hand? And if she was only going to cheat once, why wouldn't she cheat in a hand she had a much greater likelihood of winning?

The argument for cheating requires that both some sophisticated cheating mechanism was established -and- that Robbi was very bad at poker. The argument against cheating merely requires that Robbi was very bad at poker. Just from this, the argument against cheating is logically much more likely.

First off, people who break laws/rules/etc aren't always the smartest people alive. The argument of "But if somebody were to cheat, why would they be so stupid to do it on this hand?!?!" is bad. Look at Mike Postle. He could have gotten away with his cheating for a lifetime but he frequently took lines that looked way too suspicious as a whole. If he had been smarter about it, he might not have been caught to this day.

My two cents to your question is the same reason I think she gave the money back. It was more about getting fame/notoriety than the money. Did anybody in poker know who she was a week before this happened? She wanted to make an insane hero call with a hand that would get attention. If she called with one pair or even ace high, it probably would have been clipped but most people probably forgot about it in a couple of days when a new highlight video was posted. If we go with the theory that she was signaled and Signal A means 'ahead/call' while Signal B mean 'behind/fold', maybe she didn't understand that it was possible to be nearly 50/50 on the turn.

I recall at least one other situation where she tanked facing a jam in an earlier session with king high vs Garrett where she made very similar movements to the J4 hand. That time Garrett had value and she folded.

I'm still waiting to answer the question of why an innocent person would give the money back. Or about 5 other questions relating to other massive red flags, but alas...

TLDR - Criminals are dumb and if we considered everybody innocent because "why would somebody be so stupid to do _____", we're gonna let a lot of guilty people go free.

Edit - One last rebuttal to your question - Can you show me a previous hand where she had the chance to make an insane hero call, possibly one a bit more sensible and defensible, but folded? Maybe the J4 hand was the first chance she had.

Lastly, I was kinda busy while typing this so it took a minute which is why I made many similar points to Pablito 30 minutes ago. Wasn't trying to just repeat the same argument.

I don't think the exact scenario you are describing occurred in the session.
But I looked through this video from Zach Elwoods where he analyzed the previous hands in the session:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60bqWukg...

I saw at least three hands where Robbi arguably did something different than we would expect her to do if she had the binary information of "ahead" or "behind":

- Hand around 59:30, she declines to value bet the river with QJ vs. J9 last-to-act on a J-high board. It was a very scary board, so it would be completely sensible that she checked it back if she didn't -know- she was ahead.

- Hand around 1:43:45, she makes a small bet with 4th pair on the river against a guy who just rivered top pair. She gets called, and seems genuinely confused about whether her bet was for value or a bluff. If she had ahead/behind info, she would know she was ahead on the turn but behind on the river, and thus knew her opponent just hit top pair and couldn't be expected to fold to a small bet.

- Hand around 2:02:00, she folds A5 vs. a bet from QJ on a blank paired board (this one is a weaker, since there was a third player in the hand she probably chops with).

- I also seemed to recall seeing a hand where she folded 22 pre-flop against two A-high hands, but I couldn't find the time stamp looking back on it.

Still, with this?

It’s possible that whatever system they had wasn’t used in 100% of hands. Maybe they knew it would be suspicious if she made the correct play every time. Or like I said, maybe it was about fame and she was waiting for the perfect moment to use it where she/the hand would go viral. Rather than just trying to make the best play all the time. None of those hands were even close to big enough to do that (again, if my theory is correct). It’s also possible she targeted Garrett specifically as he was seen as the best player in that game by far. Calling with Ace high in a small pot vs some random wouldn’t get much attention.

She is not getting the signal every hand.
Her contact in the booth may be busy doing something else.
The signal is only “ahead/behind”
She has no idea of the actual cards or the situation or the runout
She only knows if she is ahead or behind.
In the j4 hand her thought process is “derka, derka, i am ahead
Derka, derka, i call
Rewatch all the hands where she uses the time chip.
Rip goes from playing one of the biggest games in the country to never playing another hand of poker.
Brian in the booth disappearers and hasn’t been seen in three years.
Robbie goes from playing the biggest game in the country to playing tournaments on crowd funded money.

Your argument is ''she can either only cheat OR be dumb/make a dumb call''. I don't understand why both can't be true.

I also don't understand how anyone whose played more than 100 hands of poker can possibly defend this hand as ''bad play''. Sure she's bad, she's not ''dust off 130k with J-high on the turn with someone elses money'' bad.

Cheaters get caught because cheaters do stupid stuff. You gloss over this, but had Mike Postle not been a greedy dumbass, he would still be cleaning up that game.

I don't recall how long exactly, but for a long time, Mike Postle was considered a crusher with some serious heat because that also was the much easier explanation in that case.

Respectfully, this argument is total nonsense. I don't for a second believe anyone who's innocent would give back the money. Not in a million years.

"they picked the dumbest person imaginable while picking the dumbest way imaginable and the dumbest spot imaginable to cheat"

My theory is that whatever system they had was not used every hand. Perhaps they realized that it would look very suspicious for some random person with very little poker experience to come onto a big game and make the right decision every time. So they decided to only use it in a big spots, possibly targeting Garrett specifically. I feel like my point was made pretty clear and I'm not sure why you're struggling to at least understand what I'm saying even if you disagree.

Ok, now let's talk about all the weird things that happened that, if she didn't cheat, would all have to be a giant coincidence.

1. The hand/call itself.

2. All the weird excuses and changing stories as to why she called;
2a. "I put you on Ace high" - Um, what?
2b. "I misread my hand, I thought I had a 3" - She can be seen double checking her hand multiple times while tanking. I'm just flat out calling bullshit that she misread her hand.
2c. "You let me do this to you post stream, too" - Uh, what? What is she talking about and why is she specifically mentioning *post stream*?
2d. "I soul read his ass" (later, on X) - So which one was it? Did she soul read Garrett or did she misread her hand?

3. Giving the money back - Innocent people are far less likely to do this.

4a. The production team member, who had access to hole cards and recently moved his desk to be behind a filing cabinet obstructing him from the camera, takes 15k from *her* stack after the stream.
4b. Robbi opts not to press charges. Man, first she gives back 150k she won fair and square then she doesn't press charges on a random person stealing 15k from her? She must be the most forgiving person on the planet. What an angel!

This is why I feel the odds of her cheating are close to 100%. There's just way too many red flags and other weird things for all of them to be a coincidence.

First, the bold might be the dumbest take I've heard on this whole controversy.

Second, the rest of it just goes back to your very bad argument of "Well if they were cheating, wouldn't they be smarter about it and done ABC?!?!". Criminals tend to be quite stupid and don't think things through very well. So, no, I'm not assuming innocence based on that.

Im open to the possibility she wasnt cheating. Its just that the hand in question is absurd as played.

I play with some of the worst players you can imagine on a regular basis and ive never seen a hand played this way. Fish dont take these lines, nevermind someone taking a shot.

Also, she seemed to really want to own the dude in the J4.

Consider if she was in fact cheating...not only was she cheating but she was rubbing his nose in it too which is rather off-putting.

One of the interesting things about this controversy is the capacity of a certain mindset to believe claims with almost no evidence, or very often to just completely make them up on the spot.

This post and thread are full of examples.

I think at this point, these theories are just an interesting spectacle, like listening to someone on Coast to Coast AM talking about the Loch ness monster

Do you believe Mike Postle cheated? Because the same things can be said about Mike Postle. There has never been a confession, and there is no physical evidence of him cheating, yet the general poker population knows he was cheating. Too many pieces of circumstantial evidence start to build up to only one possible conclusion.